But that’s not what’s happening here. Here you have wide range of people, from devoutly religious to mildly observant to militant atheist, all mocking your arguments.
Many atheists do love to mock Christians, just as many Christians like to feel oppressed and persecuted for what they believe in. It’s one of the great symbiotic relationships of nature.
I don’t want to make assumptions, but my interpretation of this analogy is that God has the right to treat humans as he wishes, without moral restrictions, because he created them. All joking aside, you are despicable if you believe that.
There is no spiritual reality.
The morality presented in the bible is evil by modern standards. It supports slavery, bigotry and women marrying their rapists.
You keep jumping topics. Is that because you can’t face the reality that you have no answers?
Christian values, ladies and gentlemen.
Way better than secular humanism or those moral relativistic atheists!
Ah. Spiritual reality - of course. :rolleyes:
You’ll be good enough to point out where I advocated for such a thing.
Real irony? No, and as has been said before, you haven’t provided any basis be sarcastic on this thread. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s time to stick a fork in your empty rhetoric.
Oh, and first, I’m NOT an atheist 
and second, skepticism is NOT a belief (or a “non-belief” for that matter),
and third, THEREFORE, you do not get to put anyone of a skeptical bent through your incredibly silly “mock” trials.
BTW, clever one, little girls are not pottery. :rolleyes:
Define a “spiritual reality.” AFAIK there is no such a thing.
Because, ultimately, it is. As is yours or any one else’s. No such thing as objective morality.
I agree.
GEEPERS, how are those cites on genetics and immunology coming?
Well, according to your very own playbook, humans know right and wrong because they ate of the tree of knowledge which gave them the same insight into these things as god’s. Right is right and wrong is wrong - it doesn’t matter who performs a wrong action, it’s still wrong. The same rules and morality must apply to god. Even if he’s wiser, thinks more long term, is more powerful and so forth, basic rules of ethics don’t cease to apply.
Unless you’re positing god is like Nixon ? If it’s the Father doing it, it can’t be illegal ?
Try reading through some of the archived articles at http://new.exchristian.net/ some time. These people spent many years seeking, praying, believing, you name it.
So, I’d like to mention that several posters pointed out that the OP’s comment about, “BTW, if I’m the potter and I smash my pottery piece and start over, does that make me evil?” is in fact evil, if the pots can suffer and are sentient.
The OP surely doesn’t have an answer for that, so what he or she is going to do is ignore it. There will be zero feedback, and she or he will simply change the subject.
This does two things. First it allows the OP to pretend that the troubling question never happened. This allows the OP to create the mental illusion in his or her own mind that those pesky atheists can’t lay a glove on him or her. Second, it creates the impression that the OP has dealt with the issue, to someone who is skimming the thread.
This doesn’t seem like something someone who is interested in a fair debate would do.
Of course, since it was phrased as a question, GEEPERS doesn’t have to face the possibility that he/she might actually believe that God’s vindictive capricious cruelty is somehow warranted. If GEEPERS has any humanity left that hasn’t been corrupted by the tyrant-worship and mental enslavement, that scrap of compassion and moral clarity would revolt at the prospect that “God’s making omelets, so he’s gotta break a few eggs” when the reality would mean those eggs were young, frightened, flesh and blood children, hot tears streaming down their cheeks as they watched the “holy men” drove knives and swords through their mothers’ stomachs and necks. Then to see the raider’s hungry zealous gaze turn to them.
But GEEPERS doesn’t have to defend that, and won’t, because there’s some tiny little voice inside that’s screaming to him/her that it’s WRONG. IT’S WRONG BECAUSE IT’S WRONG, NO MATTER WHO SANCTIONED IT. NO MATTER WHAT PURPOSE. I believe that voice exists, no matter how deeply it’s buried.
Again, none of us are “on trial” in the silly kangaroo court you are imagining. :rolleyes:
Along those lines, Kobal, there’s even more embarrassment for our enlightened OP, who doesn’t seem to have read his book very much.
It clearly says in the so-called “New Testament” that everyone
is born with a conscience, not just true-believers. (The supposed point is that everyone is without excuse. A real-world counter is the case of sociopaths.)
So GEEPERS is simply wrong to conclude that outsiders to his belief-system are clueless about morality and ethics.
There’s plenty more to show him up regarding whether an “amputee” could not or should not be healed.
And on the subject of vegetarianism, there are at least two countering statements, if not many more, to knock him over the head with, if not many more.
Maybe a pit thread is needed.
Last chance: knock it off. This is obnoxious and it’s more of an attack on GEEPERS than an argument.
You’re the one who set yourself up as judge and jury of God. He doesn’t match your idea of morality so therefore God must not exist! That’s a pretty big assumption.
Wouldn’t do anything unless you need to vent.
Meanwhile OP, as I asked a few dozen posts up or so, what exactly is the subject you wish to debate here? Theism vs. Atheism, whether or not your sect of Christianity has a coherent theology within the context of theology in general, how the War on Christians is faring in the United States of America?
Where are the cites proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist?
And when did he make that claim?
Provide cites proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Odin, Space-Ninjas and Superman do not exist.
Are you able to understand why that’s silly?
I’d like to note that I was correct, and Geepers has no attention of answering questions.
He or she is unwilling to challenge his or her beliefs.
What does that have to do with your argument? I haven’t asserted beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn’t exist, and I haven’t asserted that I have proof of it. You’ve made a series of claims that ought to be citeable if they’re true. You’re the one with the thesis here. Why can’t you be bothered to back up what you’re saying?