(April 24, 2013 at 10:04 am)Drich Wrote: If the problem does not exist for you then why do you assume that the question is for you?
Because you asked me. Directly, in fact.
You wrote:
Quote:I was just giving you all an oppertunity to express what you thought to be a viable option to Hell rather than just complain about how unfair God is.
I then asked you to clarify what you're thinking. I wrote:
Quote:If I understand you correctly, this is the "what am I going to do with you" speech. The reason you're never going to get anywhere with this is because there is nothing to justify.
To rephrase somewhat, if it helps make things clear, is you seem to be asking what I think my punishment should be for (1) existing and (2) not believing someone's favorite brand (among many other brands) of wild supernatural claims that are both inconsistent with the natural world we observe and completely unsupported by even a shred of evidence.
So why do you think there even needs to be a punishment?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
