If you were God....

I don't hold the belief that such a place exists, also that was not funny if it was meant to be.

 

Further more, a being that created all time and space would not need the worship of a fraction of the population, on a tiny planet, in a not so unique solar system.

However, "the word of god", is the word of man. A book written by man and will therefore reflect mans desires; power.

 

I understand all that "all powerful" thing. Funny though is that those that can't fathom why God does what he does as an all powerful, opnipitant, all knowing being, thinks they know more than God and can judge Him as a toddle judges his parents for not allowing him to eat candy all day long.

I was asking the questions going off what the current laws of gavity and current natural behaviors are like of humans. But essentially you will take away what makes us humans and turn us back into primates who only have sex to procreate.

 

Again parents/battle orders are not equivalent to having complete faith in an omniscient and omnipotence being. No real world example you could possibly use could equate to such a being.

Why, because I do not need or believe in such, you are pretty much presenting a boiled down pascals wager with that question. I find my life too valuable to waste my time worshiping a being I don't believe in.

But we are referring to God, such a being does not been plate tectonics that create earthquakes to deal with replenishment. They are only evil if caused by a being creating unnecessary suffering.

As I have noted multiple times, your comparisons between atheists and theists are off. The faults are far from the same.

 

As an atheist, I could take a stab at that, and probably be soundly corrected...but I assume it has to do with choice (free will) was created, with the unlocking of the tree of knowledge (original sin) and choice, via that created free will is the same requirement to get back to that paradise, and, only through the son...as the fathers end of the choice/free will, pact with man.

 

No, I do not think such a being exists. I can observe the world I live in, a being that had the characteristics of omnibenevolance, omniscience, and omnipotence is not compatible with that world.

The we can't judge the actions of God is a cop out, if suddenly a horde of angles appears and starts raping women, I would judge that. We have the cognitive capacity to make judgement, we can reason and see the consequences of actions. I am not simply going to see a new disease rip through a country making people suffer a painful death and say 'God must have a reason'.

How do you come to that conclusion, how would a longer gestation period or only certain times of fertility take away the pleasure of sex. It does not. God is a being that would have the power to easily handle such a problem.

 

Well on that I would get into the absurdity to punish many generations of people for the actions of two, but that would be getting pretty far off topic.

 

Faith does not invalidate the fact that we are human. That our knowledge is complete. That our actions are perfect.

The difference is that Christians, real ones, make a good old fashioned attempt to follow what we know is right to publically held standards.

Atheists? Just use double standards to hide the fact that they have none.

Indeed, where is you definition of God's powers and intents listed from? No religion I know. If indeed, as my religion teaches, life is but an evaluation a chance to learn the truth of wisdom, then the silly boundaries you place upon God are simply absurd abstracts born from ... nothing.

Indeed, what is the point of jumping into a flame bait thread to tell us what YOUR opinion, and opinion grounded in none of our publically available doctrine (or anyones mind you), to basically call everyone with a different faith than you insane?

Seem pretty intolerant to me.

Then there is science. We know over the aggregate, backed by science, that many natural disasters have tremendous long term benefit. Fires replenish the soil, floods slit the land, earth quakes and volcanos add minerals and other necessities to the land scape to make it productive. Indeed without these processes life would not be as rich and diverse as it is, and possibly not even here.

And we, in our collective values, appreciate bio-diversity, having enough food and bounty to have ... civilizations.

Yet you have assigned evil to this process ... why? So you can tell Christians that they are evil?

People die brother. You will die. I will die. Plants die. Animals die. Etc. And if referrenced our actual beliefs, rather than harangued us with misnomers and opinions based on ... nothing, you would know that at the end of your life, you will be examined. Your life taken into account.

You could die in a car accident tomorrow. No evil involved, a simple slip at the wheel and ... bang, you are dead.

And what then?

We know that running around with harsh generalizations of people and dismissing them as insane is about as mean spirited as it gets. Its just simple trolling.

Do you really want the bottom line, indeed your purpose here on Earth to be, "Yep, I was a mean spirited troll who enjoyed calling people who had a different opinion of me insane!"

Well, that may not be evil, but it is certainly a waste.

 

First: You say the "starving AIDS" kid when i didn't put those together. Starving, suffering, learn kindness and generousity, AIDS learn lesson: No sin. If you wanted to bring up starving kids with AIDS that's completely different. Once again, still learning (Kindness, understanding, giving, the importance of sharing.

Second: If someone dies from something, then that's good too. They go to heaven to be with God if they were good, and if they were not then they go to Hell. Simple. Those who learned from the disease they got, probably go to Heaven. Kids, I consider guiltless, and I think that God would say the same, so they are probably in Heaven. Happy for the rest of forever. Wonderful. much better than the situation they were in before. Sad how they died, but like I said before: They've learned to be generous and kind.

Why learn? Because it makes you a better person. If you don't want to be a better person that's fine with me. you may as well not bother getting onto a political forum where learning is kind of important.

 

I assume you meant incomplete and not perfect. A true believer would fall in step whenever they thought about a decision.

Yes I quite aware of that, it is easy to see what they think is right being pushed publicly, just look at gay marriage.

This is incoherent, have none what.

To many any judgement about god you must have a description, those traits are based on the common conception of a monotheist god. Is it possible these traits are wrong, certainly, I find the idea of a malevolent god at least possible compared to the standard version. But it seems you can not recognize the characteristics typically associated with your god.

It is simply an interesting way to bring up the problem of evil, a long lasting problem with god, not flame bait. The problem of evil is not simply an opinion I drew up myself, it has been around since long before me and will continue to be long after me. But I am sure bringing up a long time philosophical argument about the nature of gods existence is just intolerant, really who would debate such things on a forum such as this right?

But they are necessary for a being like god. If we exclude god, then yes they are natural occurrences that have benefits. If god exists though he could have replenished the soil ect without causing pointless suffering to humanity. Having a divine creator throws a wrench in things.

Simply with a divine creator such unnecessary suffering is not compatible with its typical characteristics. Nor do I tell people they are evil because they are Christians. I simply say I think they are wrong in their conclusions. I do not hate people because I think they are wrong.

And what then? I would be dead. If I was wrong and one version of god I had no reason to think exists comes to judge me, then he will either tell me I lived a good an moral life and welcome me or he will punish me for some petty reason. If he would punish people for such reasons, I would not want anything to do with such a being anyway.

I was not, so I am not worried about that. Watch your insults though.

 

Unfortunately for you, we actually have a set of standards, and, in case you missed it, it tell us not to become slaves of God, but to acquire wisdom - to acknowledge context, situational influences, etc. in judgement.

Pretty much the exact opposite of what you say ... and why you say it? We have no idea other than you seem to have a very warped view of God.

Is that our fault?

Agh, so the Anglican Church must be the sane Christians and the Catholic Church must be the insane ones.

Or, basically we are now debating in ad hominem, as in, "I am right, and anyone who disgrees with me is insane!"

There are several thread about homosexuality and the legal/theological implications, pick one. They are reasonable. Well, at least until you fellow atheists start calling the Church's early fathers women hating homosexuals and pass that off as dialoge ....

Objective standards of weighing and judgement - you know, that science stuff.

Which would kinda rerquire you to read some kind of religious text about what is and is not claimed by God. There is nothing in our doctrine that says, "Do what I say slaves!" Quite the opposite brother.

This is not a common religious tenet, it is a common bit of atheist propoganda. Feel free to referrence the Bible if you disagree. Its public, it is not a secret.

No offense brother, but you can talk about evil and its origins without calling other people insane. That is pure flame bait.

Again, it is not a 'philosophical' arguement, its an atheist arguement. There is the philosophy of religion too you know?

What is necessary for God is out doctrine, not yours. Your opinion about what God claims from nothing but your imagination is simply not valid, unless you wish to discuss the premise itself.

Yet if this imagined premise of requirement of God is the basis of calling people insane? Well, that is pretty insane is it not?

Again, you do not need to question people's sanity to have a conversation about the powers and requirements of God.

Because you say so.

Its that freewill thing again. What we do here is temporary, it is eternity that matters to God. Again, whether we suffer or not down here is, in many cases the result of OUR choices, both individual and collective.

And yes, in extraordinary cases, God intervenes to end that suffering.

No, he tell you, "I sent Prophets, and you ignored them. I sent holy books that were free to read and published them everywhere imagineable, and you were too lazy to read them. I sent people of good an honest character to spread my message, and you called them insane. I set the word and the standards, and time and again they were shown to be the best method, and you turned away anyway. Brother here I am, and I am deeply disappointed in you."

Sorry brother, but running around calling people insane is trolling. If you thinkbeing alluded to a troll is insulting, what exactly do you think you are doing when you run around telling other people that they are crazy? Delusional? REquire medication? Evil? Stupid for not following God's exact words?

Again, why are harsh words inappropriate when directed at you, but perfectly fine when directed at others? Brother you are jumping into a flame bait thread and flaming people. You are not a victim.

 

Funny libs, arguing about something they don't believe can exist and claim others are wrong when they try to put themselves in the shoes of the being they don't believe is there. Enjoy your thread.

 

If god is already perfect, then doing as he says is always right. I say so because it is the logical conclusions.

I did not say they were insane for doing so, just wrong and it leads to unfortunate consequences for society.

Which makes no sense in such context, if you want to rip on atheism for double standards, at least come up with a coherent argument.

Did not claim there was, I claimed his description to commonly have the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. I have no idea where you are getting your wild "Do what I say slaves!" from.

Maybe if you actually read the entire sentence of what I wrote instead of focusing on the one word you would understand that is not the case.

Yes it is, it has been for a long time, it is one of the well know philosophical arguments against the existence of god (With X,Y, and Z attributes). In case you did not realize god is a major topic for philosophy. But just to back that up "In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
This is a problem commonly addressed in philosophy 101 classes.

If you do not think god has those three characteristics, then say so, if not then your argument about what god is and is not has no validity.

And as shown in many cases it is not due to choice but due to pointless suffering that god could prevent. Those are the cases important to the problem of evil, you keep focusing on the irrelevant cases.

Then he did such a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor job that so many on the (*)(*)(*)(*) planet can not agree about it (See all the competing religions that exist). Hell which religion most people are is simply a result of where they were born and raised. If god actually wanted to prove his existence he could very easily, that omnipotence thing. So no I would not feel bad if he said that, I would be disappointed in him.

I have said nothing to attack you or anyone else personally.

 

If by lib you mean libertarian, sure. I don't think that has much to do with it though, I think it has to do more with my position as an atheist.

Of course we argue about it, as neutral readily points out, people try to impose their will on others because they believe it is what this being wants. That makes its existence pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) important to everyone.

 

a recoil will occur (hence nuclear weapons)

but all that knowledge learned over time, will remain.

ie.... the last word does exist, all that is left is the fireworks show to clean up this taco stand.

human are why 'knowledge evolves'

that is how 'existence' itself is learning how it works

ie... mankind created 'words'

you forgot the new island in the pacific (floating trash about the size of texas)

i see your point, but i also comprehend mother nature (god itself) runs in cycles.


ie.... the dinosaurs are gone but life is still here

 

The problem is that being omnipotent, if you had a mind after which the human mind was modeled, would be kind of boring... especially with no external world to practive that omnipotence on. And omniscience would just ruin everything.
I like things like movies, books, games. If I was omniscient or omnipotent, none of these would have utility. My enjoyment of them depends on my flawed memory, my limited cognition, and my complete inability to predict the future with certainty.

Even writing, the act that makes me most sympathetic to God, is fun because I don't know exactly where I'm going until I get there. Omniscience would kill that
(and this brings up another question: does God actually have free will in any real sense if He is omniscient and omnipotent?)

But I guess if I ignore that problem, I would make the world more like a story, full of conflict. And I could still say I love the characters I kill off horribly in some way... but then, as a writer, I don't torture them for all time. They only exist until their part in the story ends.
Plus... I can't see God doing this. Writers write based on what they see in the world and the questions or concepts that pop into their heads as a result. Omniscience makes thought experiments useless and even if we ignore that, without anything around you other than what you create... what are you inspired by? And what makes the beings you create any more important than plot mechanisms?

 

I always hit a brick wall regarding speculation ideas of being a deity, what would I do, because I can't get past the absence of time factor as the deity.

As the deity I am ruled by nothing, confined by nothing, subject to nothing. The fortunate or unfortunate lesser beings receiving my blessings or my wrath are naturally governed by time, but me, as the God, performed all these actions at once, through the power of just "is" and it "is".

I couldn't even be bored, as that has a time element. Or, worse yet, since nothing can govern me, I can be bored if I grant time to govern me.

Brick walls..../ugh

 

I'd create a black hole next to the earth to put it out of its misery.

 

God is perfect, that does not make us perfect. Now, read up on Jesus and what he says is moral, and then tell us what makes no sense to follow?

Its quite logical I assure you. Denying it - not so much.

And you are logically wrong. Indeed, your premise rests neither on history (which Hitchens has done, albeit with what amounts to obvious lies of omission) nor on facts. It rests on the fact that Christians are as human as anyone else - but only they deserve to held to standards.

You are not a judge. Something does not make sense simply because you say so. Try using logical arguementation, rather than dictate, to show how it doe snot make sense.

Otherwise, its called a cop out - the unwillingness to address a salient point.

Agh, so tru believers are not compelled to blindly follow God and do indeed retain free will. They do remain subject to things like doubt, temptation, ignorance, and even honest mistakes.

Glad we got that out of the way.

More adhominem. First we are insane for disagreeing, and now we are too stupid to comprehend? This is an atheists idea of logic? Basically, sit back and insult people?

See that a lot in this section.

The problem of evil does not begin or end with religion, and it affects atheists as well. The explanation is in the Bible. Perhaps, as you claim the mantel of mastery of this process you could referrence any of the religious doctrine or philosophical doctrine about the nature of evil, its origins, and its effects?

And if I am the one reminding you that there is both atheistic and religious philiosophy, why do you need to remind me that God is a part of philosophy?

Does you arguement rest upon the presumption of inate superiority? That others who disagree with you are automatically dumber, less educated, and totally unaware of what they are saying? Only a fool would disagree with you? Or 97% of humanity at any rate.

Yep, they are described in the Bible, God also has these things called rules - and he follows them. Perhaps you shoudl referrence them, as it would answer a great many of your questions.

Indeed, its in the philosophy that you clearly think you know better than me, but are not actually quoting from or referrencing to back up your claims or indeed to define the three things you claim. Its just your opinion.

Yep, you claim pointless suffering. Yet, in the instances you describe, such as natural disaster, there is choice, and the long term process is definitively beneficial. Additionally, I would hope that you are not just using standard jingoistic arguementation to assume that anyone not Western is suffering.

Indeed, suffering a major component of Buddhism and atheists praise that left and right.

I focus on th ecases you bring, which are suddenly irrelevant?

THis is why not having a doctrine should be profoundly troubling to atheism - it just makes atheism whatever the hell anyone wants it to be - which is why most theologians classify atheism as self worship.

And now you claim to judge God? The fact that the Abrahamic religions mostly agree is beyond your ability to comprehend? The fact that I, indeed many, have found this bond of faith and mutual respect to be an enormous bond and basis of trust?

God does not want to prove his existence either, which you would know if you actually referrenced out teachings. The whole point of this is to see the truth of his wisdom absent God, to learn and grow, and rejoin him in eternity where you will KNOW him in reality.

Basically, for atheists, there can be no God unless he shows up and punches you in the head. Got it. God isn't going to do that. Please notice that these demands for proof are all person, all demand that God come and serve you.

You don't get it, God commands us to serve others, as he does. If you desire proof of God, go find it. Pray to him and ask him for proof. You will get it. It will come at the time place and manner of his choosing, but it will come.

Brother, when you jump into a thread that is calling people insane based merely on their beliefs, when there are alternative and respectful methods of engaging a topic, you are indeed insulting people.

Just as it is not necessary to discuss theological views of homosexuality by claiming that Saint Paul was a woman hating, homosexual. The intent of such antics is NOT debate.

 

If I were God I'd be in big (*)(*)(*)(*)ing troubles.

 

Lets say this a different way of looking at it. There are attempt to convince, as indeed there is in atheism, because we believe there is a God who loves and that this is a message and relationship worth sharing .... why atheists attempt to convince others that there is no God? Not sure in all honesty.

However, debate in such terms is about convincing - not enforcing will. There are way to enforce you will on others, often through force, and there is nothing on this side that wishes to force you - merely allow an informed decision in terms of purpose, creation, and God.

Ultimately, you cannot force a person to truley believe, you can only enforce compliance with rules. And that is not what God wants.

 

Not the point.
I know the teaching of Christianity, I was raised as a catholic. Even if I thought every value, other than worshiping god, was moral, that does not put any worth into Christianity. As none of those things require religion to follow, other than the loving god bits. Morality and God are independent as argued through the Euthyphro dilemma.

If you think what I wrote is only Christians need to be held to standards you should go read it again, as that is false.

It is based on the past and the present, religion has been a cause for much war and bloodshed in the past and present. It has stripped people of their rights and it has them wasting their lives in worship.

I can judge if argument argument is coherent, those are just accusations being blindly thrown around without reasons.

They are logically compelled to do so, not divinely forced to do so. That was another point though.

I get sick of writing the same thing because it was not read properly the first time. No where did I call anyone stupid, I just said go back and read it again, because you are not getting the proper meaning from it.

The problem of evil does in fact begin and end with god, specifically a god with the three characteristics mentioned. The argument is solely around god, without god the argument becomes void, without meaning. Way to go with attacking me as elitist instead of addressing the argument at all though.

Explain to me how any of those rules makes a difference in the problem of evil.

I sent you a link to the overview of the problem of evil, did you want me to quote a few paragraphs of it for you? I also references an argument by Socrates in this response (Euthyphro). If you read the first line of the link "In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism)." If you can not understand those words, go look them up, I already gave their basic definitions.

Already addressed that choice as being irrelevant to an omnipotent being, still leaving pointless suffering. People all around the world have suffering. I have no such praise for Buddhism, at best it is a lesser evil.

Freewill is not involved in the cases I am bringing up.

Well you would be wrong, atheism is the lack of belief in God, not self worship or any other nonsense they want to attack to it so that they can attach a negative context to it. A sad little method of attacking it. Atheism is and always has been the same.

Absolutely, as should everyone else, that we can not comprehend him is simply an excuse to why there is no (*)(*)(*)(*) justification for many of his actions. More specifically no excuse for his lack of actions. It is nothing more than a cop out.

If we go back to the hypothetical, then he would be punishing me for some petty reason. "If he would punish people for such reasons, I would not want anything to do with such a being anyway." If he cares to punish me over it then I already have my response, if not "he will either tell me I lived a good an moral life and welcome me".

As shown prophets and holy books do not make any difference.

Again you are over simplifying what I said to attack it, see straw man.

Attacking god or religion is not attacking anyone personally, you really need to come to realize that.

I would think the point of that was to show how immoral and hypocritical these "saints" by modern standards.

 

Because it is not simply an attempt to convince. It goes far beyond that into action. Action in government via laws/regulations. Action through violence. Action through discrimination. The actions caused by religion have a huge impact, so as I said that makes it a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) important topic to everyone.

Maybe that is your belief, but it is not the same of many of those you share the banner of "religious" with. They want to enforce rules because 'God says so'. As an example see Bachman's belief in Dominionism.

 

Let me get this straight, our doctrine, beliefs, teachings, have no value? And yes, they all require a God to follow. They all require something besides YOU to follow - because without it, you have zero accountability.

And this is not about morality - its about God. And your claim that following is the ONLY choice. People are STILL tempted, still weak, still make mistakes, still subjected to emotions, etc.

Yet, for some reason, only we spell out standards, and only we are accountable and crazy for not meeting them.

Something in that line of reasoning is decidedly out of whack.

Well, we ar ethe only ones crazy for being human. That is a pretty interesting standard.

So, you are talking about EVERYONE being held to standards, so, show me ONE war that was ONLY about religion? Show me a war that was devoid of politics? Territorial ambition? Ideological zeal? Profit? resources? And a whole host of other ideas.

Then explain to us all how atheism gets a free pass with the purges and North Korean aggression? The Paris communes?

What is the standard again?

So can a lot of people, what makes you the arbitor?

If only we were vuclans and not humans ....

Agh, so the problem is that you will just keep saying the same think, not support it, and then get pissy when people still disagree with you?

How is that our fault?

That is interesting, because while blowing off our doctrine completely for God, you say all the good things are fine and dandy, and don't require god,
but the bad things only, well, they require God.

Interestingly enough, most religious people see it exactly the opposite.

Additionally, the fact that you say 'those three things' does not demonstrate how they are possible. Instead, you are, again (and boy am I tired of repeating myself) you are asking a bunch of people with a doctrine on God and his commands to accept your ill defined and unexplained definition of Gods powers ... well, we are not insane now - just evil.

Really?

They are one side of choice. God shows the way and we choose to follow or not. When we choose not to, well, the proof is in the pudding in both directions.

Go ahead, cheat on your wife. See how that goes for you. People do it. Loads even justify and rationalize it. Still a sin, still leads to nothing but bad things.

No, I would like you to acknowledge that the problem of evil has been around for a long time and the Wikipedia is not YOUR arguement. Would you like me to quote the Bible for you?

Or would you like me to quote the Bible for you and then tell you that you have to believe it? Use it for definitions for everything - including your beliefs?

And every example you provided was not pointless suffering were they. Once again, what made you sole arbiter and judge?

Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote. We know how plate tectonics works, we know that living on a fault line you will eventually have to dea with earthquakes, and we even design our buildings to withstand these things. However, every once in a while bad things happen - and we know it, and choose to risk the odds to live in a nice environment.

How is that not choice? Or does the fact that we are not in control of everything, the acknoelegdemnet that we are not God, mean we have no freewill?

Oh, I am sure this is my first debate and have never seen an atheist change their thoughts and direction on what atheism is .... ever. I mean, I don;t see this (nor indeed you using the same arguement).

http://www.atheists.org/religion

Look how evil religion is!

http://www.atheists.org/military

See how brave we are for fighting in the wars that ONLY religion starts! Yeah!

And then there is Love, compassion, etc. Tell me how that fits into, "Only a belief in one God?" And why atheists only talk about it to say, "Well, we don;t need God for that! (But we'll only talk about it when Christians tell us how important it is - I mean it is so important to atheists that they can't put the concept anywhere in their doctrine.).

http://www.atheists.org/atheism

PLease see teh atheistic focus on knoweldge, which contrasts sharply with the religious focus on wisdom.

But of course, like all atheists, when pessed, only YOU can define what atheism is and is not? Even as you advance and indeed preach the exact same things.

No, being too lazy to look for an answer would be a cop out. Most of what God does is explanable, and in the age of the interent, pretty damb easily.

That my freind is the cop out - like the total failure to referrence anything from our point of view, even as you reject it.

Like most atheists, I see the same thing, the claim to expertise, and yet, in the next breadth, to anyone familiar with it, the claim that most in incomprehensible? Interesting.

Why now should your lie be forgiven? Why should your slights? Failures, etc? Tell me, what makes you such a good man? When you country called were you quick to defend her? Are you more charitable than mother theresa? What brother makes you so Good? What frees you from sin, from one who sees all?

Sin is the wage of death, but who choose to simply ignore your own and point out everyone else's. I see no compassion (despite the claim that you don;t need God for it), and no forgiveness for anyone but you (despite teh claim that you do not need God for it).

If only you would acknowledge why we are here.

And yet, when I said, "atheists define their beliefs by trolling," you took it personally for some reason.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with something called Bible abuse. I will assure you it is quite personal. There is a difference between criticism and attacking - and, as you aptly claimed, people know the difference when they see it.

Yes, we should ignore context entirely to scoff with perfect hndsight and centuries of gained knowledge. That seems logical.

 

Because people only do good by the threat of God's judgement? Try again.

You are the one that wants to be a true believer in an omnibenevolent and omniscient being. Others can certainly have standards, but those standards are completely different in their justification.

Also I am just going to start cutting out parts that I have already responded to instead of continually typing "Read it again, that is not what I have stated".

Religion is a large contributing factor, life is not that simplistic that getting rid of one thing solves problems, it would certainly help though. I said it has been a cause and it has, I did not say that there have not been other causes.

Religion has major effects on society that effect everyone, that is undeniable, and it is why atheists will and do care about religion.

I did support it, far more than any support you have given for your positions.

Wrong, bad things do not require God. As a matter of fact I think both good and bad things exist perfectly fine without God. It is when they are combined with the existence of God the problem arises.

They are defined in the dictionary, read it, they have been around for a long time. They are the three traits commonly associated with god. Its not my problem if you refuse to learn the terminology associated with divinity.

As I thought, that has nothing to do with the problem of evil. It is the freewill that I have already excluded for its irrelevance.

Already said that. I am using that argument as many others have in debate. If you can quote the bible to counter the argument go right ahead. I know of nothing in the bible that resolves this problem.

You should believe things that are logically sound, you seem to think that believing things for no (*)(*)(*)(*) reason (faith) is just dandy. Try a higher standard.

Great you can pull up one atheists organizations thoughts on religion and the military congrats.

"What is Atheism?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

A long definition of what I just said before, taken right from your link. No it is not just me defining it, that is the definition whether you like it or not. It is, has been, and will likely continue to be a "lack of belief in god".

Good, then explain it and stop complaining that we have no hope of being able to judge the actions of God.

I have no need to give my life story to you, I have been a good person, that is all I need to say. You know nothing of me, that is why you see nothing. Nor do I want to divulge such information to you.

Either God is a malevolent petty being that would punish over little or he is not. Either way I have no worries.

Try again to quote you:
"You could die in a car accident tomorrow. No evil involved, a simple slip at the wheel and ... bang, you are dead.

And what then?

We know that running around with harsh generalizations of people and dismissing them as insane is about as mean spirited as it gets. Its just simple trolling.

Do you really want the bottom line, indeed your purpose here on Earth to be, "Yep, I was a mean spirited troll who enjoyed calling people who had a different opinion of me insane!"

Well, that may not be evil, but it is certainly a waste."

You were not speaking about atheism or atheists.

I do not particularly care if you think attacking the bible is attacking you personally, it is not (At least by the standards of this forum).