Why are we here?

[SteveII]

This is such bullshit.  Nothing I have done in my life warrants eternal torture.  Period.  That you're so okay with it speaks volumes about your own character.  The whole setup is one of extortion.  "Well, you can either have a relationship with me, or suffer for eternity.  It's your choice."  Except, it's not really a fair choice, is it?  It's a wholly despicable system, with god as the tyrant at the top.  Fuck him.


Blah blah blah.  Lots of words saying nothing of value.  "I believe that god is right before considering the evidence, and in the face of such evidence I simply point to its mysterious ways as a way to wave away the contradictions."  Your version of apologetics is really quite hilarious since it merely only reinforces all of the stereotypes with your regurgitation of tired fallacies and talking points.

Your dislike of the system is noted. Of course calling a doctrine or other beliefs "tired fallacies and talking points" is hardly good argumentation.

Regarding this subject, I found a blog post from WLC answering your same questions (almost word for word):

P2: A perfectly good being would not torture anyone for any period whatever, however brief. The word “torture” is pejorative; the question is whether a perfectly good being would punish someone for any period of time. The answer is, of course, he would! Otherwise he wouldn’t be perfectly good, for he would not be perfectly just.

P3 A just being wouldn’t punish someone eternally for the sins committed during a brief lifetime but would proportion the punishment to the offense. I answered this in the debate itself. The brevity of time it took to commit the crime is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the crime that matters. Punishment should be apportioned to the seriousness of the crime. I suggested that even if God does allot a finite punishment for every sin, still, since the denizens of hell continue to hate and reject God, they continue to sin and so accrue to themselves more punishment, so that both sinning and the punishment go on forever. Alternatively, the sin of rejecting God Himself is a sin of infinite gravity and proportion and so plausibly merits an infinite punishment.

P4 A righteous being would not punish someone eternally for unavoidable lack of belief. I agree; but unbelief is always avoidable. God has given a general revelation of Himself in the world, and by His Holy Spirit He seeks to draw all persons to salvation. He judges people based on their response to the light that they have. The Bible says that all men are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, since unbelief is not due to lack of information but to a perverse will which suppresses the truth (Romans 1.19-21).

P5 A merciful being would not be eternally unforgiving to those who have offended it. Suppose pardon is offered but refused. Where does the fault lie? The offended party has a forgiving attitude but the perpetrator refuses reconciliation. Even the inhabitants of hell persist in their hatred and rejection of God. So God is forgiving, but His pardon is null and void if rejected. If people reject Christ’s payment for their sins, the only person left to pay the penalty for sin is oneself.

P6 A loving being would not bring about and perpetuate the suffering of those it loves. This is obviously false. Do parents hate their children when they inflict painful discipline on them? Do judges and juries hate the defendants when they pronounce them guilty and sentence them to prison and even to death? That is absurd. Of course one can love the guilty party deserving of punishment!

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/bradley-o...z3f8sdrMwJ

[KevinM1]

Once again, argument from ignorance.  "You don't know everything that god is capable of - its strength, its wisdom, etc. - so you cannot possibly say its immoral."  That's a fallacy.  The only evidence I can go on is what's presented in the bible.  The bible is chock full of examples of god acting deliberately immoral.  Christianity itself is predicated on this immorality.  Jesus' sacrifice was in answer to original sin, which is literally humanity being held accountable for the sin of the mother.  The bible keeps asserting that god is good, in totality, but its actions belie that claim.  That's why I continue to scoff.  You point to the baseless assertions while I point to the logical inconsistencies and evidential contradictions to those claims.

Put another way: god's actions, as described in the bible, are more important than the mindless, repetitious lip service it's given.  The god of your bible acts cruelly, it acts illogically, it acts in a manner that completely undermines how those actions are characterized, and call into question its ability to be those things the authors so clearly want it to be.  You're right in that I cannot claim to know everything about god's intentions or long term plan.  I can only go with what I do know, which is that the god in your bible, based on its purported actions, is immoral and not worth worshiping.  Continuing to put your fingers in your ears, going "la la la, infinite being with mysterious ways" doesn't actually address the point.  

Analogy: if I see someone mercilessly beating on their kids, all of the "But he's really a loving father" claims in the world won't make those beatings right, nor will they sway my opinion of them.  Now amplify that to a being that cursed a species due to the actions of a mere two, committed genocide several times, and a host of other heinous acts.  Saying, "Well, you're not in a position to judge" isn't really accurate.  I don't need to hold out for more info to know that it's evil, at least in part.

Furthermore, god's omnipotence and omniscience put to question why it acts in such violent, wasteful ways.  I'm a programmer.  I look at things through that lens a lot of the time.  A big part of my job is creating an environment that gracefully handles errors while continuing to work.  God's answer to something that doesn't fit the program (heh)?  Throw the computer out the window, go outside, douse it in gasoline, and light it on fire, all while looking at the neighbors and yelling "LET THAT BE A LESSON TO THE REST OF YOU!"  A being that wise, that powerful could certainly devise a better system than one that uses people as grist for the mill.

And that's where your continued arguments from ignorance hurts your cause.  Well, one of several places.  It's not that, as a finite being, I can't grasp god's actual intentions or actions.  It's that I, as a finite being, shouldn't be seeing all of these obvious flaws.  The best solutions to most problems are elegant, to the point of being almost self-evident.  God's system?  Crude and wasteful.  Billions of people put to the fire every year.  And from a being that apparently wants a relationship from us, but is so very angry that we don't do it all on its terms.

The whole thing is a cruel joke.  I'm so very happy it's not real.

---

Your list of attributes are cute, but for each one that has biblical support, I can point to another part of scripture that contradicts it.  So, it's ultimately meaningless.  Also keep in mind, I grew up Catholic.  I know what your god is supposed to be.  I know the mainstream narrative that's bandied about.  It's just not accurate to the bible itself.  Furthermore, even if it was, that wouldn't be evidence towards its existence.  It would just be a clearer definition to work from.

And the reason why I keep bringing up the (non) existence of your god is that everything you write is based on the idea that it does exist.  Which is definitely something that's not agreed on.  So, for me, I'm attempting to poke holes in the cult of personality the myths propagate by pointing out the conflicts and inconsistencies.

In other words, your stance, from what I gather, is an apologetic one.  God exists, you atheists are wrong in your accusations against it, and here's my defense.
My stance is your god doesn't exist based on a certain set of reasons, and even if it did I wouldn't worship it for a separate but related set of reasons.

[KevinM1]

Regarding this subject, I found a blog post from WLC answering your same questions (almost word for word):

WLC, lmao.

P2: A perfectly good being would not torture anyone for any period whatever, however brief. The word “torture” is pejorative; the question is whether a perfectly good being would punish someone for any period of time. The answer is, of course, he would! Otherwise he wouldn’t be perfectly good, for he would not be perfectly just.

Of course torture is pejorative.  What else would you call sending someone down to a furnace of fire where the person will be tormented with fire and brimstone?  Words taken directly from your bible.

P3 A just being wouldn’t punish someone eternally for the sins committed during a brief lifetime but would proportion the punishment to the offense. I answered this in the debate itself. The brevity of time it took to commit the crime is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the crime that matters. Punishment should be apportioned to the seriousness of the crime. I suggested that even if God does allot a finite punishment for every sin, still, since the denizens of hell continue to hate and reject God, they continue to sin and so accrue to themselves more punishment, so that both sinning and the punishment go on forever. Alternatively, the sin of rejecting God Himself is a sin of infinite gravity and proportion and so plausibly merits an infinite punishment.

Since we're finite beings, any crimes we commit are finite in seriousness by definition.  Eternal punishment for finite crimes is immoral.

P4 A righteous being would not punish someone eternally for unavoidable lack of belief. I agree; but unbelief is always avoidable. God has given a general revelation of Himself in the world, and by His Holy Spirit He seeks to draw all persons to salvation. He judges people based on their response to the light that they have. The Bible says that all men are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, since unbelief is not due to lack of information but to a perverse will which suppresses the truth (Romans 1.19-21).

This relies on the premise that your god is the truth.  Unbelievers don't want to suppress the truth.  We simply are not convinced that your god is the truth.  That's a far cry different than how he/the bible characterizes it.  Perverse will.  LMAO, talk about pejorative terms.

P5 A merciful being would not be eternally unforgiving to those who have offended it. Suppose pardon is offered but refused. Where does the fault lie? The offended party has a forgiving attitude but the perpetrator refuses reconciliation. Even the inhabitants of hell persist in their hatred and rejection of God. So God is forgiving, but His pardon is null and void if rejected. If people reject Christ’s payment for their sins, the only person left to pay the penalty for sin is oneself.

A bit of a strawman.  The inhabitants in hell persist in their hatred and rejection of god because god deemed that the only punishment fitting unbelief is eternal torture.  And that torture never, ever lets up, so the denizens in hell are never offered a pardon.  Torture is an incredibly poor mechanism to employ when you want to bring people willingly into your eternal love.  A smarter god would know that.

P6 A loving being would not bring about and perpetuate the suffering of those it loves. This is obviously false. Do parents hate their children when they inflict painful discipline on them? Do judges and juries hate the defendants when they pronounce them guilty and sentence them to prison and even to death? That is absurd. Of course one can love the guilty party deserving of punishment!

Those punishments, with exception to the death penalty (which, not coincidentally, is quickly losing popularity in civilized, educated countries) are all finite.  Furthermore, it's not a matter of pain, but injury.  A spanking is a hell (heh) of a lot different than being placed in a furnace, and prisoners are still afforded their human rights.  Their punishment comes from being separated from society, not in beatings.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/bradley-o...z3f8sdrMwJ

If what you posted is any indication, I really don't need to.  A bunch of crap that only assuages those believers who are beginning to doubt themselves.  Nothing even remotely compelling to those of us who know better.

[Ravenshire]

This stinky little turd gets a little smellier every time it pops up. No. Just, no. Nobody sends themselves to hell. They are (according to your iron age book of voodoo) judged by gawd. If your gawd finds them unworthy then he casts them into hell.

So if you commit a crime and are sentenced to prison, who is responsible for you being in prison? The judge/jury? No, you are. I know it's not in vogue right now, but there is such a thing as personal responsibility.

Crime. Key word there. Sin is not the same as crime. If I murder, I expect to be punished for it (if I fail to get away with it). If I whack off, that's a personal decision for which your gawd (yes, it is contempt) will punish me for eternity. I know you don't see the difference, but it's there and not seeing it is your greatest downfall

---

And have you judged every religion my these criteria?

I'm betting you haven't even judged your own pet belief since internal consistency is on your list.

Yes. What is not internally consistent? You do realize that there are millions of books on doctrine and theology hashing this all out. You are not pointing out anything that has not been asked and answered. Your problem is that you are looking at it from a perspective that God does not exist so all the finer points are BS and then since all the finer points are BS, conclude that Christianity has not answered these questions it needs to answer so God does not exist.

You've judged every religion by your criteria and found all but one lacking? Bullshit.

Your own religion is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. If you truly examined it, you'd see it.

And would you christers stop with the bullshit claim that we look "at it from a perspective that God does not exist." I do not claim there is no god. Nor do most atheists, yet you faithers (in general) just love to misrepresent us. Dishonest much?

---

Why would I be interested in a dialog with someone BOTH childish and contemptuous?

Then don't dialog with me. No skin off my ass. Just know that I'll still call out your bullshit wherever I see it though.