Ridiculous Religion vs Absurd Atheism

[SlayerOfLight]

That's why it's not murder.

No, but the person already committed murder in his/her heart. It are thoughts that lead into sin, therefore, the Christian God takes thoughts serious. I'll give another example. If a married husband looks at an unknown girl/woman with lust, then he already committed adultery in his heart too. That's the way how God would see it.

So it's kinda like a celestial North-Korea.

I don't know where you got that idea from, but I'm not getting into that because the diffrence to me is too obvious. God gives us freedom of choice to either follow him or oppose him. In North Korea it's either you follow the president or you've earned a one-way ticket to camp 22.

Different version of the same argument.
Observation: There is evil in this world
It still means one of three things:
1 God is evil. He likes evil.
2 God doesn't prevent evil.
3 God can't prevent evil.
Conclusions
1 God is not all loving.
2 God doesn't give a damn about any of us.
3 God seems to be no God after all.
Even if we take your free will theory in mind we can still conclude that God is evil. God is all-knowing and therefore should have known that by giving the human race free will it would turn out to be disastrous.
To allow evil is to be evil. There is no way around it. One does not allow killing because one loves another.

I see you're still holding on to the view that If a ''God'' exists, he would be evil and would be the creator of evil. It just wouldn't work that way. It is true that God is the creator of everything. However, evil itself is not even a ''thing'' like a rock, or water. You cannot have a jar of evil, because technically evil doesn't even exist. When a bad relationship exists between something good and something that opposes goodness, we call that good and evil, and it does not even require a God to create it. God only created goodness. Everything which opposes good, is what we came to know as ''evil''.

If God was a perfect being he would have created a world untouchable by sin, which he didn't.

If a world untouchable by sin would exist, then that means we wouldn't be having a free will and we would all be robots programmed to do everything God wants.

''Science doesn't have all the answers, therefore it must be God'' isn't reasoning. That is nonsense. I find it amusing that you don't 'just simply take' what discovery or ngc say, but you do 'just simply take' what a 2000 year old mistranslated third degree eyewitness account says.

I do take alot what National Geographic and Discovery says, but not just the whole evolution and creation related things. To me it personally makes more sense that a God created the universe and everything else, rather then everything else appearing out of nothing. But then again, it's all just faith. If everything in the bible seems too hard to believe to you, well then there's nothing I can say about it. I personally believe that I have came to know God by reading the bible, as I feel that the biblical depiction about God bears the most truth then any other religion.

@Regulus

The belief that Hitler is no less of a person than any of us is the most absurd thing I've heard all day. After all, it was such beliefs, at the time, which allowed him to do what he did.

I wasn't personally talking about my opinion on Hitler, but how God would view Hitler no diffrent then any of us, because we are all sinners. Obviously you should know that my ''human'' side deeply despises Hitler and all he stood for. Please, don't twist my statements in the future.

[SlayerOfLight]

Who said this and what source should I take this from besides you? And that's besides the fact that thoughtcrime is a victimless crime, just like blasphemy or sin

From the gosepl of Christ, if you really want know. But my point was to explain that God would look at us more diffrently then we look at each other, so I assume this topic is a little bit useless to us now. Besides, sin is not a victimless crime because sin includes murder, robbery, rape, etc.

In God's world it's either you follow him or you go to hell. There is no difference and you've just proven that even more.

No diffrence? I dont know about you, but I clearly do see a diffrence. It's not just ''Follow God or go to hell''. We already have violated God's law by sinning, wether we follow him or not, and we all deserve to punished and send to hell. But unlike Kim Jong-Un, God offers us his grace and mercy because of the sacrifice he made for us, by dying for our sins on the cross. However, people who refuse God's grace simply condemn themselves to hell and leave God no choice but to punish them for their sins, even though God offered them grace and forgiveness. Technically seen God gave up his own life for us as ransom when he came to earth in the flesh as ''Jesus Christ'' so that none of us goes to hell if we simply repent from our sins and turn to him. Hell was also never originally prepared for mankind, but only for the devil and his angels.

I can't have a jar of God either. I have now disproven the existence of God with your own faulty logic

Uhm no, my point wasn't even to try to prove God's existence. You merely changed the subject. Besides, even if it were proven that God would exist, you still couldn't have a jar of him anyway.

Besides, God is all-knowing and should have known evil was coming, which still makes it evil. He's either the creator of everything including evil. It's not like evil suddenly falls aside from the universe, or he doesn't exist and there are other more valid theories.

Well, people get kids while they know their kids could turn out to be evil, but still they want kids nonetheless. Same is with God. He is all loving, and he was aware of the ''evil'' that would come if he created mankind with a free will. I have to admit that this is a bit of a tricky mystery even for me to solve, but one also cannot truly understand a God hundred percent that supposedly has always been present. But it could possibly be that he allowed everything to happen so his glory could manifest in all its fullness. The glory of God is the overarching goal of creation, therefore creating mankind and giving them a free will, even though he knew they would fall into sin, is just God being ''God''. Because a God that does not create anything isn't a god. He also knew that one day he would also die for the sins of his creation, and the whole story of sin and redemption is part of manifesting his glory.

Which would be morally ideal both for him and for us.

That would've been slavery, and that wouldn't make God any better then you claim he isn't now. Besides, if you were to given a choice to either have a robot dog as a pet which is programmed to ''love'' you or a real pet dog that willingly chooses to love you, I think it's quite obvious you would choose the latter, just like God, who wants us to love and accept him by our own choice. This would rather prove God to be a loving God.

Sure, I'd trust the 2000 year old books written by racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated men over empirical evidence and expert's visions any day. After all, that's way easier than actually taking the initiative to find out how stuff works.

Well you weren't there when they wrote this ''book'' so you cannot fully conclude what motivated those men to write the bible.

[DGFone]

^ Which was exactly my point.

I believe that if a benevolent God existed, we wouldn't. That's because we don't deserve to live, as a species.

Well that's... dark.

I mean, I know that humans as a whole did many bad things, but comparing us to regular animals, we are not that different. We just amplify the magnitude of actions times a million compared to say, a duck. Yes, we did some very bad things, but we also did some very good things.

We have the nuke for over half a century, and even when two nuclear global powers wanted to see the other annihilated, both knew that they will refrain from using The Bomb for the common good and live in an uneasy truth if it means that the world won't blow up. So the way I see it, we are no better nor worse than any other animal. Just that we can do so much more evil, and so much more good at the same time, so it evens out.

[Regulus]

It is dark, but so is the world we live in. That's kinda what I meant: we live in a dark world, so therefore the creator of the world must be dark.

I'm not saying we're any different from animals. In fact, it is one of my core beliefs that we are almost exactly like animals. It is in our nature to hunt and kill, and we are forced to do so in order to survive, hence the reason why I can claim that we don't truly deserve the right to live.

Most forms of life on Earth need to kill to survive, but some (such as plants) do not. From God's perspective, it makes little sense to create such animals, when life is entirely capable of coexisting in peace. Ethically speaking, God would be wise to wipe out most, if not all animal life. This is what I'm getting at.

Think about it. Watch the news. See what's going on in the world today. People are always hurting and killing each other, it's nothing new, and I doubt it will ever end. So, when I think about a perfect world, it is very difficult for me to imagine mankind in it--even regardless of everything else I've said.

I mean, we have the power to destroy the entire world, and the only thing stopping us from doing just that is knowing that we'll kill ourselves in the process of annihilating our enemies.

[SlayerOfLight]

No it is not. I'm quite sure it's not. The concept 'sin' is nonsense. We have a crime system on earth, there is no need for an imaginary one too. Besides, by following Christian scripture to the line even the worst chrildraping murderer can go to heaven by turning to God on his deathbed, yet Bill Gates (donating millions to charity) won't go there because he doesn't believe in God. This system is not only fair, it's also stupid. Nothing near to anything a 'perfect being' could have thought up.

Fair enough, you are not forced to believe in the concept of ''sin''. As for your second point, Bill Gates might have donated millions to charity, but doing good deeds still doesn't make someone worthy enough to enter heaven. That would mean that basically everyone, even people like Hitler, could redeem themselves by simply doing good deeds. Also, none of us is perfect. We all have sinned against God at least once in our lives. And no, I'm not just talking about blasphemy. If you sin against any other person you meet in life (lying, stealing, bullying, etc) then you also sin against God. And trying to be a ''good person'' doesn't mean your sins are automatically forgiven. For example, a convicted criminal that performs a good deed before his arrest, still has to face trial anyway. Besides, if God is even willing to forgive the worst childraping murderer, that only shows how great his love is, and that his mercy has no limits if someone willingly repents from their sins and turns to him.

Nobody is born in this imaginary situation you call 'sin'. Everybody is born clean. What this 'cult' is trying to acchieve is brainwashing children with the fear that they need to be saved and they do this because children are vulnberable. It's not only a cult of factual distortion, it's also a cult of cowardice. Both in their recruiting and their unwillingness to face the cold hard reality.
Besides, God has a choice on whether to punish. He is allpowerfull, remember? Which means, that like Kim Jong Ill, God chooses to let his children burn forever.

Kim Jong ill choose to be the way he is, because he could change any time. But God cannot change, he is as he is and always has been. If God were to change, that would be in contrary to his being. God also has no choice but to punish us for our sins if we die whitout having repented to him, because it is in his nature to judge humanity and punish our sins, as nobody is perfect and sinless while God is. And he cannot allow sin and imperfection to enter his holy kingdom. A judge also has no choice but to punish a convicted criminal if proven guilty, because he cannot allow law-breakers to be part of the society. God is more to be compared with a judge that punishes crimes according to law then a dictator like Kim Jong Ill, who punished anyone against him. God is bound to follow his own nature as being ''God'' and judging us is part of that, wether he wants to or not. If we explore God's personality we will learn that the death of a bad person does not please God, neither does it please God if someone goes to hell.

You must learn to understand the terms 'changing the subject' and 'turning your own logic against you'.

I was merely trying to explain how God and evil aren't associated, but you jump from the ''Is God evil'' topic to a ''God does not exist'' topic which is changing the subject, and that is all I kindly have to say on this part of the debate.

Ok, there are 2 facts which you are constantly escaping. Now try to argue against them instead of evading them.
1. Being able to prevent evil, but not doing it is evil.
2. God is (according to the books Christians like to quote so much) all-knowing.
What this means is that God could and should have known that evil would prevail and that he shouldn't have created our kind in the first place.
It's as simple as that. Either he doesn't care about us or he isn't all-knowing. Tell me, which one is it?

The answer may not and will probably not please you, but I say the answer is God is all-knowing while he also cares about us. It should be important to know that we can never fully understand God's motives for creating mankind, because our knowledge as uninfinite humans cannot compete with an infinite God in a billion years. So calling God evil because some of his motives doesn't fit our human vision as ''good'' is invalid. But one thing is that he possibly allowed evil and didn't prevent it so that there can be a real world with freedom, choices, and concequences, even though he knew everything what would happen. That is just God being ''God'' and has nothing to do with evil.

It would make him better actually, because we would have no free will and no conflicting moralities which would mean that we would be all too happy to do whatever he wants us to do. If God creatd the human mind, God can alter the human mind.

Had God not given mankind a free will, a real relationship between him and his creation would be impossible. Because he wants mankind to willingly choose to love and follow him out of their own choice, instead of forcing them to serve him. No loving God would FORCE his creation into worshipping him.

Neither can you. I'm just siding with empirical evidence.

That's OK with me if you do that. I just stick to my view that I feel like there's something out there that could possibly be God.

And besides, what kind of father would let his children burn for eternity? I'm not even sure Adolf Hitler would do that...

He does not want anyone to burn for eternity. He gave up everything he had, so that all his children might be saved if they reach out to him.

[SlayerOfLight]

1. Hitler was not a Christian. Tell me, what in the world made you think he was, besides him just claiming to be one? A Christian that hates jews, while his own Lord was a jew too? That makes no sense, so you might wanna try that again.

2.

Malachi 3:6: ''For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.'' God declares that he doesn't change. It's clearly in scripture.

James 1:17 tells us: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.'' Even more proof that he does not change.

God is all powerfull, but for him to be God, requires him to be unchanging, otherwise he would be corruptable and imperfect. Another example, it is impossible for God to lie, so he is consistent with truth, which has absolutes. His standard of right and wrong does not change. God cannot act contrary to his nature. Other then that, he is all-powerfull and infinite in any way. I am not making any of this up. According to scripture God is bound by his own nature because his holiness doesn't allow him to perform evil, or to sin, or violate his own word.

3. Ok

4. God gives life and God takes life. Being God, he has the right to take any life whenever he wants, and he owes us nothing. We owe him for the fact that we are alive and that we are part of his plan.

5. God had sent Christ not to condemn the world, but to save it. eternal damnation is one's own choice for rejecting God's free gift of eternal life through his only begotten son Jesus.

6. Then in what form? A giant teddybear or something?

7. Not sure to which of my quotes you'r refering there. If you'e refering to God allowing evil to exist, well, I have given my explanation to that.


(And that's ok, I had stuff to take care off anyway)

[TheLionPrince]

Yes, I know the term, "Mitochondrial Eve", doesn't refer to the biblical Eve. It's simply a scientific term that refers to the descendants of mankind originated from one humanoid female. Adam was the only man on Earth for quite a short period of time before the births of his sons (and 130 years when he gives birth to his third known son, Seth) compared to what it says in Genesis 5:4-5 which refers to him being the father of "many sons and daughters" for 800 years of his lifespan. Overall, Adam lived 930 years on Earth before he died due to no known diseases at the time and a healthy gene pool. So, yeah, Adam's lifespan would have overlapped with the lifespans of his sons and daughters.

The term is scientific. By no means does this even imply that Adam was the only living male on Earth, as your source specifically states. No human can live for more than 150 years now. The average lifespan around the time was between 25 and 40. There is no, and let me make it clear by repeating it ''NO'' scientific valid proof that any human on this planet has ever lived for more than +-150. Especially not at that time. It is impossible. Such a ridiculous claim is not even worth a discussion.

Technically, it's not too farfetched to believe that a human has not lived more than 150 years. In fact, a woman named Ann Feinseth was born on February 12, 1890, and the Social Security Death Index records her death on February 24, 2004 at the age of 195. (source)

And of course this would mean that everyone on this planet is the product of incest.
Yet elsewhere incest is condemned.

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. Leviticus 18:6

And, at least in some cases, is punishable by death.

And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. -- Leviticus 20:14

Go figure.

You're comparing apples and oranges. During the time of Adam and Eve, there was a limited population of men and women and the only ways to see an increase in population growth was through brother-sister or cousin-cousin relationship because those were the only marriage unions possible. By the time the laws of Leviticus was written, there was a diverse population among the 12 Tribes of Israel and incest among each other would have created a genetic defect that we know of today. And, no, a genetic defect among Adam's children wouldn't have possible given that Adam and Eve were bodily perfect.

As for geological evidence1 of Noah's Flood, in fact last year, archaeologist Robert Ballard2 (who discovered the remains of the RMS Titanic in 1985) investigated a theory in which the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea, and unearthed an ancient shoreline which is evident that a possible3 flood occurred there. Through the use of carbon dating, they dated the object to have originated in 5000 B.C. which some experts believe Noah's Flood to have happened in.

1. This is not evidence. This is a claim by 'one' or 'some' individuals.
2. Again, one person.
3. & 4. That is as unscientific as it gets. Science isn't science because 'some' people believe something to be true. Science is science because the majority of the scientific community values evidence in favor of the claim.

You are trying to tell me that we can date back the position of the continents billions of years ago, but we can't find sufficient evidence for a very important and geologically recent flood? That can mean two things: 1. the evidence has been miraculously wiped out by some force beyond nature, or 2. the flood never happened as it was described because when we know people don't walk on water and people can't turn water into wine we might also accept that the rest of the claims are rubbish.

If that's the case, I'll just pick number 1 in which you claim the evidence has been miraculously wiped out by some force beyond nature.

As for Horus's one of three birthdays and one falling on December 25, each civilization celebrates their version of the winter solstice. In terms of Jesus, it is highly unlikely Jesus was born in December since in the book of Luke, there were present shepherds with their sheep in the field which would be sheltered inside if the temperatures were cold. Not to mention, it's cold and wet in Bethlehem which is an unsafe environment to birth a child.

Well if that's unlikely, I can't imagine how unlikely walking on water is.

Furthermore on the Horus subject.

-Read your things
-Agree with most of it
-I stand corrected on the 12 desciples

Will do.

If performing miracles, driving out demons, walking on water, and resurrecting from the dead is too much for you to believe, that's fine by me.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Then, by all means, if you ever hear of a nearby testimony in which a person claims to have been healed, if they allow to, ask for their medical records before and after the healing.

[TheLionPrince]

There is no other evidence for this claim, plus if you google her name the first thing to pop up is 'longevity myths'. Not a consistent claim at all.
But for the fun of it, I'll grant you that one and you'd still be wrong. A person living to the age of 195 in recent ages does anything but prove that people could live to an extreme age. 'A woman from 1809 lived to be 195, thus a man from BC could have lived for 930 years' is ridiculous.
I ask you why you believe in a life overtaking religion and you give me one inconsistent source for it. This faith is based on a lot, except truth.

Or maybe I'm just using the wrong source? Going back my Anne Feinseth reference, the Social Security Death Index seems to be an accurate government source, and she seemed to have an accurate SS number. Though given if she did exist, she would have been 123 (or 124) when Social Security was enacted in 1933, and it's probable she could have forgotten her real birthdate when she registered given her age. Unless she had some sort of a birth certificate that confirms or states otherwise, there's no way to say if I am wrong and you are right.

But, fine, it's impossible for humans nowadays to live past 150 years given that the author(s) of Genesis record God cutting the lifespan of humans down to 120 before the events of the flood. Not to mention, in Psalms 90:10, it states "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years..." This still holds up when the average lifespan of a human is 78.06 years, though we have modern medical breakthroughs to help extend it a little further.

It wouldn't, because the human species originated in central Africa.
Over the years, many studies have been conducted that support the out of Africa theory. For example, a group of Cambridge researchers examined the skull shapes of more than 50 human populations and discovered that the farther the population lived from Africa, the less genetically diverse it was. This study, among others, supports the theory that Africa is the cradle of humanity, which is what most archaeologists have long believed.
~Discovery
It's funny because apparently God created two humans. I guess he got bored of incest and then just forbade it.

Or maybe he knew there would be instances when people will abuse their incestuous relationships for the purpose of rape, sexual molestation, or free love? In Genesis 19, Lot's two daughters conspire to get their father drunk so he can have sexual intercourse with him, and bear children due to the lack of available male partners. When Lot falls for their ploy, the two children born were directly his sons and indirectly his grandsons, being that they are his daughters' sons. Likewise, their sons were also their half-brothers, having the same father. Not only is God is preventing these abuses of a relationship from happening, but he is trying to spare us the confusion.

Besides, if they were bodily perfect. How did they die? Either they weren't perfect............. or they never existed.

They were bodily perfect before the Fall of Adam. After Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, the sin removed the veil for spiritual life with God and slowly they began to naturally die. Although they were spiritually dead, their bodies were relatively healthy though Eve would experience the labor pains of bearing a child. No diseases were recorded at the time, so their death was likely the result of natural causes through old age.

That is equivalent to walking away from reality.

Perhaps, though may I remind you most early civilizations have some record of a disastrous flood. In order to have such as a general consensus among civilizations (though with varying details), something must have happen.

Just because we fail to explain something today does not in any sense mean that it must be God's actions. Show me a God and I will believe in him. I certainly won't admire him, but at least I'll have my evidence.

The only few ways to witness Jesus before you enter eternity is either through a vision or a dream. This article reports thousands of Muslims converting to Christianity after reportedly encountering Jesus in dreams or visions. Just like we discussed with near-death experiences, there's no way to scientifically analyze these events since they are personal. But if it be God's will for your life, may you have a similar experience.

[Regulus]

Serious questions:

If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, then why are there other, less sophisticated primates? Did they evolve from Adam and Eve? How can the human race be so diverse, if we all share the same two ancestors? Wouldn't we be almost genetic clones of each other, like cheetahs? And, hey, were do the Neanderthals come into this?

There's also the whole issue about us knowing that the Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, and the bible completely disregarding all that, but that's a bit of a different issue that irks me. That's for another post. First things first, I want to hear responses to my above questions from someone who actually believes the bible is true.

[TheLionPrince]

Serious questions:

If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, then why are there other, less sophisticated primates? Did they evolve from Adam and Eve? How can the human race be so diverse, if we all share the same two ancestors? Wouldn't we be almost genetic clones of each other, like cheetahs? And, hey, were do the Neanderthals come into this?

The Bible does not really support the theory that homo sapiens descended from primates since God stated he created man in his image. Yes, there is theistic evolution which states religious thinking of God is compatible with the views of modern science, though non-theistic evolutionists reject the existence of a supernatural being and is more of personal opinions than established facts.

The diversity of the human race originate with Adam and Eve who gave birth to "many sons and daughters"; only those who are named in Genesis are Cain, Abel, and Seth. It's commonly accepted that the descendants of Adam and Eve's children were a result of incest, but as debated with Woeler, those were the only union partnerships possible at that time.

All of Genesis 5 records the genealogy of Adam with each generation having "many sons and daughters". It all comes to a head in Chapter 6, it states "human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, and the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." After Noah's family came out of the ark after the Flood, in Genesis 9, it says "three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth." The descendents of the sons of Noah is quite complex to generalize so this article should explain the rest.

I'm not positively sure what to make of the Neanderthals, though I speculate that when the descendants of Japheth or the population that disperse after the Tower of Babel into modern-day western Europe and eastern Asia could have resulted with the Neanderthals. Genetic mutation through adapting their new environment created a difference 0.3% of DNA genome in them resulting in a genetic drift, and there we have the Neanderthals. You're free to call it a "theistic evolution" theory, though it's a confirmed fact that DNA is constantly adapting through sequences of mutations. And while we may not be genetic clones of each other, an article reports on a DNA survey that certifies that humans are 99.9 percent identical in DNA.

There's also the whole issue about us knowing that the Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, and the bible completely disregarding all that, but that's a bit of a different issue that irks me. That's for another post. First things first, I want to hear responses to my above questions from someone who actually believes the bible is true.

The Bible does not even regard the age of the Earth; it's the Young Earth creationists that believe the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

Humans are not perfect. God apparently is, yet we were created in his image. God doesn't like incest, yet he creates a species that practices it. He creates us sick and then orders us, on the pain of eternal torture to be well again.
Now of course we get the eternal ''but God gave us free will'' argument. Yes, apparently he did. Apparently he is so full of himself that he needs to be reminded everyday of how great a leader he is. How much we all love his celestial dictatorship. You either obey or you burn in hell. It's a bit like North-Korea, but at least you can F-ing die and leave North-Korea. Free will only makes matters worse.
And last, but not least. If God can take credit for the 'abuses in relationships' he prevented. He can also be take credit for all the wars, natural disasters, crusades, murders and rapes he didn't prevent.

Well, hopefully, my argument will be a breath of fresh air. Yes, God gave mortal humans free will, though Satan corrupts God's free will given to us for his own purposes. The real answer is that the Bible plainly states the Earth is in possession of Satan. After the fall of man in the Garden, Satan apparently gained ownership of God's Creation. So we have our answer: evil is in the world because the devil rules the world. In 1 John 5:19, it states "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Elsewhere, in Ephesians 2, Satan is regarded as the "prince of the power of the air". And even Jesus recognizes Satan's hold on Earth, "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in me" (John 14:30).

So, every rape and murder in history has been done by humans through the corruption of the flesh/free will by Satan. As for secular wars, God left man in charge of taking the Earth, and some wars could have been prevented by our own governments. For instance, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave an appeasement to Adolf Hitler to avoid war letting him continue his polices of lebensraum, which resulted in the invasion of Poland. In the early 1940s, intelligence agencies in the United States had knowledge that the Japanese were planning to strike somewhere in the U.S., though they thought the Philippines would be the first target and widely underestimated Japanese aggression. Top officials in the Bush administration didn't act upon a classified memo that al-Qaeda was planning to attack the United States. While you may have a point about Christianity playing a role in religious conflicts such as the Crusades, you're overlooking one of the causes was the massacre of 3000 Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem by the Turks, and as a result, many deaths of Muslims was done in the name of Christianity in hope of restoring the Holy Land. That's where you have your point, although it seems both religions are to blame, not just one attributed to God. And while God may not prevent every natural disaster, what springs from it is human charity and compassion for those affected that are a result of God's goodness reflected through his believers that wish to help them. And may I correct God's "dictatorship": You either obey or don't obey. You just have to reap with you sow with both cases.

When was this again? 6000 years ago? 4000 years ago? Did the first human live when the Egyptians already learned how to read and write, or was it a bit later. Say in Sumerian times. How can anyone with a rational mind even begin to think this is true? And of course there were diseases. There were epidemics all over the human civilization.

I'm pretty sure that last sentence was meant to come off as my own interpretation (which apparently was flawed), and not at all fact. I wasn't well aware of any possible diseases that could have occurred during Adam and Eve's lifetimes, and the first forms of medical tablets from the Library of Ashurbanipal date back to 7th century BC. The Epic of Gilgamesh was also stored there. Since Noah and Gilgamesh are implied to be the same person living in ancient Mesopotamia, Adam and Eve and their children were long dead. Any record of them (if there was) was long gone given the Library's tablets were barely saved in recent times, so I just decided natural causes killed them.

Any biology textbook (an actual confirmed source of knowledge) will teach anyone that humans didn't get much older than 50 before the last 4 centuries. It takes an extreme amount of anti-reasoning to believe that a human being lived up to an age over 150. 2000 year old books do not, at any given point overpower modern science. Never ever.
The bible is as much proof for Adam's existence as Charles Dickens is for the existence of living tin soldiers.

Yes, those things are called tsunamis and earthquakes, and they are caused by plate-tectonics. There are again 2 possibilities here.
1. These things just happen due to the structure of the Earth.
2. There are tsunamis and earthquakes all over the world basically every day, but this very time it must have been god because bronze age people said so.

You remember how I said earlier it was just a massive rainfall that caused the Flood. I was partially wrong.

When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the underground waters erupted from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights.

There's the tsunamis right there.

If I ever do, I'll be sure to call a doctor.

LOL!