What kind of God would do this.

[Gooders1002]

This is a difficult video to watch, but it deals with a difficult subject that should not be avoided simply because it is unpleasant. The harsh imagery is necessary in a world long desensitized, and while it may grieve your heart, it's ultimately designed to engage and challenge your mind.

Burn injuries are some of the most horrific and feared injuries. Those who intentionally burn others are monstrous and sadistic to the extreme. This video takes a hard but necessary look at the terrible consequences of burning and the "benevolent, loving and just" parent that demonstrates his love by setting fire to his own children. - The Thinking Athiest
This Video was produced by the Thinking atheist and has shocking images. Viewer discretion is advised.



On a personal note, it gets you thinking, What loving god would create such a place.
Apologists in 3...2....1....

[CapnAwesome]

I don't actually find this emotional arguments very compelling. Obviously I don't believe in God, but historically most Gods that have been believed in haven't been considered Omni-benevolent. Since this argument only attacks the concept of an all good god, it's weak.

[Godscreated]

Your little vid there is a weak attempt at irritating your fellow atheist and trying to call out the Christians who believe in a firey hell. The scriptures never say that hell fire is destructive, scriptures never say God is omnibenevolent I do not even know where you get that. God says He desires that none should be lost, ie. go to hell. Since that is His desire there is only one thing left, it's a choice and it can't be God's because He says His desire is for no one to be lost, that means it's your choice and no one else, tell me why would you choose something outside of God's desire? To me when an atheist dwells on the fire of hell means one of two things, he/she is scared it's true or you're just stupid for wasting your time on something you do not believes exist.

[jonb]

Any philosophy that is centred around subservience is just inherently bad.

[Cato]

Your little vid there is a weak attempt at irritating your fellow atheist and trying to call out the Christians who believe in a firey hell. The scriptures never say that hell fire is destructive, scriptures never say God is omnibenevolent I do not even know where you get that. God says He desires that none should be lost, ie. go to hell. Since that is His desire there is only one thing left, it's a choice and it can't be God's because He says His desire is for no one to be lost, that means it's your choice and no one else, tell me why would you choose something outside of God's desire? To me when an atheist dwells on the fire of hell means one of two things, he/she is scared it's true or you're just stupid for wasting your time on something you do not believes exist.

I'm so tired of this line of bullshit. The theological idea of 'free will' only came about because of the biggest flaw in your god. Your god is not all powerful. Your god is fuck all incabable of creating obedient humans.

'Free will' is a concept brought up by the rabbinical jews long before your christ was supposed to have existed. The stories were cute until thinking humans started juxtapositioning human accountability with god's omniscience. It's a paradox. From where then comes evil? The theological concept of 'free will' was the answer.

Some asshat in another thread desired to make the 'problem of evil' a unique thread, as if christianity was something more than an excuse for god's inability to create obedient humans.

[Minimalist]

Once again, G-C we find that you know jack shit about your own holy horseshit.

The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of the Lord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."

Although, it is pretty apparent that "god" fucked up the 'making wise the simple' in your case.

[jonb]

I don't actually find this emotional arguments very compelling. Obviously I don't believe in God, but historically most Gods that have been believed in haven't been considered Omni-benevolent. Since this argument only attacks the concept of an all good god, it's weak.

Actually his argument is stronger than you think. If they relinquish 'all good', then opposition is not just right, but is a necessity. Your stance works when there are many gods because they can oppose each other, but a single god without opposition if it is not 'all good' is a tyrant.