Jesse

Lets grant for a second that god and heaven are real and St. Peter is the bouncer at the pearly gates. Now, if you're St. Peter, you spend your life serving Jesus, spreading the word, and you're eventually upside down crucified for your trouble. You get to heaven (which one assumes was getting along fine somehow without a bouncer) and God tells you you're going to have to stand at the gate for the rest of eternity, and, most of the time, give people the bad news that they're going to hell for sins like taking the lord's name in vain and being a Hindu. Do you think St. Peter ever regrets his decisions? What kind of heaven is it where the most saintly of all saints has to work all the time? And could you Christians take a moment out of your day to ask god if he could give old Pete a day off every so often? I understand you guys are in good with him.

It seems to me (and anyone who reads the bible with even the slightest degree of criticality) that your god is jealous, petty, vengeful, grossly ignorant of the universe he "created", and prone to callous theatricality with humans, who he treats as his pawns. Why would a supreme being be this way, and why would you worship him? Doesn't that encourage this bad behavior?

Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim.

If so, I can see why people just call him Muhammad. But does that mean Muhammad is a middle name, and his first name is Abu? Or Abu al-Qasim? How does this name work?

Supposedly, when god made the universe, he was setting the ball in motion in a way that every single thing that happens is predictable to him and within his will. This is not surprising, being that god is supposed to be an omnipotent and omnipresent being. How does this allow for free will? And how is god not responsible for bad outcomes in reality?

God is said to have created the universe for his own pleasure. If god's only pastime seems to be pleasuring himself, on what grounds can he condemn masturbation?

"In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Do you share St. Thomas' view? In what way is this belief not disgusting? Could we call a god that would create this situation just and merciful? Could we call such a god an evil monster?

Well, for starters I don't know a ton about computers. I need one to do the standard web surfing, videos and what not. I'm not a big gamer, but I'd like to have the option to occasionally run rts games and the like adequately. I don't play online, so I understand that takes less memory (or something. Like I said, I'm out of my depth with this tech stuff). I'd like to have a lot of storage. A terabyte would be nice. I've got a pretty old one right now, and I'd like it not to have any of the loading problems this one has (websites slow, videos skippy, etc.). I'm looking for just a tower. What would you recommend, and how much would what I'm describing cost?

Thank you for your answers.

I'd like to know which debate on religion you find the most compelling. Preferably, include a link to a youtube video of said debate.

I'll include one of my own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKJ92b9Y04

This features Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, David Wolpe, and Bradley Artson Shavit debating the existence of the afterlife. Harris is sharp, Hitchens is... well, Hitchens, and Wolpe and Shavit make it a contest. It's a fine way to burn an hour and a half if so inclined.

Thank you in advance for submissions.

The traditional line on God's failure in the creation story is that he gave Adam and Eve free will, so he's not responsible for what happened. Now imagine god running the simulations for his creation, which are no doubt perfect given certain inputs. If you have a simulation with free will, it would come up with Adam and Eve eating the apple 100% of the time. That's not how free will works. Or maybe the simulation would say Adam and Eve would eat the apple 50% of the time. That's not how omniscience works. So, which one doesn't exist, God's omniscience, or free will?

Or is that just tonight?

I asked this question a little while ago, the most common answer was never. Given the votes in Colorado and Washington, does anyone see fit to revise up their number?

when evidence around them proves he is anything but?

Chris wrote this on a question earlier, and I think it brings up an interesting point. "There is no proof, that's kind of the point: Faith. If there were daily tours of Hell there wouldn't be a non-believer on the planet." The question that arises from this interesting point is, why doesn't he, then?

Let me give you an example: What if the legal system had no apparent presence in the world, except for a book where the banned behavior was codified. You never see police officers, you never see prisons, and any time a person is punished for one of these crimes, it is indistinguishable from dumb luck to an outside observer. In this scenario however, the punishment is still very real. Do you think this would be the most effective way to enforce the law and deter illegal behavior?

A follow up point to this, the main reason I see put forward for God's apparent absence from believers is that it would remove the dimension of moral choice. Is choice any less intact under the current system, with a visually confirmable enforcement arm of the law, than it would be with an invisible one? Does knowing the system actually exists make it impossible to defy?

Based on the continuous uptick in polls around the question of legalization, I think most reasonable people would agree it's only a matter of time. What year do you think will see the recreational use of cannabis legalized under federal law?

These are preconditions. God exists. God is omniscient. God is the creator of human beings. Hell exists. Sin exists. Sin causes human beings to go to hell. If these statements are true, god creates some human beings knowing they will sin. If these human beings sin, they go to hell. If they go to hell, they suffer eternally. If the preceding is true, god causes eternal suffering. Causing suffering is an evil act. God is evil. If this is not true, then hell and/or god don't exist. Please point out the flaw in argumentation.

should atheists complain about christians not posting in the Mythology and Folklore section?

Now, bear with me here. This question is targeted more towards Christians, other theists who use this argument, but my atheist brothers and sisters can feel more than free to chime in. This regards the argument stating that a universe supporting life is so unlikely, from subatomic particles having the right properties, the laws of physics being correct, the planet being the right size, etc... that the fact that life exists is proof of god. My question is, doesn't that put the cart before the horse? Isn't it certain that any universe in which you exist will support life? Wouldn't you marvel at an universe in which you existed? How do you respond to this critique? Thanks for your answer.

Google's self driving car is now legal in the state of Nevada. My question is, if one were to get in that car alone while drunk, and let it drive you, would you be violating the law? With this question, I've included a video of a blind man "driving" a self driving car. I would believe his impairment would be at least on par with drunkenness. Thanks for your answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE

Let's grant that the Christian God exists. This being created the universe, and everything in it. He also has complete awareness of everything that has or will happen in this universe, and the power to change it any way he sees fit. Now, lets look at the nature of our reality. It can be very easily said that suffering is the rule, rather then the exception. Death is certain for everyone who exists, and everyone who has. This could be seen as a lone courtesy from a cruelly indifferent God. But, according to the beliefs outlined in Christianity, Hell is where a lot of these dead people have end up. If we grant that belief in Christ is the key to salvation, and that knowledge of Christ has only been possible for 2,000 years (or thereabouts) and human beings have existed for roughly 200,000 years. Accordingly, somewhere around 99% of everyone who has ever existed would be in hell (that doesn't attempt to include those who weren't Christians in the last 2,000 years). Lets grant that the young earth theory is true, That would still be 66% (again, not including atheists, Muslims, other heathens in the Common Era). My guess is, if you attempted to tease out the number of people who aren't Christians in the Common Era, you would find that would also be a majority. Lets be even more generous, and suppose that only half of everyone that has existed ended up in hell.

So, let's review. God has the ability to change the world in any way he sees fit, and knows exactly the nature of reality. God is aware that human life is mostly suffering, and that somewhere between the vast majority of us and half of us end up suffering for all eternity. And yet he has made no changes. At what point will you concede that such a God is a monster, a torture monger, and unfit for the worship of decent people? In what sense would rebellion against such a God not be the only possible moral choice?

Thank you for your consideration.

I'm looking specifically for a translation into Lenape, but any information would be much appreciated.