Asking your 'God' to appear before me (and everyone on the planet simultaneously) to prove his existence to our satisfaction; I 'showing you mine, re. Queen Elizabeth II at our 2012 Olympics to prove her existemce, then when I ask you to 'show me yours' in exactly the same way - which is not a 'false dichotomy', incidentally, as you claim here:
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=89336&Page=6
Queen Elizabeth II, head of the Church of England, 'Defender of the Faith', and all that jazz. Your 'God', who you claim 'exists'. I see absolutely no difference, in my simple question: I show you mine, you show me yours. But you haven't shown me yours to my satisfaction (whereas I have; the 80,000 at the Olympic Stadium & the 1 billion+ watching on worldwide TV). Ergo, proof that your 'God' doesn't exist. And no amount of 'apologetics' will change any of that, thus you admit yourself that your 'God' doesn't exist. You said it, I didn't.
'Analogy'? 'False dichotomy'? How about a paradox:
"You're talking about being good by human standards; I'm talking about being good by divine standards."
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=23253&Page=1
@BurntBush
"If your kids did something bad, would you throw them in a lit fireplace?"
PROTIP: The extremely successful comedy film "Bruce Almighty", with nary a mention of religion (unlike the 'sequel', "Evan Almighty", with it's 'Noah's Ark II' scenario. Which bombed. You do the maths). A sort of 'What If' scenario (which I like; "The Final Coundown", for example), which posited the notion:
What would you do, if you were God?
But that's by the bye. I refer you to the question asked by Burnt Bush (check one):
[ ] Yes. Then you are the worst form of tyrannical (not)parent, Saddam Insane**-esque hyper-sadist, and exponent of Infanticide, never mind mass murder. As far as you're concerned, what two adult, consenting men do in the privacy of their own bedroom(s) = murder.
[ ] No. If not, why not? Because if you wouldn't, you're proving that you're a good person, by everyone's standards? What are those 'standards'? What's that, you say?: 'Laws of the land'? Ah, so we're supposed to ignore Romans 13:1-5, when such laws are inconvenient for us, eh? So what's stopping you from doing what Burnt Bush suggested, then...? And above all, whose standards does your so-called 'God of love' set his by...? Because we are supposed to set our standards by his; yet, it's a different matter for him; nope, no hypocrisy on his part, nosirree! [/hyper-sarcasm]
Choose wisely. And if you refuse to answer this simple question 'Yes' or 'No', then it'll count as a 'Yes'. As per your standard: 'you keep suggesting that you want me to answer your questions or debate you. If you are up for it, I'm game'.
...except when said questions are a little too inconvenient. As in you'd then have no choice but to admit your 'beliefs' & what such are based on are wrong in every conceivable way, thus you'd have to recant said 'beliefs' and become an Atheist yourself. But then, you've already admitted yourself time & again that your 'beliefs' have been and always will be wrong. Certainly by the example of being a liar & a hypocrite by your own 'God's standards, as proven by your own 'Word of God'.
Now, what was that about Marcus Aurelius' advice being 'empty'...? An earlier quote by Epicurus springs to mind (emphasis added):
'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not* omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?'
Nope. Not seeing any references whatsoever about 'The Devil', a.k.a. 'Satan', a.k.a. Lucifer actually doing any wrong in the Bible; even if he does exist. Question: If you had an expensive Blu-Ray player, and a toddler who liked to put things in places that shouldn't be (i.e. peanut butter in the VCR), would you just keep said Blu-Ray player as close as possible to the floor (near the now peanut butter-marinaded VCR), or would you put such - along with the VCR - on shelves high up, so said toddler couldn't reach such & thus damage it? A certain story with a certain tree with a certain magical fruit springs to mind...!
Or I'd simply not allow said toddler in the same room that had said expensive Blu-Ray player in the first place. But then, I'm single, thus not allowing said gadget-destroying toddler to exist in the first place, thus the point is irrelevant (certainly in my case). Or, if I was God, I'd simply not allow the concept of 'Sin' (as you lot define it) to exist in peoples' minds in the first place; fuck the non-sequitur excuse by Bible apologists of 'Free Will'. Because they'd already come, pre-programmed, with a sense of right & wrong. And from my point of view, what two adult consenting men do in the privacy of their own bedroom(s) =/= murder. As in what possible harm do they do to anyone else? Not me, and I'm a straight man.
There's a new bus advert out now by Stonewall (the LGBT rights group) doing the rounds. Consisting of just the slogan: 'Some people are Gay. Get over it.'
'But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.'
-Thomas Jefferson
But it does me no injury for my male neighbours to do what they consent with each other in their own home. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Anon-e-moose
Now point out on this doll where the nasty 'Gay Agenda' touched you personally, Right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity in the US...?
Fact: Homosexuality in all civilised, democratic countries is legal (PROTIP: Romans 13:1-5). Including the USA. Get over it.
Moral: As proven above, your 'God' FAILS in every conceivable way. As do his own hypocritical 'followers'. Ergo (and as demonstrated by the above chart), we Atheists are more than infinitely superior to him. And you. QED.
*- Thus he's not 'God', therefore he's a contradiction to himself. Ergo, he doesn't exist. QED.
**- Saddam Insane liked to torture/kill dissidents/opponents/anyone he disliked by forcing his/her family to watch such happening (and if he was 'merciful' at that time, he/she would be done head first). How? Just think 'Paper Shredder' - only on a much larger scale. People being shredded (usually feet first, thus whilst still alive). Being burnt for eternity (especially for the actions of 'two adult consenting men' = murder). Can you see any difference there? Especially keeping in mind Burnt Bush's question...?