Well, actually I can't. It doesn't make sense to. The thing is other atheist speaks up and says I"m not a literalist so he's making a fool of himself.
Murdering the First born children of Egypt
Last I checked, Meta's not a literalist. So, he may claim that God is the standard of good, but he doesn't necessarily claim that God committed genocide, killed kids, sent bears to kill teenagers, or similar. So, trying to get him to justify God doing this stuff is just a little bit silly.
but does that stop him NOOOoOOOOOOOoooo!
I find it curious that you seem unable to actually write the wordsBecause I don't believe it I protest, he goes on talking as though I'm defending it. I wonder at this point if he isn't so married to script that he can't get off it. Even when he gets answers he's not prepared for he just pretends like he's getting the one's he wants. I keep saying I don't believe God did it. I don't believe that story happened. He clearly believes it did, he's just looking for a reason to hate God.
"Yes, killing the firstborn of Egypt was a good act".
Rather you obfuscate and say "well, it couldn't have been a bad act". But you won't positively come out and say it was a good act. What restrains you?
I want you to say the words to prove to us that you can. If you do not, I can only assume it is because you cannot bring yourself to put into writing such a repugnant statement. You know that your god was not right, and that is why you cannot say "Killing the firstborn children of Egypt was a good act."
I know he wasn't right? what sense does that make? If I don't believe it happened how is it a matter of him being right? That implies hat he real believes it, he knows God is real but just hates him. Or at least he's determined to blame him for things even he knows he's real. I continue to protest, these posts are piling up. this is going on and on an on.
Then he lays down the gem:
Why does it matter that it didn't actually happen?
Is the act not representative of the true character of God?
you are actually trying to argue that if God didn't do it its representative of God? Based upon what?
how can not doing something indicate that his character is of a sort that would do it?
that's about as irrational as you can get. according to that kid of thinking, the best evidence of soemthing is lack of evidence.
if District thought way they would say "He didn't commit the crime that's the he just the type who would."
wow I am having a hard thinking of anything more irrational!
But I didn't need to think long, enter irrational atheist no 2.aka Non profit. He actually argues that God is evil. He says it's not a matter of logic. he doesn't need logic he has faith. His trip is to just repeat everything he thinks fundies say but in reverse. God is evil, satan is good (although he claims not be a satanist). So he's just a troll. He's just messing with fundie minds by reversing it all. I made my three arguments form this blog that i posted here at one time, three arguments how do we know God is not evil?" He only attempts to answer one. I had argued that evil can't come first. He says I'm only taking it on faith that God came first. Then I say know it's logical because God is the ground of being that has to come first, moreover it's a priori because I use the term "God" to mean "that which created as eternal necessary being." Then he say evil came first and good rejects evil. That has some pretty big problems logically. I think I basically tore him apart. first he had said my position is illogical because it's based upon faith. now that snow it's logical he says he has no place for Logic it's faith that matters and his is better than mine.
My faith is better than yours, because my faith is correct. I understand your faith base deposition disagrees. That's fine.
I finally wound up leaving him a link "this is the philosopher that best sums up your thinking."
what can do with such a movement of morons?