if you could, would you wish the abrahamic god into existence? his faithful claim that he is a perfectly just god and if so his existence can only mean good things. but assuming the atheists were right and we were all material people living in a material world, but you had the power to wish god into existence, do you think it would be right for you to do it? considering we would be going from a world where everyone ceases to exist after death to a world where the few who got their morals right ascend to eternal bliss and the rest get tortured for eternity. methinks it would be awful to wish for that god to exist

>>212605889 (OP)
in what scenario am I going to get shitfaced the most?

>>212605889 (OP)
>but assuming the atheists were right and we were all material people living in a material world
wait, sorry, I wanted to post something dumb, but I have to give the dumbo crown back

No. Any religion with eternal punishment is evil. Imagine being in Hell tortured for trillions of years for the crime of not believing in Jesus uncountable lifetimes ago. The god of Christianity and Islam is an evil one. I don't think Jews believe in eternal damnation but even in the Old Testament Yahweh is a dick.
So that particular depiction of God falls out of line with what I think an omniscient supernatural creator would be like.

>>212605955
>uncountable lifetimes ago
nigga, that was in the first century

Idk the man did fuck over several cities for getting their freak on. Like killed every person in the city and what not.
Plus there's the bit of him flooding the world because he wanted to start over. Seems like kind of a childish cunt.

>>212605936
sorry for being an idiott
>>212605955
>falls out of line with what I think an omniscient supernatural creator would be like
yeah that's the feel i get all the time when trying to accept christian theology. they say that it's human nature to sin, so god getting mad about it is like me getting mad with my cats for fighting each other instead of saying that it's just cat nature... just a dumb example, not perfect ik, but i just can't grasp the idea of an infinitely superior being deciding that eternal torture is a fair outcome to dumb humans trying to screw over one another

>>212606119
how much of that christian theology you know? people has been developing that shit for two millenia

>>212606046
I'm saying if someone goes to Hell, and their punishment is literally infinite then it will never end. You'll still be in there a hundred, a thousand, a million, a billion, a trillion, etc. years later and would have already effectively paid the price for whatever sins you've committed but since it's eternal you'll be in there forever. Infinite punishment for a finite crime.
You would expect an omniscient being to have a smarter system of judgement than an on-off switch between "eternal paradise" or "eternal pain and suffering".

>>212606144
>of thing is literally infinite then it will never end
dam...

>>212606119
That's precisely why I think it's fake. The "don't question anything" part and the "eternal punishment if you don't believe" part of religion is what makes me think it's just a con, and that the glorification of ignorance and shunning of any skepticism (faith) and the concept of hell are just defense mechanisms to keep the con going. You can just make up a God, make him act as retarded as you want, and then any criticism can just be responded to with "how could a mere mortal understand a perfect omniscient being? God works in mysterious ways." or "don't test your faith".
The portrayal of faith as a virtue in the first place instead of a glorified synonym for gullibility has me convinced that religions are all fake, religions have been the longest-running scams in human history. You'd think a divine creator would promote investigation and the search for knowledge, and wouldn't fall apart under scrutiny.
At most I believe in the vague, abstract concept of a divine creator but not from any religion in particular.
If there is a God then he seems to be completely non-interventionist and unconcerned with the affairs of mortals.

>>212606141
honestly, not that much and i don't think it's worth my time. laugh at me if you want, i watched a few debates between christians and atheists, videos from the counsel of trent, redeemed zoomer and ocasionally others and i read the abolition of man. i was raised agnostic and was never into religion so i don't see it as a priority
>>212606144
an apologist excuse i've heard is "finite crime against an infinite being is inifinitely bad" to me it just feels like religion is just revenge fantasies and god has the morals of a bronze age man given infinite power
>>212606232
the more i put myself in the shoes of god and question "what would an infinitely wise and just being do" the less sense religion makes but oc that could easily be countered by the argument of "you can never understand what god thinks"
>If there is a God then he seems to be completely non-interventionist
this is nothing different to saying he doesn't exist

Thankfully, I'm not really into that faith thing so I don't need to hold back from being smug about reddit atheists being stupid ITT and, at the same time, not reddit atheist enough to think anything meaningful was said so far, including my posts.

>>212606299
>and i don't think it's worth my time
nigga, you've made a thread to vent on christian theology presented by grifter youtubers

>>212606348
ye but some would say that before disregarding christian theology i should read that 5kg book by their favorite theologian and that is the thing i'm saying is not worth my time. making a post is quick and just for funsies even if the opinions are sincere

>>212606457
>and just for funsies
a fellow shitposter
I love to post dumb shit too, glad more people are honest about being dumb

>>212605889 (OP)
>we were all material people living in a material world
I think Madonna sang this in her 1985 hit "Material Girl"

>>212606535
there's nothing i ever said that i don't think is dumb, but at least it may be fun or interesting to someone, there's no harm in posting it
>>212606661
intentional, i have that song stuck in my head

>>212606684
>i don't think it's dumb
I do. You've said something about stuff unspecified christians told and then you told you're not interested in reading actual written works. What is your point?
>or interesting to someone
To me, for example. That's why I'm throwing insults around.

>>212606796
>What is your point?
i feel like if there were some super convincing arguments for christianity then pop apologists could repeat those instead of the trash ones i always hear. and there's a lot of written works for a lot of philosophies. no one could read them all so we all have to come with some heuristic to decide what to focus on
>That's why I'm throwing insults around
i love you *kisses you in the mouth passionately*

>>212606927
>popular apologists
what makes you think pop-anything gives a shit about that thing?
>no one could read them all
You read one actual book and you complain about that book. Infinitely better than yelling at internet talking heads.

>>212607087
name a single book and i'll read it and post a review of it asap on this same board

>>212607183
Since you're in a catholic country and you're babbling about theology, the Teaching of the Catholic Church?
Not that many layman catholics have read it either.

>>212607259
the catechism? i went to a catholic school and my parents had to get if for my catechesis classes, didn't read even half of it but i'm happy that it's a book that i have a physical copy of so soon i'm going to visit them and pick it up

>>212607354
Okay. Not sure what you're going to get from it but at least you're going to have anything specific to argue with.
Not that I have a certainty to read your comments on it, but whatever. Your future arguments with christkikes are going to have at least some substance.

>>212607465
I forgot. I've tried reading the Teaching myself in the past and it sounds more academic than yt debates, but you should know that already.

>>212607465
>your future arguments with christkikes are going to have at least some substance
i guess this also requires them to read the atheist books where all the secret uber intelligent arguments for atheism that i cannot tell you are hiding
>>212607488
i'll see

>>212607573
>arguments
I feel like we're missing something important. I'm not telling you to read anything to discover good arguments about some abstract shit. Thomas Aquinas or every pope is probably as retarded as you (not me doe).
I just wish people were more specific when strawmanning someone, instead of repeating vaguely remembered points.
Now that I think of it, you could just repeat what that Redeemed Saar Zoomer was saying in the video you've watched and it would be something specific.