Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Taz]

We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.

Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.

Well, if hell is real, I sure don't want to go there. Send me a postcard.

I don't particularly, either. But, my principles are useless if I do not stand by them.

Your principles ARE useless if you go against the laws of the universe on purpose.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. If by "laws of the universe" you mean Oppose the God presented in the bible, I disagree. The God of the Bible goes against the laws of the Universe. One of the most basic Universal Laws is "Life matters". When "God" commands genocide that violates that basic Law, then He goes against the "laws of Nature". Your logic seems to be, "Fall on your face, worm. He is God. He gets to do whatever he wants, but you had better damned well do what you're told". There's a term for that philosophy. It's called slavery.

But your initial query said that the god of the bible has been proven true and real. So the laws of the universe wold be what the god says they are, and it's pointless to go against universal truths.

 

[Czernobog]

Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.

Well, if hell is real, I sure don't want to go there. Send me a postcard.

I don't particularly, either. But, my principles are useless if I do not stand by them.

Your principles ARE useless if you go against the laws of the universe on purpose.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. If by "laws of the universe" you mean Oppose the God presented in the bible, I disagree. The God of the Bible goes against the laws of the Universe. One of the most basic Universal Laws is "Life matters". When "God" commands genocide that violates that basic Law, then He goes against the "laws of Nature". Your logic seems to be, "Fall on your face, worm. He is God. He gets to do whatever he wants, but you had better damned well do what you're told". There's a term for that philosophy. It's called slavery.

But your initial query said that the god of the bible has been proven true and real. So the laws of the universe wold be what the god says they are, and it's pointless to go against universal truths.

You are talking about two different things. Where in the Laws of the universe do we find the "unless I do it" clause? I have not suggested that we should buck the laws of the universe; only that the creator of those laws should equally be subject to them. If not, then by what right does he hold anyone else accountable to them? You know it's the "Don't ask anything of anyone else that you are not willing to do yourself" thing.

 

[Bonzi]

Maybe it's not about God for some but what happens after you die...which is eternity

So...pretend to like him, just so you can avoid Hell. You don't think an omniscient God would see that for what it is, and act accordingly?

I don't see much evidence in the Bible that God is omniscient. The dufus didn't even know where Adam was in the garden. He had to ask "Adam, where are you?" So I'd take my chances that I could fool the bastard.

So you believe there could be a creator, that is not smarter that we are... interesting...

 

[Bonzi]

Maybe it's not about God for some but what happens after you die...which is eternity

So...pretend to like him, just so you can avoid Hell. You don't think an omniscient God would see that for what it is, and act accordingly?

Of course he would, but just saying if you knew what the implications were re: the afterlife, you might think differently.... maybe not, but, maybe so...

 

[Czernobog]

Maybe it's not about God for some but what happens after you die...which is eternity

So...pretend to like him, just so you can avoid Hell. You don't think an omniscient God would see that for what it is, and act accordingly?

Of course he would, but just saying if you knew what the implications were re: the afterlife, you might think differently.... maybe not, but, maybe so...

No. I really wouldn't. Genocide is genocide. Either you stand against that, or you don't. And if you suddenly just shut up, and get on board, because you're afraid of the consequences, then you don't.

 

[hobelim]

What if you could be shown that the image of the nature of God according to a literal interpretation conceals the nature of a living being with a nature not unlike yourself according to a deeper more thoughtful interpretation of the words used,not to mention more accurate translations as in the whole i am a jealous god thing...?

I am not asking if you would worship him but if you would conform to his teaching, which would amount to asking you if you would follow your own advice...

It couldn't. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. There is simply no way to interpret that as anything less that the God of Christianity commanding genocide. That alone, makes the God of Christians unworthy of worship to me.

Ahem, that was not the God of the NT....

Nope. You don't get to do that. You do not get to separate the two. The God of the new Testament is the God of the old Testament. that is the reason that Christians included the Old testament in the Bible. Christians themselves tell us that the Old Testament is there to reveal the nature of the God they worship. You don't get to pretend that isn't the case, every time the old Testament reveals some element of that nature that you find uncomfortable.

You are wrong. There is a stark contrast between God as described in the OT according to the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation possible and God as described by Jesus who only had the OT to read. In the OT Jesus found a hidden God not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

If you don't look and look and keep on looking you will never find him.


"The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..."

Then you negate half of the Christian Bible. What purpose is there for the Old Testament? Why should we feel obligated to any of it, ass it is completely unrelated to the new Testament?

Let me put it this way. Moses was the first to give the law which defines the boundaries between heaven and hell, life and death. As it was written Moses predicted that after his death the people would turn aside from the way he taught to follow the law and would take to degrading practices and defiles themselves with the work of their hands, i.e., the temple, teffilfin, phylacteries, ritual sacrifice, etc.

More than a thousand years passed and the talmud was developed, what Jesus called the traditions of men. He then taught that the right way to follow the law, the way that Moses had originally taught people to follow the law that had been lost to time, was that the words of the law were figurative in nature, the subjects hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used..pissing everyone off.

Hence eat my flesh was a new teaching that reflected the right way to understand and conform to kosher law, the exact same way that Moses originally taught to follow the law that had been lost to time that actually reveals wisdom from God..

Jesus by divine revelation updated the teaching of Moses to be understood by his contemporaries until that revelation was also lost to time over a thousand years ago.

You shouldn't feel obligated to conform to anything you don't yet understand.

If you ever do understand you will see that living a kosher life is as easy or as difficult as it has been for you to stand guard over the purity of your own mind for your entire life by distinguishing between the type of teachings that you allow to take root in your mind, whether clean or unclean.


What I am showing is is the only way that will ever appear where christians, Jews and secular unbelievers could ever possibly find common ground..

 

[Meriweather]

I would never serve the God of the bible. Ever.
He was a genocidal, selfish tyrant.

Just to be clear: You wouldn't want to even meet God. You have no interest in discovering if you have misunderstood/misinterpreted Biblical accounts. Your current judgment of God is final?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

My answer is somewhat like yours. I would believe in the existence of God and Jesus, but I would still not believe that it is necessary to worship them or to perform any of the ritualism in the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

My answer is somewhat like yours. I would believe in the existence of God and Jesus, but I would still not believe that it is necessary to worship them or to perform any of the ritualism in the Bible.

What do you believe would be necessary?

 

[sealybobo]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

I could and would. It's not even hard to be a christian. In fact I'd be the best christian. I don't sleep with other people wives and I don't steal, hate, lie.

Where in the New Testament does it say gays are bad? I would say god hit the reset button and to ignore all the old things god said in the old testament.

And I wouldn't be so arrogant to question the creator. Free will. I would be able to justify and explain away any of the crazy things I don't believe today but would be forced to if given enough evidence.

 

[sealybobo]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

I presented the same premise before myself. Would those who didn't believe in God or a specific book suddenly change course with irrefutable evidence? Think of all the fake news going on today, that is how people would react. They could see a man in person performing a miracle and they would scoff at it "there's some trickery going on here".

I wouldn't be surprised if the Messiah was tossed into prison as some sort of fraud, charged with a crime. This is why Faith is just that, Faith.

See, I'm not actually talking about belief, though. I mean, in the face of evidence, belief isn't really a question, any more than belief would be a question in regards to gravity.

Rather it's a question of decisions. Does acceptance of existence require worship? And I am coming to the realisation that it doesn't. I can change my position as an atheist, with sufficient evidence, without agreeing to join a religious movement.

I see. You would view this as submission and a loss of self identity. I suppose it would depend on my place in the universe and how I viewed it. I used to think the same when I was an Atheist, "why would God create me simply to worship him!?"

Actually, it's not that at all. I don't define myself by my atheism. Atheism is just one very small premise that I hold. Discarding that position would not greatly alter who I am.

Personally, I wouldn't view it as submission but simply as the reality that in fact, yes, I am inferior in the grand scheme. Maybe if you found out that you only exist because of the sheer power of God to give you life, you might believe in some worship, if that is even the right word. Even moreso, if God were in fact more direct and threatened to take your life away! Or, deny your soul entry to heaven.

See, my insignificance isn't an issue. One does not need a God to recognise one's insignificance. One need only contemplate that vastness of space, and the immensity of all of time, since the universe came into being, to realise that one is just one insignificant little speck on a mediocre planet, in the outer ring of an unremarkable corner galaxy, that is similar to every other one of the billions of galaxies in the universe. Ego really isn't my concern. You seem to be missing the point entirely.

The question isn't about my ego, but about the nature of the God that is presented in the Bible. You see, most Christian apologists that I have encountered seem to think that the only obstacle to me becoming a Christian is overcoming my atheism. It isn't. Even were I to come to the conclusion that a Creator deity exists, I would spend the rest of my life trying to prove that that deity was anything not the Christian version. Because the Christian version is terrifying, horrible, psychotic, petty, cruel, and savage. I can't imagine why anyone would ever worship such a God.

Any Christian who wants me to come onboard, not only has to present me with objective evidence that Deity exists, but they have to reconcile with me the God of the Bible, and the God of "love, and inclusion" that they present. And they can't just point to the New Testament. Sorry. Christianity chose to include the Old testament in the book designed to present the nature of God. So, their going to need to reconcile their presentation with that God.

If god were proven i agree i still wouldn't believe in christianity. in fact i would love it when god himself admitted its a man made up religion just like all the rest except for one he started 100,000 years ago but the ancestors of the jews killed those people off 20,000 years ago and then they made up their own religion.

 

[sealybobo]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

I presented the same premise before myself. Would those who didn't believe in God or a specific book suddenly change course with irrefutable evidence? Think of all the fake news going on today, that is how people would react. They could see a man in person performing a miracle and they would scoff at it "there's some trickery going on here".

I wouldn't be surprised if the Messiah was tossed into prison as some sort of fraud, charged with a crime. This is why Faith is just that, Faith.

See, I'm not actually talking about belief, though. I mean, in the face of evidence, belief isn't really a question, any more than belief would be a question in regards to gravity.

Rather it's a question of decisions. Does acceptance of existence require worship? And I am coming to the realisation that it doesn't. I can change my position as an atheist, with sufficient evidence, without agreeing to join a religious movement.

I see. You would view this as submission and a loss of self identity. I suppose it would depend on my place in the universe and how I viewed it. I used to think the same when I was an Atheist, "why would God create me simply to worship him!?"

Personally, I wouldn't view it as submission but simply as the reality that in fact, yes, I am inferior in the grand scheme. Maybe if you found out that you only exist because of the sheer power of God to give you life, you might believe in some worship, if that is even the right word. Even moreso, if God were in fact more direct and threatened to take your life away! Or, deny your soul entry to heaven.

To me worship is a strong word even as a believer. I think believing and following the word of God is worship enough. There is a royal family across the pond that have historically demanded submission. That I could not do, but of course, I could certainly feign submission in the face of personal danger. I have always stated I would refuse to bow to the Queen or anyone on my own volition. This isn't a sleight against those who do, or her place in society, it's my personal belief in treating all humans with equal respect, until proven otherwise.

The Book of Job reminds me slightly of your situation in that God does many cruel things to Job, but he still accepts him. If you were Job you would take a stance and say "I refuse to follow you because you are evil". it's the most controversial of books, many believe it was a test of Job, others say it was to illustrate to Job that he is just a peon in the grand scheme and could not possibly understand Gods motivations.

Meh, this is a heavy subject, the whole universe, theology discussion. I need my morning tea yet I do understand your point though, this is really the kind of situation that's difficult to address in theory, because in practice, who knows how we might react in the face of such overwhelming and unbelievable facts. Imagine, the most daunting question civilizations has struggled with since the dawn of time and you now have your answer...it would have to change our complete outlook on life and even our own value system.

“To me worship is a strong word even as a believer. I think believing and following the word of God is worship enough.”

Actually, it’s the word of man, as there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

Religion and ‘god’ are creations of man – imbued with man’s ignorance, fear, hate, and stupidity, and as a consequence unworthy of worship.

If i were convinced the new testament was real i'd study it more intensely and i'd appreciate it a lot more than i do now because i'm convinced its the writings of con men and or mad men

 

[sealybobo]

I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

What if you could be shown that the image of the nature of God according to a literal interpretation conceals the nature of a living being with a nature not unlike yourself according to a deeper more thoughtful interpretation of the words used,not to mention more accurate translations as in the whole i am a jealous god thing...?

I am not asking if you would worship him but if you would conform to his teaching, which would amount to asking you if you would follow your own advice...

It couldn't. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. There is simply no way to interpret that as anything less that the God of Christianity commanding genocide. That alone, makes the God of Christians unworthy of worship to me.

Ahem, that was not the God of the NT....

Nope. You don't get to do that. You do not get to separate the two. The God of the new Testament is the God of the old Testament. that is the reason that Christians included the Old testament in the Bible. Christians themselves tell us that the Old Testament is there to reveal the nature of the God they worship. You don't get to pretend that isn't the case, every time the old Testament reveals some element of that nature that you find uncomfortable.

That was different times. Free will and humans were uncivilized back then. Plus humans wrote and maybe edited the old testament. That's the jews. This is christianity. We can only tell you what we know from 2000 years ago. Before that was vague.

But if you proved to me the Christian god was real yes I'd worship and follow his rules. It'd be good for me. That is why they invented it in the first place right? That and to get 10% of my pay.

 

[Meriweather]

If i were convinced the new testament was real i'd study it more intensely and i'd appreciate it a lot more than i do now because i'm convinced its the writings of con men and or mad men

Which New Testament scripture do you imagine would open you up to being conned? And conned into doing what? Similarly, which accounts do you believe, if practiced, would put you over the edge into madness?

 

[sealybobo]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.

So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?

God usedto reveal himself all the time. If showing up and proving was necessary for people 2000 years ago why does god expect us to believe based on stories that supposedly happened 2000 years ago?

I can't believe an obviously man made religion. A book to deal with the 10 problems of the day

stealing
murder
lust
lying
don't believe any other religions
rest on sundays
respect your parents
don't screw your neighbors wife
the other 2 are just so obviously man made and designed to command loyalty to this god/religion. Insane really.

 

[sealybobo]

If i were convinced the new testament was real i'd study it more intensely and i'd appreciate it a lot more than i do now because i'm convinced its the writings of con men and or mad men

Which New Testament scripture do you imagine would open you up to being conned? And conned into doing what? Similarly, which accounts do you believe, if practiced, would put you over the edge into madness?

Its a beautifully written con book. Either the men who wrote it were insane for believing it or liars writing it to control the masses. But it's maybe the greatest bullshit story ever written. Hats off. Can't really knock too much in the New Testament aside from things like "only though me can people go to heaven"

So does that mean all non chistians aren't in heaven?

 

[sealybobo]

If i were convinced the new testament was real i'd study it more intensely and i'd appreciate it a lot more than i do now because i'm convinced its the writings of con men and or mad men

Which New Testament scripture do you imagine would open you up to being conned? And conned into doing what? Similarly, which accounts do you believe, if practiced, would put you over the edge into madness?

conned into giving 10% of my pay to a church

 

[Likkmee]

To be so arrogant to assume that this show is a result of accident/coincidence/evolution is a declaration of ignorance. BIGTIME

 

[Meriweather]

God usedto reveal himself all the time. If showing up and proving was necessary for people 2000 years ago why does god expect us to believe based on stories that supposedly happened 2000 years ago?

God still reveals Himself. When people go to the Internet (or write books or magazine articles) to share these stories what are the usual reactions?

1. Prove it! Provide Evidence!
2. It was a dream!
3. It was an hallucination!
4. It was a coincidence!

As Jesus put it: People can return from the dead, and some still won't believe.

 

[sealybobo]

If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.

Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.

If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.

It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.

We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.

Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.

Because there is nothing he, his friends and family, co workers, priest, fellow church goers can say that would get me to believe what they say is in that book is real. So in response to that they're supposed to fear you with hell or not getting into heaven because ultimately for us to get in we have to believe him, his priest, parents, friends, fellow church goers and honestly I just can't do that.

Same way atheists in the middle east have to believe what the muslims are telling them about the koran is true. Or the Jews still believing the old testament.

I love people who admit they don't believe any organized religion but then they believe in heaven. If they don't believe the stories what tells them a heaven exists? Truly wishful thinking.