Humanity's Punishment: If it was a court case.

[Mystical]

As I stated earlier and have yet to get a proper rebuttal: any judgement is injustice indeterminate of the time or severity. Okay I threw that last part in just now. How about you answer Creed? His point undermines your question. Without a contract you have no grounds for disciplinary actions and the god party can take a long hike off a very, short pier.
Im tired that's all I got. Good night to you, gentlemen

[Creed of Heresy]

Catty: I believe this is the judgment that he refers to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

To quote:

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is, according to a Christian theological doctrine, humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

There is also, of course, this:

Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity. The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.

Basically, it was stated by some of the Talmudic doctrine that Adam is responsible for our sins carrying on today, and in modern times, it is not (look at that, sects of the one true religion being incapable of agreeing with one another and eventually deciding that one view is correct...and how they came to this conclusion is anyone's guess). Meanwhile it's stated by Christians that it is just a thing. He is arguing against the Christian view (which is the most populous view, and in terms of faith, it's not unreasonable to assume that the group that is coming to the largest consensus seems to be the one that is most correct since none of the views in question really have any basis other than unsubstantiated claims, so all we have to go on is just numbers of people who come to this conclusion), whereas the Judaic view is exempt from this because they do not make this claim.

That said, Judaic claims are that god will punish transgressors against his laws, and that the contract of judgment was set in stone long before our time...again, by proxy...a proxy we did not agree to nor did we sign any waivers of responsibility to (since we were all not even born when it happened). I should think you will see where the issues arises; god anointed one man to be our proxy without our permission, on the sole grounds that he is our creator, and we are expected to just go with what the mediator says, while the supposed judge-of-all remains strangely invisible, intangible, unknowable, and lacking presence overall, which gives absolutely no credence to the claim of the authority of the mediator and proxy.

This trial would not even happen, because without a judge, there is no session of court. The judge must first make his presence known and the laws he represents must have a tangible basis that can be backed up by a system of non-biased mediation. The supposed god does not have any of these things; were he to exist, his bias would be his own and his laws would be his merely because he created the court-room, which would throw the notion of justice right out of the window because any fair protest against the laws would be thrown out on the whim of the judge who would brook no objection. It would be a mockery of justice. Ergo, god would not be just, he would be a tyrant, and I would suffer no such court session nor would I recognize his claim to law as valid. Mere force of demand is not enough to validate law, and as such, god would be impotent to establish law over me or anyone else. He could kill everyone if he really wanted, but that still does not make him just, it just makes him an entity to scorn, hate, and reject. This session would also be a mockery of law because the judge would decree that we were all free to question him because he gave us all the means to do so, but if we did so, he would crush us all anyway. There is no bigger fraudulence of justice than to claim the people have rights to bring their concerns to bear, and then immediately destroy them when they do so.

The concept of Yahweh is a mockery, I reiterate, of justice and law. If he existed, he would be unworthy of any respect, devotion, praise, or obedience. Holding a gun to my head and demanding my submission is not enough to warrant any of those things. It would be forcing me to do so, and forced respect, devotion, praise, and obedience is slavery of the mind, body, and, if you will permit me, soul. It is not genuine. It is false.

Just like god is.

[catfish]

Petty anti-religion rant?

I love a whiny rant! *whistling

[Foxaèr]

I love a whiny rant! *whistling

You should. You give enough of them.

[Creed of Heresy]

I love a whiny rant! *whistling

You should. You give enough of them.

He's got a point, Catty.

Also, Catty, I'm not reading a rebuttal...all I'm seeing is this:

[catfish]

More bare assertions and silly pics?
Shit man, you have got being an atheist down-pat...

[Creed of Heresy]

[catfish]

Ummm, there's nothing to rebut...

However, you do realise that you effectively rebutted the OP's exhibit B, right? Can I expect you to deny this?

[Creed of Heresy]

You're right, there isn't, because you have no means of doing so.

Pay attention, Catty, I know with your schizophrenic delusional brain it's hard to do but do try to keep up with the adults.

You posited that you cannot sue for a lifetime warranty when the contract is for five years. I countered that I never signed a contract to begin with, either by my hand or by proxy.

And yes, I am very aware I rebutted exhibit B. What, you think just because I'm an atheist I'm going to effectively agree with every point of argument another atheist puts forth? No, if they're wrong or have incorrect information I will correct them, and in thus doing, I stated that the devil is really not the devil. Henceforth I stated that this case overall is against the Christian god, and not the Judaic god, even though both sects claim that god to be the same one...kind of like how Allah is actually God and Yahweh, too.

Now of course there ARE the Dead Sea Scrolls which show that a fairly large Judaic sect talked about a war in heaven, but this view has been rejected by the larger community of Judaic practitioners. Once again, we see that all cults can't get their shit straight, not even the Judaic ones.

The fact that your religions are literally full to bursting with cherry-pickers like yourself who can't agree with one another for shit tells me that none of you have your shit straight. You're all solipsistic idiots, wanting to believe you have it right.

I guess that's what happens when you have no tangible evidence, though; cognitive dissonance.

[Mystical]

Petty anti-religion rant?

I love a whiny rant! *whistling

What's your point of being here catfish? I'd really like to know. Like why are atheists and the Jewish prisoners in the video I posted, wrong?