Can objective moral values exist without God?

Originally posted by telerion
...Of course we can rule out the "seperation from god" idea because it conflicts with omnipresence. If God is not there, then God exists in a space that his larger than He is. Where did this space come from?...

The three "O"s usually applied to god are, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Omnipresence doesn't usually make the list. If there is an omnipotent god then he should be able to create a space larger than he is.

Originally posted by rwingett
I experience goodness and joy now without any help from god. If I died, found out there was a god, and that hell was a complete and eternal separation from him, what would have changed?

All the happiness and joy that you enjoy now comes from the hand of GOD. Whether it be material wealth or the all the wisdom and understanding that the world offers. If you ended up in hell what has changed is that you are no longer experiencing that happiness,goodness and joy that you are experiencing now. You would then be separated from how/what you are feeling/enjoying now.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
All the happiness and joy that you enjoy now comes from the hand of GOD. Whether it be material wealth or the all the wisdom and understanding that the world offers. If you ended up in hell what has changed is that you are no longer experiencing that happiness,goodness and joy that you are experiencing now. You would then be separated from how/what you are feeling/enjoying now.

Why do some atheists have satisfying and successful lives and some christians have miserable and painful lives? I think it would be a more convincing proof of god's existance if all atheists died horrible deaths in extreme poverty while all christians lived happy and contented lives. The fact that it doesn't work that way should be cause to wonder if there is no god at all.

I'll take my happiness now, thank you, rather than waiting for some implausible afterlife.

Originally posted by rwingett
The three "O"s usually applied to god are, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Omnipresence doesn't usually make the list. If there is an omnipotent god then he should be able to create a space larger than he is.

Most xtians I've encountered believe in the omnipresence of their god. Of course, as you've pointed out, we don't need this other omni-quality to make the omnimax god internally inconsistent.

The main point in my post is that it's stupid to think that we non-believers would prefer eternal torture to eternity in heaven once we've gained knowledge of the existence of these places. Seems to me like the Lee Strobel gang and their meek sheep followers are frustrated that their god isn't as obvious to us as it is to them.

Plainly put, they've erected a strawman. Instead of addressing the fact that atheists do not believe in their god because they do not have convincing evidence of his existence, they create a false atheist who deep down really knows God exists but just doesn't want to be around Him. Weak.

Speaking of strawmen, I suppose every single Christian in the world has done less research, is less intelligent, and was brainwashed more than you, eh tel?

Omnipresence means He is everywhere at once. I don't see the inconsistency.

In fact, where is the inconsistency in any of His omni- attributes?

Speaking of strawmen, I suppose every single Christian in the world has done less research, is less intelligent, and was brainwashed more than you, eh tel?

Remember when no1 taught you what a non sequitur is? Go back two pages, because apparently it didn't sink in the first time.

Omnipresence means He is everywhere at once. I don't see the inconsistency.

If Hell is a place where something can be and where that something is completely seperated from God, then God must not "be there." This contradicts His quality of omnipresence which according to you is being "everywhere at once."

I don't want to get into any other contradictions with you. You can find plenty of them all over the internet. I let you in on the omnipresence bit because I figured I'd do you a favor and get you up to speed with the rest of us.

Besides you're haven't really addressed Euthyphro's Dilemma which is more relevant to the thread topic. You'd better take on one challenge at a time.

Originally posted by Darfius
Does Hitler deserve eternal punishment or 233,000 years of punishment?

Despite the frustrating tangentiality of your comment, let me answer.

I would think that 233,000 years of punishment in extreme agony would punish Hitler adequately. It would certainly be morally preferable to him spending an eternity in hell.

You accuse me of having no sense of justice. That's a laugh, Darfius.

As an attempted argument for the merits of your position, you ask a rhetorical question which, in effect, claims--as No1Marauder has pointed out--that Hitler, whose crime was finite, deserves agony of infinite duration.

Has it ever dawned upon you that proportionality is an essential element of justice, Darfius?

Perhaps it could be argued that Hitler was purely evil, and so the punishment must be eternal. But that is supposition: not everyone who commits entirely evil acts is entirely evil themselves. However, it doesn't surprise me that you the moral complexity of human beings is lost on you.

All this indicates, as I have said, that there is something seriously screwed up about your moral calculus.

I can't help suspecting that, in some dark recess of your soul, you derive satisfaction from supposing that ungodly, as you define them, suffer, and this is a perverse motive that sustains you findamentalism. That is, I suspect you are a closet sadist.

I was hoping earlier, in response to some of some queries, that you might say something like this.

"It would really, really upset me if God were to punish for eternity a child of mine who, when he grew up, made a mature decision not to share my religious beliefs. I don't think I could endorse that consequence in principle."

But you didn't, Darfius. You ENDORSE the whole arrangement. This is what bankrupts you morally. That is what makes me suspect your motives.

Perhaps you'll return again to the flimsy excuses that you previously offered, that such a miscreant would be sending himself to hell, and would want to go there, and so God would have nothing to do with it, really.

Yet it patently obvious to a bright chimpanzee that you haven't explained:

(a) how human manage to send themselves to hell without God's direct assistance; and

(b) how human beings manage to desire to experience an eternity of extreme agony.

Are you seriously saying, for example, that

(a) Hitler could get to hell without God's help?
(b) Hitler would want to stay Eternity in hell?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it part of your belief system taht

(a) God set up the universe?
(b) part of the punishment of hell is that people don't want to be there?

Do you see how you position is just a teeny-weeny bit untenable?

Keep the faith,

Aiden

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Despite the frustrating tangentiality of your comment, let me answer.

I would think that 233,000 years of punishment in extreme agony would punish Hitler adequately. It would certainly be morally preferable to him spending an eternity in hell.

You accuse me of having no sense of justice. That's a laugh, Darfius.

As an attempted argument for th ...[text shortened]... how you position is just a teeny-weeny bit untenable?

Keep the faith,

Aiden

Sorry Aiden - I could only Rec you once.

Well discussed, well presented, and well - true.

Despite the frustrating tangentiality of your comment, let me answer.

Yes, yes. We're all aware that you atheists are ridiculously more intelligent than all theists in the world. You needn't remind us in every post.

I would think that 233,000 years of punishment in extreme agony would punish Hitler adequately. It would certainly be morally preferable to him spending an eternity in hell.

Morally preferable to whom? You or God? It appears to be the highest form of hubris to me that you believe your morals are superior to God's.

You accuse me of having no sense of justice. That's a laugh, Darfius.

I apologize. You do have a sense. But it is warped.

As an attempted argument for the merits of your position, you ask a rhetorical question which, in effect, claims--as No1Marauder has pointed out--that Hitler, whose crime was finite, deserves agony of infinite duration.

How do you know his crime was finite? What is your definition of 'crime'? God does not punish us for 'crimes'. He punishes us for 'sins'. The greatest and unforgiveable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the unforgiveable sin is the continuing denial of God until the day you die. Now if you die denying God, and He warned you of the consequence, what exactly is the problem with eternal punishment (which is complete seperation from the God you denied)? Hitler denied God until his last breath. Should God break His word? Does Hitler deserve fellowship with God even though he doesn't want it?

Has it ever dawned upon you that proportionality is an essential element of justice, Darfius?

Whose proportions? Yours or God's? Hubris, Pawn.

Perhaps it could be argued that Hitler was purely evil, and so the punishment must be eternal. But that is supposition: not everyone who commits entirely evil acts is entirely evil themselves. However, it doesn't surprise me that you the moral complexity of human beings is lost on you.

It is not I it is lost on, Pawn. Your hubris is oozing out of your ears. To understand God, you must read His book. Quit projecting your inferior sense of justice onto His.

All this indicates, as I have said, that there is something seriously screwed up about your moral calculus.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I can't help suspecting that, in some dark recess of your soul, you derive satisfaction from supposing that ungodly, as you define them, suffer, and this is a perverse motive that sustains you findamentalism. That is, I suspect you are a closet sadist.

Depends. Do you think Jesus was a closet sadist? He's who I attempt to imitate. And He was just fine with eternal punishment.

I was hoping earlier, in response to some of some queries, that you might say something like this.

"It would really, really upset me if God were to punish for eternity a child of mine who, when he grew up, made a mature decision not to share my religious beliefs. I don't think I could endorse that consequence in principle."

Of course it would upset me, but I'm not entirely sure that how we 'feel' about things determines there reality.

But you didn't, Darfius. You ENDORSE the whole arrangement. This is what bankrupts you morally. That is what makes me suspect your motives.

I endorse God, in whatever He does, because He loves us all and always wants the greater good. But He also DESERVES praise.

Perhaps you'll return again to the flimsy excuses that you previously offered, that such a miscreant would be sending himself to hell, and would want to go there, and so God would have nothing to do with it, really.

The 'miscreant' would be sending himself.

Yet it patently obvious to a bright chimpanzee that you haven't explained:

(a) how human manage to send themselves to hell without God's direct assistance; and

They choose to go there. God drives them.

(b) how human beings manage to desire to experience an eternity of extreme agony.

The 'agony' is eternal seperation from God, who is all goodness and all joy. Since you are denying God, where do you get off demanding that He both stay away from you and embrace you? Make up your mind.

Are you seriously saying, for example, that

(a) Hitler could get to hell without God's help?
(b) Hitler would want to stay Eternity in hell?

Yes, I believe Hitler would still not love God after he died.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it part of your belief system taht

(a) God set up the universe?
(b) part of the punishment of hell is that people don't want to be there?

Yes.

Do you see how you position is just a teeny-weeny bit untenable?

No.

Keep the faith,

I prefer to call it what it is: Truth.

Regards,
Darfius





[/b]

Again here we go. This must be what it is like to go on diet. So tempting . . . just one little bite . . .

Yes, yes. We're all aware that you atheists are ridiculously more intelligent than all theists in the world. You needn't remind us in every post.

Actually, like most people, we make that judgement on a case-by-case basis. Don't try to drag all other theists down with you.

Morally preferable to whom? You or God? It appears to be the highest form of hubris to me that you believe your morals are superior to God's.

Well, that depends on how you reponds the Euthyphro's Dilemma. If good and bad exist independently of your god, then we can certainly judge him according to these. Maybe, as the OT suggests, your god is really a sadistic, insecure deity.

Of course, that is even if your god exists, which is absurdly ridiculous. The omnipresence contradiction has already ruled out your particular version of god. This is the problem that all theists face when they fuse their deity to their morality. First, they make their morality only as true as their god. If the case for the existence of their deity is weak, then their moral authority crumbles. Second, even if their deity does exist, they must answer Euthyphro's Dilemma. This is troubling for most. So far you have been no exception.

How do you know his crime was finite?

I actually presented a strong argument for this a page ago. This may have been what Pawnokeyhole was referring to. It relies on the idea that some people do more bad than others, and that every human life has finite measure.

What is your definition of 'crime'? God does not punish us for 'crimes'. He punishes us for 'sins'.

Wow. Win at all costs eh Dar? Sins, crimes? What's the difference from the xtian view, and how is this difference important?

Depends. Do you think Jesus was a closet sadist? He's who I attempt to imitate.

You are a poor imitation of Jesus. Well, except for the parts where he seems callous and cruel.

And He was just fine with eternal punishment.

Another mark against his moral authority.

Of course it would upset me, but I'm not entirely sure that how we 'feel' about things determines there reality.

When considering this statement in light of you Lee Strobel sheep, it provides a wonderful example of irony. Ding! Faith!

I endorse God, in whatever He does, because He loves us all and always wants the greater good.

If the majority of us end up in eternal suffering, then I would say he did a pretty bad job.

But He also DESERVES praise.

You don't always get what you deserve. I would think your god would understand that. Maybe hell is your god's temper tantrum?

The 'miscreant' would be sending himself.

Willful ignorance. We have already provided empirical evidence that at least some 'miscreants' do not wish to go to hell if such a place exists. Your god designed hell with us in mind at the beginning of creation.

They choose to go there. God drives them.

Uh . . . from one literature major to another. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by 'drive.' We have not had a real choice because we didn't know the choice set. In fact, I am going to post a nice little piece that I wrote a while ago on here about this very issue.

The 'agony' is eternal seperation from God, who is all goodness and all joy. Since you are denying God, where do you get off demanding that He both stay away from you and embrace you? Make up your mind.

Once again omnipresence, but anyway. Nobody is saying that they want your god to stay away from them anymore than they are telling fairies to stay off their shoulder or leprechauns to get out from under their beds. Your god in internally inconsistent, therefore it does not exist. End of story.

Now if you have misrepresented a god that does exist. Then I would like it not to send me to hell. You are doing an Ivanhoe-good job of dodging the question here by the way. How can some one desire eternal agony? If they want it, then it can't be so undesirable now can it?

Yes, I believe Hitler would still not love God after he died.

Let's be honest. You don't believe anyone who does not love your god before they die will love him after they die. In your eyes and the eyes of your make-believe god, Hitler is the same as every other hell-bound human.

Yes . . . No.

Oh you must be drowning in all that cognitive dissonance.

I prefer to call it what it is: Truth.

Just don't question, Dar. The bad dream will be over soon.

Here is a little story about why we do not have a real choice.


If I approach you in dirty, raggedy clothes, and I say to you, "Hey, my friend is a quadtrillionare. He wants you to give me $4,000 dollars now, and he will pay you back 4 million dollars a year from now. If you don't give it to me, then he is going to give you the oogely virus and you will suffer a painful death." And suppose I show you a letter that says basically the same thing that I've just told you and is signed "His Rich Friend." And I say, "There that proves it; now pay up!"

Now let's just say for the sake of argument that this friend is real. He some how has a quadtrillion dollars. He wants you to give me the money and has written the note. He can and will give you this "oogely virus" if you do not pay me. He also knows that you don't think anyone has a quadtrillion dollars or that any oogely virus exists and that you are certain to think that I look like a scam artist.

Is this friend of mine really giving you a choice? Of course, you have one, but is it fair to expect you to give me $4,000 or face horrible death?

Now let's say he came up to you and introduced himself and furnished for you a bank statement that showed he had this tremendous wealth, and he showed you $4 million in cash, and he let you take this cash to a banker of your choosing to verify that these bills were real. And let's say he even opened a trust for you to draw once an independent third party had verified that one year had expired since you had lent me $4,000. He does all this until he is certain that you are reasonably sure that he and I are not frauds.

Let's say my friend does all this. Now wouldn't you say you had a more fair choice? This is basically what I am saying. That's how your "God"s proposition looks to me.

I'm just asking your "God" to use what we economists have been plugging for a long time: transparency in exchange.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=12512&page=3

Actually, like most people, we make that judgement on a case-by-case basis. Don't try to drag all other theists down with you.

Are there any theists more intelligent than you, tel? If so, how can you say Christianity is a denial of reason?

Well, that depends on how you reponds the Euthyphro's Dilemma. If good and bad exist independently of your god, then we can certainly judge him according to these. Maybe, as the OT suggests, your god is really a sadistic, insecure deity.

Or maybe the OT was reality before Jesus Christ served as mediator between man and God.

Of course, that is even if your god exists, which is absurdly ridiculous. The omnipresence contradiction has already ruled out your particular version of god. This is the problem that all theists face when they fuse their deity to their morality. First, they make their morality only as true as their god. If the case for the existence of their deity is weak, then their moral authority crumbles. Second, even if their deity does exist, they must answer Euthyphro's Dilemma. This is troubling for most. So far you have been no exception.

Omnipresence is the ability to be everywhere one can be present, correct? Are we to blame God for not being present in edvhedv world? It doesn't exist. Hell does exist, but it's not possible for God to be there. I see no contradiction with that and His omnipresence. It's like demanding Him to make a rock He can't life. God cannot fail and He cannot deny our free will or His inability to be near sin.

I actually presented a strong argument for this a page ago. This may have been what Pawnokeyhole was referring to. It relies on the idea that some people do more bad than others, and that every human life has finite measure.

Actions do not land you in hell. Your mind frame does.

Wow. Win at all costs eh Dar? Sins, crimes? What's the difference from the xtian view, and how is this difference important?

I don't get what you mean by 'win'. No one keeps score. The point is to convict you enough so that you're open to the Holy Spirit guiding you to the God who loves you.

You are a poor imitation of Jesus. Well, except for the parts where he seems callous and cruel.

I am a poor imitation of Jesus. The closest imitation in history was a poor one. He lived a sinless life. But I will try.

Another mark against his moral authority.

Hubris.

When considering this statement in light of you Lee Strobel sheep, it provides a wonderful example of irony. Ding! Faith!

I read two of his books and suddenly I'm a Strobel sheep? OK you Darwin sheep!

If the majority of us end up in eternal suffering, then I would say he did a pretty bad job.

That's right. Blame God for the misery you bring upon yourself.

You don't always get what you deserve. I would think your god would understand that. Maybe hell is your god's temper tantrum?

Oh, but you do. You see, even if you never decide to worship God, plenty of us do. And you'll get what you deserve for being a spoiled brat. God is slow to anger, but yes, He does. Hell is not his temper tantrum, though. It is justice. If you want to deny God, why should He violate your choice?

Willful ignorance. We have already provided empirical evidence that at least some 'miscreants' do not wish to go to hell if such a place exists. Your god designed hell with us in mind at the beginning of creation.

Tel...do you want God? If not, then you want a place away from God. Hell.

Uh . . . from one literature major to another. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by 'drive.' We have not had a real choice because we didn't know the choice set. In fact, I am going to post a nice little piece that I wrote a while ago on here about this very issue.

The choice is in the Bible. You've been warned.

Once again omnipresence, but anyway. Nobody is saying that they want your god to stay away from them anymore than they are telling fairies to stay off their shoulder or leprechauns to get out from under their beds. Your god in internally inconsistent, therefore it does not exist. End of story.

Where is He internally inconsistent? Ohhhh, you're referring to your infallible outlook on life, right? Well, I'm sure He hates being blipped out of existence everytime you 'prove' He can't exist...

Now if you have misrepresented a god that does exist. Then I would like it not to send me to hell. You are doing an Ivanhoe-good job of dodging the question here by the way. How can some one desire eternal agony? If they want it, then it can't be so undesirable now can it?

You want to be away from God. He acquiesces.

Let's be honest. You don't believe anyone who does not love your god before they die will love him after they die. In your eyes and the eyes of your make-believe god, Hitler is the same as every other hell-bound human.

Yep.

Oh you must be drowning in all that cognitive dissonance.

Actually, it's your hubris.

Just don't question, Dar. The bad dream will be over soon.

Question all you can, Tel. The bad dream will start soon if you don't.







[/b]

[/b][/b]

Are there any theists more intelligent than you, tel? If so, how can you say Christianity is a denial of reason?

Sure there are, just not xtian ones. Kidding. Yes, there are even xtian ones, but it does not follow that xtianity is reasonable.

Or maybe the OT was reality before Jesus Christ served as mediator between man and God.

It doesn't matter if JC was doing a striptease; the god of the OT is cruel and sadistic, by any reasonable standard of morality. In fact, he would rank right up there with Hitler and Stalin.

Omnipresence is the ability to be everywhere one [b]can be present, correct?[/b]

No. It is not the ability to be. According to Merriam-Webster, it is defined as being "present in all places at all times."

Are we to blame God for not being present in edvhedv world? It doesn't exist. Hell does exist, but it's not possible for God to be there.

Why not? So far you've only said that he chooses not to be there. I'm saying that if he really is omnipresent, then your conception of Hell as a place apart from God cannot be true.

I see no contradiction with that and His omnipresence. It's like demanding Him to make a rock He can't life.

No. Being in Hell is not a logical inconsistency like the rock lifting bit. Something can be in Hell. According to you millions of things are in Hell.
Also according to you God cannot be in Hell, thus God cannot be present in all places at all times. Just give it up already. You still ahve lots of other omni's to enjoy.

God cannot fail and He cannot deny our free will or His inability to be near sin.

Oh you mean like when he was near Satan in the book of Job? Or like Jesus was all around sin when he came to earth?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok let's skip over some of your post. I will not banter with your insipid false humility.

Hubris.

No 'non sequitur' was the phrase you were supposed to learn from no1.

I read two of his books and suddenly I'm a Strobel sheep? OK you Darwin sheep!

The difference is I don't parrot Darwin or accept anything Darwin said without critical thought. Oh BTW have you read his latest book, The Case for Ripping Off Ignorant Xtians?

That's right. Blame God for the misery you bring upon yourself.

Hey the proof is in the pudding. God tried to make something good, and he screwed up. You make a wonderful Johnny Cochrane for Christ.

Oh, but you do. You see, even if you never decide to worship God, plenty of us do. And you'll get what you deserve for being a spoiled brat.

This is the manaically sadistic kind of ranting Pawnokeyhole highlighted.
I know it really breaks your heart. *)

Tel...do you want God? If not, then you want a place away from God. Hell.

Your god doesn't exist. Do you want Thor? Do you want Zeus? How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

The choice is in the Bible. You've been warned.

You either didn't read or didn't understand my post about the rich friend.

Where is He internally inconsistent? Ohhhh, you're referring to your infallible outlook on life, right? Well, I'm sure He hates being blipped out of existence everytime you 'prove' He can't exist...

Oh did I burst your bubble. So sorry. Keep dreaming evil dreams.

You want to be away from God. He acquiesces.

Repetitious display of willful ignorance. What can I say that I haven't already?

Well at least you admit that every nonbeliever is the same as Hitler to you. I appreciate your honesty, however disgusting.

Question all you can, Tel.

I did. Your silly god was the first victim of intellectual honesty.

Originally posted by telerion
Here is a little story about why we do not have a real choice.

[b]
If I approach you in dirty, raggedy clothes, and I say to you, "Hey, my friend is a quadtrillionare. He wants you to give me $4,000 dollars now, and he will pay you back 4 million dollars a year from now. If you don't give it to me, then he is going to give you the oogely virus and you ...[text shortened]... parency in exchange.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=12512&page=3[/b]

Why doesn't the rich friend give the 4,000 to his friend himself? Why is it necessary from you?

So you would only give the 4,000 to the homeless man if you were gunna get 4,000,000 in return? So in other words, the rich man (for unknown reasons) is offering you a selfish deal and you have a choice between being selfish or dying? You're right, those choices suck.

The analogy is poor.

God created us all out of love (reason the rich man lacked). He is the source of all happiness and joy. We have the choice to love Him in return and experience untold happiness and joy in an eternal life or we have the choice to deny His love and be seperate from Him for eternity.

How is that not a choice?

Sure there are, just not xtian ones. Kidding. Yes, there are even xtian ones, but it does not follow that xtianity is reasonable.

So even though they are more intelligent, and aren't insane, it doesn't follow that they've used their superior intellect to determine that Christianity is more rational than atheism? I don't follow you.

It doesn't matter if JC was doing a striptease; the god of the OT is cruel and sadistic, by any reasonable standard of morality. In fact, he would rank right up there with Hitler and Stalin.

Is the God of the OT REALLY cruel? Or is He enforcing justice directly rather than through Jesus Christ? You see, since God's moral compass is above and beyond our own, we may not understand some of the actions He took, but since we know He is all good and all just, we have to realize it was for the best. Again, how we 'feel' about His actions doesn't make them right or wrong.

No. It is not the ability to be. According to Merriam-Webster, it is defined as being "present in all places at all times."

Yep. He does that.

Why not? So far you've only said that he chooses not to be there. I'm saying that if he really is omnipresent, then your conception of Hell as a place apart from God cannot be true.

Hell is a state of mind. Not a place. It's a state of being seperated entirely from God. It's not like you enter a door and you're in hell.

No. Being in Hell is not a logical inconsistency like the rock lifting bit. Something can be in Hell. According to you millions of things are in Hell.
Also according to you God cannot be in Hell, thus God cannot be present in all places at all times. Just give it up already. You still ahve lots of other omni's to enjoy.

God cannot be seperate from God. That's a logical inconsistency.

Oh you mean like when he was near Satan in the book of Job?

Presumably Satan hadn't been cast out of Heaven yet. Perhaps God still thought he would repent.

Or like Jesus was all around sin when he came to earth?

Jesus was fully God and yet fully human. The human part of him could stand the sin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok let's skip over some of your post. I will not banter with your insipid false humility.

I'm sorry I don't fit into your definition of humility.

No 'non sequitur' was the phrase you were supposed to learn from no1.

Nah, I like hubris better.

The difference is I don't parrot Darwin or accept anything Darwin said without critical thought. Oh BTW have you read his latest book, The Case for Ripping Off Ignorant Xtians?

Quit insulting my intelligence please. I am not parroting anyone. It's just there aren't many ways to share the Truth.

Hey the proof is in the pudding. God tried to make something good, and he screwed up. You make a wonderful Johnny Cochrane for Christ.

Haha. Your hubris is insane. OK, tel. Make a better universe for us. Same test I gave rwing.

This is the manaically sadistic kind of ranting Pawnokeyhole highlighted.
I know it really breaks your heart. *)

We have radically different definitions of sadistic.

Your god doesn't exist. Do you want Thor? Do you want Zeus? How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Non sequitir. Those other three have NO evidence they exist.

You either didn't read or didn't understand my post about the rich friend.

It was a poor analogy. I expect better from you.

Oh did I burst your bubble. So sorry. Keep dreaming evil dreams.

Your arrogance is making me gag.

Repetitious display of willful ignorance. What can I say that I haven't already?

Uh, how about "Sorry God, it turns out you ARE smarter than me. I'll put my trust in you, my Creator, rather than my own finite abilities."

Well at least you admit that every nonbeliever is the same as Hitler to you. I appreciate your honesty, however disgusting.

Not the same to me. The same to God. If you sin once you're as bad as Hitler in His eyes. But only if you do not ask for forgiveness. Because then you place yourself on a pedastal above Him.

I did. Your silly god was the first victim of intellectual honesty.

Intellectual honesty? Right, Mr. "Everything came from Nothing".