How much pain can atheists withstand ?

[The End of Atheism]

A little remainder here : we're assuming God exists for the sake of this discussion, the contentious issue is whether to listen to God, or to people disagreeing with each other for futile reasons. I think the answer should be clear already.

Where exactly did 'we' agree to that?  <snip>

The entire thread is about the pain of being in hell, which presupposes hell exists, which in turn presupposes God exists.

There's a common misperception among the afflicted that assuming god exists means something morally.  

The afflicted you refer to tend to define moral good as literally what God says. It's not a misperception, it's the definition.

[The Grand Nudger]

The definition of what you consider to be good, sure, but also the definition of a subjective moral system. I honestly don't even know why there has to be an argument here. I'm merely observing that you and yours, as you tell it, strongly believe in subjective morality?

You keep insisting that you do?

Presuppose hell exists, presuppose god exists, then tell me that good is whatever god does.......neither of those two beliefs or suppositions alters the fact that you are explicitly advocating for a subjective morality. God existing, and hell existing, doesn't make said gods subjective morality objective....lol? Just makes it existent. Hell, I wouldn't even argue with you there. I don't believe in gods or in hells, but gods and hells don't even need to exist for gods subjective morality to exist, so you're plumping your suppositions well beyond necessity on that one, to no effect.

[The Valkyrie]

Where exactly did 'we' agree to that?  <snip>

The entire thread is about the pain of being in hell, which presupposes hell exists, which in turn presupposes God exists.

There's a common misperception among the afflicted that assuming god exists means something morally.  

The afflicted you refer to tend to define moral good as literally what God says. It's not a misperception, it's the definition.

Point one; Many religions have had a place of torment in their mythology. All with different named. If you presuppose your imaginary friend you have to presuppose all the other deities from those religions, too.

[The End of Atheism]

Presuppose hell exists, presuppose god exists, then tell me that good is whatever god does.

God is classically defined as a benevolent being, so...? 

Of course, one can ask why one would suppose God to be benevolent, this is a difficult issue that probably requires an appeal to revelation.

 God existing, and hell existing, doesn't make said gods subjective morality objective....lol? 

Subjective, objective are nothing but labels, remember? But sure, if you define subjective morality as any moral system ordained by a subject, then yeah God's commands are subjective by definition. But God, being God, can assess moral facts better than anything else, again, by the very definition of the word God. 

If you don't like the word objective, let's just say that a moral system ordained by God is the best subjective moral system possible, by definition. That's enough, I think.

[The End of Atheism]

Point one;  Many religions have had a place of torment in their mythology.  All with different named.  If you presuppose your imaginary friend  you have to presuppose all the other deities from those religions, too.

We just need to presuppose one particular account of God for this discussion. No need to multiply assumptions beyond necessity

[Thumpalumpacus]

Didn't your god allegedly make me? How is it I came out as an unintended mistake?

Um. because you decided to ?

Right, and your all-powerful, omniscient god couldn't figure out a single way to change my mind? Did he plan for me to be an apostate -- dooming me to Hell by his own plan -- or was he unable to present a good reason to believe?

You cannot have omnipotence, omnibenificence, and Hell. They are logically contradictory.

Either your god meant to make me an atheist, which means he is not perfectly just for dooming me to hell for being his own creation; or your god didn't make me, 

False dilemma. God meant for you to have free will, that's another available option for the theist.

Wrong. It is not free will at all if my soul is held for ransom. Otherwise, you would have to acquit the armed robber pointing a gun at his victim. If duress is in play -- which it certainly is in "believe in me or suffer for all eternity" -- then there is no free will. This is simple, shady apologetics, and should be beneath you.

Which queen is it you wish to sacrifice? You cannot have an omnipotent and perfectly merciful god if you surrender any of these components.

Omnipotence is clearly defined: for any possible world W, God can bring about W

Right. Now why can't your god change my mind?

But, "perfectly merciful" ... it's not clear.

Given the bloody toll he's exacted from his own creations, it's pretty clear he isn't merciful. Given that Hell represents infinite punishment for finite "crimes", his mercy is impeached .. by his own "holy" book.

Your boilerplate apologetics are unconvincing. If you're the best messenger your god can scrape up, he's in trouble. And if you're not, then he'd ought to bring in someone with real answers instead of this rote bullshit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Presuppose hell exists, presuppose god exists, then tell me that good is whatever god does.

God is classically defined as a benevolent being, so...? 

Of course, one can ask why one would suppose God to be benevolent, this is a difficult issue that probably requires an appeal to revelation.

-and whatever benevolent is, is whatever god is doing.  Like drowning bitches or glassing cities.  

 God existing, and hell existing, doesn't make said gods subjective morality objective....lol? 

Subjective, objective are nothing but labels, remember? But sure, if you define subjective morality as any moral system ordained by a subject, then yeah God's commands are subjective by definition. But God, being God, can assess moral facts better than anything else, again, by the very definition of the word God. 

If you don't like the word objective, let's just say that a moral system ordained by God is the best subjective moral system possible, by definition. That's enough, I think.

Correct, terms are labels.  And the label that accurately corresponds to the morality you subscribe to and advocate for..is subjective.  I have absolutely no problem with the term objective, or objective moralities.  I am, myself, a moral objectivist.  You, as a moral subjectivist, are the one with a problem with such terms and labels.  You don't think morality is objective.  You don't think there is such a thing as right or wrong in fact.  You think there are things that gods do, and things they tell us not to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Point one;  Many religions have had a place of torment in their mythology.  All with different named.  If you presuppose your imaginary friend  you have to presuppose all the other deities from those religions, too.

We just need to presuppose one particular account of God for this discussion. No need to multiply assumptions beyond necessity

Presuppose -any- god, and it won't help a single bit with the problems that you yourself have created. Supposing a god is, itself, multiplying assumptions beyond necessity, and also beyond relevance. The amount of gods, which gods, and whatever the fuck they say, are all completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not there are moral facts, and if there are, what those moral facts might be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That would fit the definition of miraculous if you found it.

Imagine if some psychopathic bastard holds you at gunpoint and forces you to choose one of two options : 

1/ you should curbstomp your neighbor's infant

2/ you'll be forced to watch as he curbstomps all your neighborhood's children (including the one you'd curbstomp if you do 1/)

If you know that 2/ will inevitably occur if you refuse 1/, it's probably a good deed, even if it's morally ambiguous in the extreme, to proceed and do 1/

The reason is that the infant is curbstomped either way, but by choosing 1/ you'll spare many other children from curbstomping.

Do you have a scenario that isn't batshit and loaded with extra helpings of bias?

[Astreja]

Good and evil are value judgements.  Value judgements are subjective, not objective.  Morality that comes from a god is also subjective, not objective.

Morality that comes from a being who has access to all the facts, is objective by definition.

Your dictionary is broken. Putting aside for a moment the fact that the Biblical god has not been demonstrated to possess omniscience, its intentions and motivations are likewise suspect. It could make up any bullshit rule it wanted to and demand that humans obey it, without likewise being constrained by the same rules. Judging from the Bible itself, the morality therein is absurdly inconsistent. Definitely subjective.