By explaining why god is bad and not real, first you have been able to establish atheism doesn't exist, that it's just a word coined for fear and hate for God
Secondly you all just cherry pick all the distaste you found in the Bible God has for sinners, which still confirms 1st reason.
Thirdly, God is God, creator and source of all. He created good and evil but it doesn't make him all evil and He doesn't want His precious creations(mankind) to be on the evil side but if they choose to then they should bear the brunt.
Atheism does not claim your God is not real. Atheism is a lack of belief in your God. We do not fear or hate something we do not believe exists. Tell us why you do not hate and fear the Hindu God Brahma who more than one billion people believe created the Universe. Then you might understand our point of view.
I do not cherry pick parts of the Bible. Christians do that all the time. I just dismiss the whole book.
God is God?? That is profound. Have you any evidence to support that. I don’t think you have. Tell us if you do without mentioning the Bible. If you can give me any evidence that there is any merit to your claim then I will become a Christian and renounce my atheism.
Your post makes no sense.
Atheists don't believe in gods. You don't believe in gods either, except yours. You look at ALL the other gods, and, don't believe they exist.
Do you believe in Zeus?
Do you hate Zeus?
Do you not believe in Zeus because you hate him?
How do you hate something if you don't think it exists?
Atheism is not a term coined for fear and hate of a god, it a term coined to mean lack of believe in a god.
IE: YOU are an atheist if Zeus is the god.
DOES it mean that you fear and hate Zeus?
And so forth, your premise makes no sense.
As for "Cherry Picking", the bible says slavery is moral. We are not ignoring that the bible says to love one another, or that slavery is moral, or that the bible has both immoral and moral sections.
We are simply pointing out that the bible doesn't describe a 100% loving god who practices what he preaches. It describes a rather nasty god with a possible Jekyll/Hyde personality.
Pointing out that there are bad sections is no more cherry picking than pointing out good sections.
Ignoring the bad sections is not realistic either.
Wanting no criticism of your view point is not healthy. Most societies that forbid saying anything bad are stagnant.
So, your point is not evidence of a healthy world view.
You then make some unsupportable statements, such as that:
1) God is the creator and source for all. There is zero evidence of that.
2) He created good and evil. There is zero evidence of that.
3) He doesn't want man to be evil. There is zero evidence of that.
4) He is not evil. There is zero evidence of that.
5) If man chooses to be evil, then they should bear the brunt of that. There is overwhelming evidence that this is true. No god required though.
The question then becomes, why CREATE evil if you don't WANT it?
Would not god's precious creations be better off if there was no evil?
What purpose does evil serve?
Why did god create the devil?
If there was no evil, no one would be bad and need to be punished.
Why did god create his precious creations and then devise a way to punish them for something they only NEED to be punished for, because of GOD?
If the motive was to make them better people, why not punish them while still alive, so they can mend their ways?
If the dog is shown the pile of poo after he left it, he can learn that you don't want him to leave poo there...and, can go outside. He learned from his mistakes, and, was able to grow as a dog.
If the dog leaves poo, over and over again, for decades, and then dies of old age, and you then torture the dead dog for all eternity...is that a better system?
The only motive for god to create evil is if he wanted there to BE evil.
Wanting there to be evil makes god evil, even if you add the non-sequitur that it doesn't.
Wanting there to be good can make god good too of course, hence the split nature of his "personality".
Of course, god not wanting people to KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG or have KNOWLEDGE, was tipping his hand about his intent.
If you were god, and wanted people to be good, why MAKE THEM not know right from wrong?
If you MAKE THEM not be able to tell good from evil, how can you expect them to avoid being one OR the other?
If you FURTHER put the ONE THING that WOULD allow them to know right from wrong, right there in front of them, and, make it as enticing as possible, put a talking snake next to it to trick them into getting it...
and essentially MAKE knowing right from wrong, wrong.
So, the people who GOD MADE NOT KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, did something they didn't know was wrong, until they did it....were then punished, their children were punished, and all mankind was punished.
Does that make ANY sense?
Does it make MORE sense, that to "forgive" mankind for this "sin"...God impregnates a virgin who's mom was a virgin, with himself, makes furniture for a few years, and is then killed by the Romans because his own people hated him...
Being killed by the Romans meant that mankind was forgiven?
The punishment was not lifted, as all are still considered to have the original sin, birth is still painful, men still have to work for a living, and we are not immortal.
What did being "forgiven" mean then?
Why does a person today, NEED to be forgiven for something HE DIDN'T DO?
How does god making furniture and then being killed by romans, and being dead for a few days, "forgive them"?
This is all nonsense.
If you heard this malarkey was what some tribe in the Congo believed, and had never heard it before, you too would reject it all as an absurd primitive myth.
So, essentially, zero of what you said makes any sense at all, other than people being responsible for their own actions.
That part you got right.
Your crazy talk of hating things that don't exist is nonsense. You need to think about your beliefs.
Seems to me that it would be easier for you to handle if atheism didn't exist; as there are no credible arguments for the existence of God.
It is claimed through religion and religious followers that a creator of the universe (otherwise known as God); exists. There are many people who do not buy into this claim and they DO exist. These people are called non-believers or atheists. The fact that there are people in this world who don't believe in your God and countless other Gods proves that atheism does exist. Atheism is the state of not believing. You do it yourself, but atheists just go one God further.
When atheists are explaining that "God is bad" and etc, they are critiquing a character. The same as one critiques any other character. For example I thought the character Enchantress from Suicide Squad was a terrible villain who I could not take seriously. The fact that I dislike this character doesn't make her real, she is still fictional.
Lacking faith in the Gods isn't dependent on certain questionable portions of the bible. In fact it isn't dependent on any portion of the bible. One can simply look at what we know about the universe and decide that they don't think a deity is necessary for it to exist.
"Thirdly, God is God, creator and source of all. He created good and evil but it doesn't make him all evil and He doesn't want His precious creations(mankind) to be on the evil side but if they choose to then they should bear the brunt."
Ok that is a claim, and not a statement of fact or a piece of supplied proof or evidence. It is meaningless to explain beliefs to a group of atheists without justifying them with proof and evidence. Saying "God is God" is a nonsense phrase. That's like saying Gandalf is Gandalf. It means nothing.
Is that it Ryan? Nothing more to say?
Just as well probably, he had nothing.
It was a mess logically, just a poorly thought out rant w/o even knowing what he was saying...and, it showed.
If smart, he'd just keep walking. If not, maybe he'll be back.
If so, maybe he'll continue his theme of claiming mighty mouse is real, and superman is not, and why do we hate mighty mouse, etc.
mighty mouse lol
We can't hate something we don't believe in. Therefore we can't hate God.
What many of us hate is something we do believe in: the illusory nature of religion, and the seeming immorality of religion. (These go together in some way.)
"Secondly you all just cherry pick"
- as does everybody when reading the Bible, including, presumably, you and the people who agree with you.
"He created good and evil but it doesn't make him all evil and He doesn't want His precious creations(mankind) to be on the evil side but if they choose to then they should bear the brunt."
- this sounds like an interesting statement that I can't refute since it's internally consistent. If you choose to reject God then bear the brunt.
Now the confusion comes in between "being religious" and "being a good person". The inference is that if you don't believe certain things, and don't act in certain narrow ways, you can never be a good person. This is where you and we differ, and this is where we look like good people, and you start to look bad.
If you choose to do without the state government, does the state government come after you to hunt you down? Only if you break the law. Otherwise, in the free West, the tradition is that they leave you alone.
Requiring people to believe is a bad law that leads to further bad laws.