So you just died and...

[MinnesotaMike]

But, truthfully? I'd try to kill god. An entity like that, one with a combination of such power and such pettiness and absolute cruelty cannot be allowed to exist, cannot be allowed to torture people for all of eternity. God isn't worthy of standing in judgment, and would have to be stopped. I'd almost certainly not succeed, but at least I will have done the right thing.

The Kratos approach is one to be considered... It would be the right thing to remove the current god from power considering his actions.

[Pharaoh Cat]

What argument would you use to keep God's "wrath" and "anger" from descending on you?

Hmm.  I hadn't realized the OP had this question in it.  I came in at the middle of the thread.

I wouldn't debate.  I would negotiate.  I would offer to go back and perform whatever service this cosmic dick wanted.  If my deal was accepted, and I was sent back, I would be walking the earth for the first time as a servant of evil.  "Believe without evidence or suffer forever for behavior your body is designed to want to do" is the message of a depraved monster, and I would be its servant, because hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, and why the hell not, and WTF, and whatever.

[Too Few Lions]

Not to mention, he has no real powers or cool attributes. what a boring, useless god.

yeah, he'd be pretty useless in a game of Top Trumps deities. Unless of course they had scores for 'jealousy' or 'wrath' or 'mythical kill count', he'd score 10s on all of those!

[xSilverPhinx]

But, truthfully? I'd try to kill god. An entity like that, one with a combination of such power and such pettiness and absolute cruelty cannot be allowed to exist, cannot be allowed to torture people for all of eternity. God isn't worthy of standing in judgment, and would have to be stopped. I'd almost certainly not succeed, but at least I will have done the right thing.

The Kratos approach is one to be considered... It would be the right thing to remove the current god from power considering his actions.

How The God Of War Should have Ended

[Pharaoh Cat]

How The God Of War Should have Ended

Now that was cool!

I mean, just seeing Thor name you-know-who as his maker was enough to light up my face, but then the ending...

[CAlden]

Bertrand Russell is credited with having answered, "Not enough evidence," when asked the very question that this thread began with. Many of you have given the same answer. But when I consider the additional comments many of you have made, it seems to me that most of you have already made up your minds to reject or discredit any and all evidence presented for God's existence. Evidence has been offered for centuries (miracles, resurrection of Jesus, findings of Intelligent Design, etc.), but most so-called atheists take none of those seriously and dismiss them outright. It's like, "Okay, here's some evidence." To which people reply, "Nope. I don't believe that." Or "That's not enough." You demand evidence, but you have already decided what you will and will not accept as evidence, which is basically anything that is presented. So it doesn't seem that a lack of evidence is your real hang-up.

[CAlden]

Actually many ancients did know that the earth wasn't flat. In the Bible, Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God "sitting above the circle of the earth." Most intelligent people recognize that there is much we can learn from the ancients of cultures worldwide. We really owe much to their genius.

[Sandra Craft]

You demand evidence, but you have already decided what you will and will not accept as evidence, which is basically anything that is presented. So it doesn't seem that a lack of evidence is your real hang-up.

I disagree.  All the examples of evidence you've presented have been considered and found flawed, often badly flawed.  Everything you've mentioned truly isn't enough -- it's also ragged from overuse.  Don't complain because we get testy at seeing the same old-same old trotted out continuously.
If you have something new, something that's flaws haven't already been pointed out a thousand times, then let's see it.  

[Crow]

Actually many ancients did know that the earth wasn't flat. In the Bible, Isaiah 40:22 speaks of God "sitting above the circle of the earth." Most intelligent people recognize that there is much we can learn from the ancients of cultures worldwide. We really owe much to their genius.

The earth is a sphere not a circle and people in those times certainly knew the difference. A circle is a two dimensional object a sphere is a three dimensional object, huge difference. From what it seems what you consider to be evidence wouldn't even come close to the majority of the members on this forums classification of evidence, especially not "miracles, resurrection of Jesus, findings of Intelligent Design" especially not intelligent design because a lot of us are well aware of the so called evidence and in every case it can be easily disputed.

[The Magic Pudding]

The Christian god doesn't deserve respect, he has omnipotence yet he permits suffering and he acts like a jerk.  He is presented as such a ridiculous being he is barely worth considering except for laughs.

If god wasn't omnipotent, if she wished to create life because she liked it, she welcomed new sentient beings but her ability to create was limited, she might be OK.  If she travels about mixing the goo too start life all over the universe, maybe she pops back now and then to see what new manifestation of life has popped up.  I'd be willing to make her a cup of tea and have a chat, and probably accept the cruelty of tooth and claw was necessary, maybe she doesn't have the time or ability to supervise.  To reject this kind of god would be like rejecting life on Earth as not worth the pain, so unless she catches me on a bad day I may even cook her a scone.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think there is a bible verse that said that the earth was a circular disk, I'll search for it later if you don't already know it.

Evidence has been offered for centuries (miracles, resurrection of Jesus, findings of Intelligent Design, etc.)

So far every claim of ID has be refuted by experts, some of which are even practicing Christians. It's a classic god of the gaps argument, which is not evidence and nobody is required to accept it without actual substantiation. It certainly can't be taught as science before that...whether you personally choose to believe that is your problem...

Miracles...what miracles? Any that were not recorded in a book that was written by superstitious ancients? Supernatural miracles? Those would be easier to sway, if proven to break or bend the laws of nature beyond a doubt. As for interpretated miracles, such as religious figures appearing on burnt toast, those are highly debatable.

Mankind has come a long way since then. Though I don't call them 'stupid', since they didn't have access to the wealth of accumulated knowledge that we have now, I certainly know that they knew less about how the universe works than we do.  In fact the bible even misinforms and directly contradicts knowledge that was already available by their time - getting wrong what the Greeks already knew. One example I can think of is natural selection. Darwin was not the first to think of it. The ancient Greeks were (surprise, surprise!). Atoms would be a classic example. Whenever I go to a doctor, if they're giving preference to the bible explantions for diseases over more modern scientifc explanations...well...I wouldn't want to rely on the genius of the ancients.

[CAlden]

I disagree.  All the examples of evidence you've presented have been considered and found flawed, often badly flawed.  Everything you've mentioned truly isn't enough -- it's also ragged from overuse.  Don't complain because we get testy at seeing the same old-same old trotted out continuously.
If you have something new, something that's flaws haven't already been pointed out a thousand times, then let's see it.  

Oh, I'm not complaining, and I expected you to get testy. I just don't believe that evidence is the real issue for most of you. I really don't think you will accept any evidence, the raggedly overused or something new. I've seen the supposed refutations of the evidence I've mentioned and have found them flawed, otherwise I would not have mentioned my examples. You see...it's a really monotonous circle, and neither side wins. Atheists ask for evidence. Theists present some. Atheists refute them. Theists refute the Atheists' refutations. I really don't believe that evidence is the issue.

Of course the earth is a sphere, and you are correct. They did know the difference. The ancient Hebrew word for "circle" can also be translated "sphere" and/or used to describe something rounded.

Also, I am well aware of most atheists'/naturalists' classifications for evidence. Evidence is what makes something evident, but it often doesn't work that way because all of us filter evidence through our presuppositions/worldview. But here we are talking about evidence again, which I still honestly doubt to be the real issue.

[xSilverPhinx]

I disagree.  All the examples of evidence you've presented have been considered and found flawed, often badly flawed.  Everything you've mentioned truly isn't enough -- it's also ragged from overuse.  Don't complain because we get testy at seeing the same old-same old trotted out continuously.
If you have something new, something that's flaws haven't already been pointed out a thousand times, then let's see it. 

Oh, I'm not complaining, and I expected you to get testy. I just don't believe that evidence is the real issue for most of you. I really don't think you will accept any evidence, the raggedly overused or something new. I've seen the supposed refutations of the evidence I've mentioned and have found them flawed, otherwise I would not have mentioned my examples. You see...it's a really monotonous circle, and neither side wins. Atheists ask for evidence. Theists present some. Atheists refute them. Theists refute the Atheists' refutations. I really don't believe that evidence is the issue.

Of course the earth is a sphere, and you are correct. They did know the difference. The ancient Hebrew word for "circle" can also be translated "sphere" and/or used to describe something rounded.

Also, I am well aware of most atheists'/naturalists' classifications for evidence. Evidence is what makes something evident, but it often doesn't work that way because all of us filter evidence through our presuppositions/worldview. But here we are talking about evidence again, which I still honestly doubt to be the real issue.

If you're trying to convice us that you have a good reason to believe, even if you already know that most won't see whatever you claim as 'evidence'...what's the best you've got? Why do you believe?

[CAlden]

I don't deny natural selection necessarily. I recently heard a professor of mine say, "Natural Selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." He's right. Scientists can and will speculate to no end about how the earth and the universe came to be, but with a naturalistic and intentionally limited perspective they will never have a solid answer for the origins.

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't deny natural selection necessarily. I recently heard a professor of mine say, "Natural Selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." He's right. Scientists can and will speculate to no end about how the earth and the universe came to be, but with a naturalistic and intentionally limited perspective they will never have a solid answer for the origins.

Yes, but...you do know that evolutionary theory is just about once life got started, right? If you're confusing abiogenesis (how life came from non life), cosmological evolution (how the universe came to be) and chemical evolution (how heavier elements came from lighter elements) with modern biological evolutionary theory you're bound to make a mess of things. Creationists use that tactic often - create a strawman of evolutionary theory, attack it and dismiss the strawman as ridiculous.