How much pain can atheists withstand ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well hold on, who says any of us would go to hell? Wouldn't any God judge us based on what we do rather than what we believe. If I go save 12 people but don't believe in a God does that then cancel out the 12 people I've saved? Why does a God need me to believe in him rather than just decide on my fate based on how many people I've helped?

The god of the Bible, at least, absolutely DOES judge people on what they believe. If an atheist save 12 (or 1200 or 12 000), people, that atheist is going to hell (Romans 14:23).

In fact, anything you do without faith is a sin - feed the hungry, clothe the naked, console a grieving widow.

This make the Christian conception of God monstrous.

Boru

[Kingpin]

Well hold on, who says any of us would go to hell? Wouldn't any God judge us based on what we do rather than what we believe. If I go save 12 people but don't believe in a God does that then cancel out the 12 people I've saved? Why does a God need me to believe in him rather than just decide on my fate based on how many people I've helped?

The god of the Bible, at least, absolutely DOES judge people on what they believe. If an atheist save 12 (or 1200 or 12 000), people, that atheist is going to hell (Romans 14:23).

In fact, anything you do without faith is a sin - feed the hungry, clothe the naked, console a grieving widow.

This make the Christian conception of God monstrous.

Boru

Faith in what?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The god of the Bible, at least, absolutely DOES judge people on what they believe. If an atheist save 12 (or 1200 or 12 000), people, that atheist is going to hell (Romans 14:23).

In fact, anything you do without faith is a sin - feed the hungry, clothe the naked, console a grieving widow.

This make the Christian conception of God monstrous.

Boru

Faith in what?

God.

Boru

[Kingpin]

Faith in what?

God.

Boru

By what definition of faith?  Blind faith or trust/evidence based faith as used in the greek, pistis.

[The Grand Nudger]

The claim is from magic book. So lets call it a biblical definition, lol.

[The End of Atheism]

Many children starve when resources are not scarce

All resources are scarce, a decent lunch doesn't grow on trees. So, again, children starving to death is completely fine, even beneficial, from your worldview. There are many intellectual heavyweights in this world defending eugenics, and not without reason. Atheism as a perverted outlook on life makes this task even easier.

Let me reformulate that more sharply : the total quantity of available goods to the human species is constant, so less people alive means more available goods for everybody.

When children starve, I don’t trouble myself by agonizing over <snip>

Yeah, don't trouble yourself with anything, sleep tight and live like cattle.

So, deliberately causing pain and suffering to the Nazis is evil ?

If it's possible to stop an evildoer without causing suffering to them, this is preferable to stooping to their level.

It took a world war to stop the Nazis. I'm afraid your answer is not really in touch with reality.

Evil in its objective sense is unknowable...

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. 

And you're making the classic mistake of looking at the universe being finely tuned from the perspective of life that has evolved to inhabit it. 

Hum.. that's what happened, right ? A child can look at the universe from the perspective that their parents took care of them, and that won't be a problem, this is not a valid defeater.

Or maybe children shouldn't make this "classic mistake", and simply conclude that their parents ... don't... exist ?

You think my worldview is convoluted when your requires an infinitely whatever this time, unknowable, invisible daddy figure? 

I'm not sure what you mean by "requires" here. For the vast majority of people throughout history, the overall assessment of facts available to them led to belief in a higher intelligence, only a fool would deny that people have a natural inclination to believe in God, that's why religious belief is and will always be widespread. Maybe their beliefs aren't fully articulated, but the inclination is there.

I know it's very hard for you to admit that to a stranger in an internet forum, but that's simply an uncontentious fact. So, please, don't talk to me about convoluted. 

 And it's a passingly odd creator who builds an oven 93 billion light-years across just to get one half-baked planet.

You certainly don't owe the creator even a quarter-baked planet, or getting to live at all. You don't have access to all the facts, and so your assessment of the creator's performance  is completely void.

Or perhaps you can explain why god needed dark matter and dark energy.

This sentence reveals a profound misunderstanding. God doesn't need to do anything, at all. If he wills to bring about a single tiny pebble through a gazillion years of natural transformations, that doesn't contradict His attributes in any way. Efficiency isn't a concern for a being with infinite resources.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Another one that just doesn't know better.  Moralities that come from gods (or any other subject) are, by definition, subjective.  

Furthermore, having access to all facts would not by itself satisfy the criteria of a moral actor.  I could have access to all the facts about a poison and it's effect on people, and that wouldn't make my poisoning someone objectively moral. For there to be an objective morality there must be moral facts. For a competent actor to be deemed moral it must also adhere to whatever those facts are.

[Kingpin]

The claim is from magic book.  So lets call it a biblical definition, lol.

Biblical definition is the word pistis, meaning reliable, trustworthy, evidence based.  Just as you have faith in the chair you sat in at your desk today that it will support you.  you have good reason to believe it from experience, it being reliable and tested.  That is the ONLY way faith is used in the Bible.

[The End of Atheism]

Another one that just doesn't know better.  Moralities that come from gods (or any other subject) are, by definition, subjective.  

Furthermore, having access to all facts would not by itself satisfy the criteria of a moral actor.  I could have access to all the facts about a poison and it's effect on people, and that wouldn't make my poisoning someone objectively moral.  For there to be an objective morality there must be moral facts.  For a competent actor to be deemed moral it must also adhere to whatever those facts are.

The word God generally entails other attributes such as omnibenevolence, so God isn't any subject. Morality coming from a worship-worthy God certainly amounts to objective morality. Put differently : it's indistinguishable from objective morality. God prescribing X or X being objectively good is the same thing.

[The End of Atheism]

End of Atheism....I have no words.  Do not cast me in that same lot as you when it comes to theism.  What you are espousing is NOT Christianity in any definition of the term.

I'm not a christian, you probably should've asked me about that, politely.