Benevolent Creator God?

[R00tKiT]

We're still dealing in finite actions and finite sentences in the case of murder.

I will not yield on this point:  I consider eternal punishment to be the quintessence of pure evil, and I will not worship any deity that allows such a place as hell to exist and that refuses to liberate sentient beings from hell.  In my opinion, it is the ultimate deal-breaker.

And you think a murderer should enjoy ever-lasting happiness once the finite sentence is over? What about serial killers, or people who carry out genocides taking millions of lives, millions. What kind of finite sentence will account for the Holocaust, the cambodian genocide, and other unimaginably horrific episodes of human history? Do you think a benevolent God should put Hitler in heaven after some extended period of punishment, for example?

And actually, your stance against the existence of hell is completely irrational. If we tell someone that jumping out of a window from the 8th floor of a building will cause instant death, that doesn't make gravity an immoral thing or something a benevolent God wouldn't create, we're simply telling them the way it is. Similarly, God asked people to do very very simple things: not to dishonestly reject his message, not to murder people, etc. But people go ahead and do these things, knowing that hell is the consequence, why should they object to it ? God is omnipotent, after all. Sentient being simply can't object to anything an omnipotent being does.

You say, "I consider eternal punishment to be the quintessence of pure evil". Well, those who are entitled to eternal punishment have committed pure evil themselves, no theist is telling you that hell is a pleasurable outcome, either.. many people are capable of malevolence, they are capable of inflicting huge amounts of suffering to one another, why do you think these people deserve anything other than pure evil?

And if you still don't accept anything above, you can think of it this way: what would you wish to someone (I am really asking you for your personal opinion this time) who causes great harm to someone you care about? What would you think of a deity who allows this person to enjoy anything in an afterlife? What would you think of a deity who would reward serial killers, rapists, people who sell children for sexual purposes or to steal their organs....?
A possible objection is to say, a deity could simply make them cease to exist instead of torturing them. Not really a solution, either, because it doesn't cancel out the injustice. If we make a mass murderer cease to exist as a punishment then, at best, we canceled out the unjust murder of one person, what about the other thousands who died unfairly? This is a very simple example to give you a rough idea... 

And how do you know which ones I checked and didn't check?  Name them.

So far, every religious claim that I've examined has failed the believability test.  Every single one.  If the same thing keeps happening, why should I waste any more time on it?  I have more important things to do.

Well, actually, you can't say that to a theist, here is why: the theist picked some answer which they believe represents the ultimate truth, they don't need to check the rest of the answers. As I said to Spongebob before, imagine you have a row of 50 doors in front of you, only one door contains a prize and all other doors are dead ends, and you are allowed to open as many doors as you want (everybody gets the prize in the end), then what you would you is to randomly pick doors and open them, you may start by opening door 3 for example, you find it empty, then you open door 5, also empty, you keep going, until you open the door 17 for example, bingo, you find the prize.

Now, do you think it makes sense to keep opening doors after you found the prize (the only prize that exists) ? Clearly, it's really stupid to do so, you know beforehand that all the remaining doors don't contain anything. It's also clear that, before you found the prize, it was necessary to keep checking doors, and unless you exhaust all the doors, you can't say there is no prize.

Similarly, a person checks religious claims then finds some compelling claim that provides good reasons for its validity, they go for this claim and embrace religion x. Well, that's it. Religion x tells him all other religions are factually wrong. He found the prize, no need to check the remaining doors. He can be wrong, of course, but until he's presented with a very good reason to doubt the validity of x, he doesn't need to check other religions, that would clearly be meaningless.