I'll respond to a few things, but it's clear at this point that we need to retiurn to the actual argument. Name calling gets us nowhere, nor do straw men and non sequiturs.
First, let's be clear that most atheists agree that the Bible is full of examples of God committing atrocities, directly and indirectly. You may or may not agree, but it's not relevant to the argument. I'm using "evil" in the same broad, vague term that the Bible itself uses. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether or not evil was necessary for us to choose a way of life. The fact that something exists that displeases God is a massive contradiction; if he created it, he is responsible for it.
I'm surprised nobody has said anything about my claim that the atonement was meaningless. Anybody care to take a stab at it?
First, let's be clear that most atheists agree that the Bible is full of examples of God committing atrocities, directly and indirectly. You may or may not agree, but it's not relevant to the argument. I'm using "evil" in the same broad, vague term that the Bible itself uses. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether or not evil was necessary for us to choose a way of life. The fact that something exists that displeases God is a massive contradiction; if he created it, he is responsible for it.
I'm surprised nobody has said anything about my claim that the atonement was meaningless. Anybody care to take a stab at it?
