A disgraceful god

[Silver]

From a literary perspective, arguing away hell with apologetics reasonably infers heaven can be as equally argued to not exist.

[arewethereyet]

Looks like Ed thinks that his version of the SOS repeated again and again will change minds and save souls.

Yawn.

[The Architect Of Fate]

But God does not need to prove his existence to us, as much as a human does not need to prove his existence to a microorganism.

God is big.

Humans don't need to do this because microbes already interact with us on a daily basis. Also, the concept of proof would be totally alien to a microbe as they lack the cognitive ability to understand it.

[Nay_Sayer]

A woman who's husband abuses her also has the right to walk away, but that doesn't mean her husband isn't going to unreasonably punish her for doing so.

But God does not abuse anyone. People abuse people.
And those who walk away from God choose him not to help them.
People have the freedom of choice.

---

Take your hate filled nonsense elsewhere, holy man.

We do not visit the iniquities of wrongdoers on their innocent offspring, unlike your spiteful god.  Oh wait, he doesn't either, because he's fictional.  It's just you trying to blame the victims to excuse the fact that you refuse to help them.

Nobody blames the victims. I myself was a victim. 
People have problems and everyone needs help. 
The transmission of negative qualities from generation to generation happens to all to some degree.
But if people want help, God can help, so they turn to God.

---

Oh yes, going to sleep for three days after a punishment that wouldn't have happened in reality is such a big sacrifice.  Sign me up.

---

Where's the sarcasm smiley, I thought we had a sarcasm smiley?

---

And people choose to believe this to justify that what they do not want to hear. 
People do not want to hear that God loves them. 
People have a freedom of choice, and this is what they choose.

Thanks,
Ed

And people choose to believe this to justify that what they do not want to hear. 
People do not want to hear that FSM loves them. 
People have a freedom of choice, and this is what they choose.

Thanks, Nay Sayer

RAmen

[brewer]

That is allowing the natural sins of the fathers to naturally travel into their children. Let's say the father (or grandfather) is an alcoholic or drug addict, the tendency for such addictions is stronger in the children born from such parents. The same thing can be applied to any sin, such as hatred, violence, thievery and such. But to those who do want to follow God, he will extend that blessed qualities of his parents upon many, many generations.
Thanks,
Ed

What you're describing is rationally attributed to genetics and environment. Belief in sin is not necessary.

What concrete evidence can you provide that will convince me to validate the existence of god(s)?

Maybe you'd like to start a different thread for you evidence.

[The Architect Of Fate]

That is allowing the natural sins of the fathers to naturally travel into their children.

There is no reason for sin to exist. Let alone pass from generation to generation 

 Let's say the father (or grandfather) is an alcoholic or drug addict, the tendency for such addictions is stronger in the children born from such parents.

If God punishes people for something inherent to them beyond their control. Then he is a monster.

 The same thing can be applied to any sin, such as hatred, violence, thievery and such. 

If these things are equal to any of the above then your god is a monster for allowing this to pass from generation to generation or for punishing people for their inherent nature.

But to those who do want to follow God, he will extend that blessed qualities of his parents upon many, many generations.
Thanks,
Ed

There mere fact he makes such a thing conditional on being a slave is abhorrent.

[Gwaithmir]

@edial

Why should I get angry at something I don't believe in? The fact is, I don't. But I still recognize that your God is beneath what I consider to be a moral being.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

If you put your head into an atheist's mindset for a moment, you'll see that a lot of what appears justified or good to a theist can appear downright immoral to an atheist.

There were many wars in God's name and there is much, much corruption among churches ... that however does not change the facts about Christ and God.

The simple utterance of that last bit as a fact, to some, would be an explicit invocation of an immoral fact.  Things in the world, or about the world, aren't always the way that we believe they should be.  It can be true that so and so is such and such a way - and that can be bad. If it's true the the author of creation's restorative scheme was necessitated on vicarious redemption, for example. Let's assume it is.  That christ, in short, is true - then I can't have any part in that.  

It would be ethically repugnant, and I have plenty of opportunities to be ethically repugnant already, without adding that whopper to the pile. That's before we even get into the details of what we're stringing up jews for. Does it cover the sin of touching ourselves? Is that something that I do that some other person had to die for, according to a god? Or is it just the mere fact of my having been born, somehow, fundamentally, from the moment that the first human was born and until the last human dies, just being incurs a debt that can only be satisfied by killing the better man?

I don't expect you to see any of this in this way - and you certainly don't have to argue any of these points with me. This is just to help you see why belief is a nonstarter. It is, frankly, a relief to me that there isn't any creature with those abilities and those predilections dictating the states of affairs relevant to human life and being. If I could be compelled to believe it were true, it would still be bad.

[Abaddon_ire]

There is no bias on behalf of the atheist, for atheism is just the lack of a belief in a deity that has not been proven to exist.

The theist is chock full of bias, because his emotional need for a deity to exist outweighs reason most every time.

But lack of belief does not give strong negative feelings to that what one does not believe in.
Lack of belief is a person who does not pay attention to that what he does not believe in.
Why get angry at something you do not believe in?

You fail to understand the problem. 
I don't believe in any god. Nor do I hate any god.

What I do hate is the god-botherers attempting to control everyone else, force their laws and rules on everyone else and even exercise mind control over others.

You know. The kind of thing you are attempting right here. Does that mean I hate you? Not at all. I pity you. You are wasting your life on a belief set for which you have absolutely no evidence and which is immoral to it's core.

[Astreja]

But lack of belief does not give strong negative feelings to that what one does not believe in.
Lack of belief is a person who does not pay attention to that what he does not believe in.
Why get angry at something you do not believe in?

I have no particular feelings towards the god of the Bible, because I see the Bible as a rather confused anthology of primitive and often contradictory fiction.

I have extremely strong feelings about the influence of religion on civil society, and I do not feel that holy books should be taught as non-fiction under any circumstances. If it were up to me, churches would be taxed and every individual who frightened a child or a vulnerable adult with threats of hell would be imprisoned for uttering threats.