EXSISTENCE OF GOD

They are NOT wrong because there is no such thing as wrong. Do you understand the term moral relativism? That is what I'm talking about. In my mind what they did is awful, but it is NOT wrong. To say it is wrong would imply that we are working from an objective idea. There is no such thing as objectivity, it is all subjective. While I may think and the majority of the world will think that their action is horrible it doesn't mean it's wrong. Have you listened to anything that I've said? It doesn't give them a pass. It's a matter of perception. There is no right or wrong both in what they do and in our reaction to it. No they are not wrong in what they do, but we are also not wrong in throwing them in prison. This thing works retroactively. Your own ego blinds reason. There is no such thing as truth, there is no such thing as absolutism or objectivity. It is all subjective to one's own feelings and experiences. And you know what? A belief in a "perfect God is unreasonable. Repent to your mind for damaging it with that idiotic thinking. Oh so because the first human ate a piece of fruit God exacts his revenge by torturing and killing us or allowing ourselves to do that to each other? What kind of God is that? I want you to listen to this idiocy for a second because it is quite interesting. According to your "religion" God created man and everything including man's ability to be tempted. Then he created the devil and the devil tempted Adam because God gave Adam the ability to be tempted. Now, Adam gives in to this temptation that God has put inside of him and God throws him out of Eden and forces him and all of his ancestors to toil endlessly on earth and be punished for eternity. How does any of that make sense? My parents are not God, they did not personally create every part of me including my ability to be tempted. They react to me, God created us and then got mad because we used something that he gave to us? This entire story makes no sense. You outline many horrible circumstances that invoke terrible mental images. But still you do not listen. The justification of one's actions works retroactively. You are justified in what you do but I am justified in my reaction if the majority agrees with it, this is a democracy you know. The people decide what is punishable and what is not. The simple result is that there are no morals, no absolutes. Absolutes are the evil of the world. Jews are bad, an absolute and the result being the holocaust. Christians are always right, an absolute and the result being the inquisitions, crusades, and oppression of freedom of religion for about 1500 years. The laws of Alah supersede human laws, an absolute and the result being the terror you see today. We need to look at all things with tolerance and understanding. Descartes' most difficult advance was in trying to prove that he himself existed, he came up with an answer and one that can be argued against. So, if one of the great philosophers of the Renaissance could not even come up with a a foolproof case for his own being than how can you be certain that your concepts of "right and wrong" are real? There is no right and wrong. You keep misunderstanding my concept. It is not wrong because there is no such thing as wrong. Wrong is an absolute term and there are no absolutes. Absolutes only lead to the same horror that you are railing against. It's perception and this justification works retroactively meaning that the status quo stays the same whether you accept this theory or not. This in no way means that God exists and I have proven in at least one way (the idiotic creation story) as to why he must not exist. Yes and no questions are falsehoods. Why do you rely on an either or policy? I personally think that it is despicable to do such a thing but that does not mean that it is wrong, because there is no such thing as wrong, being an absolute term. I wish you would listen as much as you repeat. For those voting listen to the main point. Is there a God? It does not matter that my views on morals may be unorthodox. The important thing is that he has not proven that these evil people prove the existence of God. As I have stated they in fact further my arguments by showing what a vindictive monster this "God" must be (if he exists). You cannot prove God by saying there must be a judge, that is completely nonsensical and should be treated as such. Listen to the facts. There is no empirical evidence that God exists. Every example he used only furthered my argument. Vote with that and you will surely see that I won this argument.