What if we're all wrong though?

[cocoanut]

To be honest even if I were wrong I'd rather be in Hell than Heaven. I don't want to be kneeling at the feet of God. God just doesn't seem like the kind of person I'd like to hang out with.

Remember that story with Elisha and the forty-two youths? They laughed at Elisha's baldness and so God sent two bears crashing out of the woods and mauled the youths. I think it was something like 2 Kings 2:23-24. I'm not sure though.

I'd rather not be worshiping a murderer like that.

Would you?

[Violet]

To be honest... I'd rather be in heaven. I wouldn't hang with 'God'... but I wouldn't suffer hell for not doing so either ^_<

But when it comes down to it... yes, I would rather worship a murderer than suffer eternal pain. Of course... I'd rather die than worship a murderer (though the situation may arise where although I'd rather die, I would have to just 'take one for the team')

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'd rather not be worshiping a murderer like that.

Would you?

If I believed he existed, and had the power to inflict unimaginable suffering on me ?

As I'm not a masochist and have an IQ above ambient room temperature, in a heart beat.

[tackattack]

---

@PR- please I do welcome the comments, as always, and I appreciate the compliment.

My point was as a usefull descriptor of the nature of something it would necessarily need a noun, not a humanistic adjective. For instance "a Clock has gears" or a "clock tells time" as opposed to "the clock is small" or "the clock is extravagant". Love is not an unintelligible concept, nor do I use it to merely lend depth to my concept of God, I read it in a book somewhere . In this instance it's not the imperfect love we experience with our wives (not to belittle that love of course). God's Love gives and sacrifices unconditionally expecting nothing in return. It's patient, kind, does not boast, etc.. I don't think I need to quote it all for anyone. It's also for an eternity and despite the fact people hate him and deny him. It's all also speculation, but it's the basis of the Christian Faith.

A "clock has gears" statement is a definition of the type "entity of type x necessarily contains parts of type y but not necessarily only parts of type y", and adds meaning by defining what entities are of type x, by what characteristic type of part they can be recognized as such and what is contained in what. "God is love" is an identity statement that only switches labels, which fails to add meaning. The fact that this type of definition cannot be seen as adding information to the concept to be defined is usually seen as a sign for non-literal or metaphorical interpretation. As such it fails to have any value in a logical evaluation notwithstanding the fact that love as an observable emotional commitment in the real world between two or more sentient beings, really exists. In short, though love indeed exists in the real world the parasitic relabeling trick does not give rise to a supernatural sentient being that rules the universe.

As to ripping out the OT, I use it for lots of things. I find lots of religious texts useful in teaching. I wish the KJV included the apocrapha. I'm not going to destroy something because I find it less relevant to the main point.

How people somehow manage to euphemize from "genocidal" to "less relevant" in two sentences is what keeps amazing me. Rumour has it that metaphysical belief induces the shutting down of the frontal lobes, the place where critical thinking faculties reside.

---

1-"God is Love: is not a switching of labels or an identity statement. An identity statement contains descriptors. Love in this case is a noun and object, not a descriptor. "God is loving" or "God loves us" would be statements that are ephemeral and only add descriptions as to the possible character of said parts of "type y" wheras the original statement identifies the actual part of type y comprising part of the whole type x. I think you're failing to grasp the concept of God's Love as seperate from the act or human emotion of Love.
2-The OT God was labeled with many acts that were easily explained natural occurances (similar to the bear above). While people of that time probably lived in a lot more fear of God then we do today, I believe that's also a testament to their lack of understanding in what God is about, hence the teachings of Jesus. He may have been personified as a genocidal murdering dictator, but also as a savior, healer, creator and loving father. The fact I've never seen an atheist say the latter seems to be a sure sign of the type of closed mindedness that leads to a greater lack in critical thinking through bias.

[Scented Nectar]

He may have been personified as a genocidal murdering dictator, but also as a savior, healer, creator and loving father. The fact I've never seen an atheist say the latter seems to be a sure sign of the type of closed mindedness that leads to a greater lack in critical thinking through bias.

Do you mean that we should focus on how nice he is in saving us from all those fates that are said to be caused by him in the first place?

Gee, Hitler was so damn nice for giving scraps of food sometimes to his prisoners. Yeah! Praise him, fuckers!

[tackattack]

No you shouldn't only focus on how nice he is percieved to be, but without even acknowledging the other side of an equation how could you possibly attempt to weigh it equitable, it's ludacrous (as opposed to ludacris )

[Scented Nectar]

No you shouldn't only focus on how nice he is percieved to be, but without even acknowledging the other side of an equation how could you possibly attempt to weigh it equitable, it's ludacrous (as opposed to ludacris )

Are you admitting then, that if your god is the creator of everything, that he created all the bad stuff too, like the devil and evil and suffering? Or are you saying the 'evil is the absence of god' thing? In both cases though, that would indicate that your god is only 50% omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc.

[tackattack]

I have admitted over and over that I believe my God is the creator of everything, good and Bad. God created the devil and uses him as he sees fit, it's in the Bible. He's created the laws of physics, minerals and ores necessary for the nuclear bomb. He's created the trees that were cut down and used as spears to kill the innocent. Do yoou deny the culpability of mankind? Do yoou deny the positive things attributed to him? I'm not getting your question. Actually, how would you create suffering? Let's say I stab some random person. Would it be more correct to say I stabbed a man, or I created that man's suffering? If we're talking about intellectual consent of consequences then I would say yes he does create instances that cause suffering. I rely on my Faith and his track record with me as a foundation for my perceptions of his intentions and can only assume any suffering in the short will pay in the long. How does that in any way equate to 50% omnipresent. Omnibenevolent I understand, I don't feel he is completely all loving. Love is something you must accept before it can be felt, therefore those who haven't accepted his Love don't see him as benvolent, ergo impossible to be omnibenevolent. I think a better term would be selectively omnibenevolent or omnibenevolent based on acceptance. He can't force you to love him so it would be impossible to be omnibenevolent with the world as we see it today, IMO.

[Purple Rabbit]

1-"God is Love: is not a switching of labels or an identity statement. An identity statement contains descriptors. Love in this case is a noun and object, not a descriptor. "God is loving" or "God loves us" would be statements that are ephemeral and only add descriptions as to the possible character of said parts of "type y" wheras the original statement identifies the actual part of type y comprising part of the whole type x. I think you're failing to grasp the concept of God's Love as seperate from the act or human emotion of Love.
2-The OT God was labeled with many acts that were easily explained natural occurances (similar to the bear above). While people of that time probably lived in a lot more fear of God then we do today, I believe that's also a testament to their lack of understanding in what God is about, hence the teachings of Jesus. He may have been personified as a genocidal murdering dictator, but also as a savior, healer, creator and loving father. The fact I've never seen an atheist say the latter seems to be a sure sign of the type of closed mindedness that leads to a greater lack in critical thinking through bias.

Ad 1. Total bullshit tackattack. The 'IS' clearly indicates identity. Love and god are both nouns.
And indeed I fail to see why we should attribute love to virtual agents artificially constructed by the human mind. Get real man, your love is your love. Don't dehumanize yourself by attributing it to other things.

Ad 2. So what are you saying? We cannot trust the crap in the bible? There you go.

[tackattack]

Ad 1. Perhaps I misunderstood identiy statement. God (noun) is (identifier) Love(noun). correct? God (noun) is a (identifier) wrathfull (adjective) God (noun). God (noun) hates (verb) Fags (noun sorry if this offends :S any1). My point was there are few places in the Bible where God is actually described with an identifier. Atheists pick all the adverbs, adjective, determiners and forget that the Bible is mostly prose. They pick out all the negative ones and say "That God's an a hole, f*** believing in that" when an actual description of the concept of God (specifically it's integral parts) should be in the identity criteria of the nouns identified to it. I'm not dehumanizing anything it's my love and God's Love , 2 completely different things and they're capitonyms.

Ad 2. Trust that it proves nothing about material reality, agreed. However, my point was that a majority of atheists whom I've spoken to on this particular subject are cherry picking their own biased version of a literal, materialistic Bible, when the Bible as a whole has nothing to do with materialism, proof or literal interpretation.