Oh, and here are some blogs that kinda relate to this thread.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

MattShizzle, if I remember right, that quote is from Dawkins. I'm too lazy to look it up though.

 Yes, it's from The God Delusion and it's the very first sentence in chapter one, I think. 

-“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Thanks Iruka. It appears to be so. I kind of thought it was Richard Dawkins before I posted but for some reason I wasn't nearly sure enough to even say maybe.

If God is the most valuable, all-satisfying, infinitely worthy being, then offending Him (i.e. sinning) is deserving of infinite punishment. This idea might be hard to comprehend, especially the "infinity" part, because most likely you're going to compare offending God to offending another human being.

You may say your sins are "minute" and "finite" but what sin is, is rebellion against God. Treason. Even by human standards, treason is not dealt with lightly. Your treason (and mine) are against the most valuable, most high God.

I thought they were the same god.  Was I wrong in this assumption? 

And if he is so upset by people not believing in him, why doesn't he provide irrefutable evidence that he exists?

Naw, I think what we have here is a dispensationalist. Wheeeee! This is pretty easy to refute. I think what Demiurge is trying to say is that we live under the new covenant or New Testament.

If god is perfect, there would have been no need for a new covenant because the first covenant would have been perfect.

For that matter, Adam would have been incapable of sinning. Before you start screaming, "Free Willy! Free Willy!"...er, I mean, "Free will! Free will!" I'd like to point out that if god were perfect, omnipotent and omnibenevolent he could have set things up in such a way as to preserve free will and yet kept Adam and Eve from sinning.

I just had one of those "I can't believe I'm arguing about this shit" moments. This is the 21st century. Why are we still arguing about this shit???? The whole Adam and Eve story is ridiculous.

I guess people were tolerant of this nonsense for far too long. If someone else had taken a stand, maybe I wouldn't have been raised to believe shit like this. Hoo boy.

Actually the Cruci-FICTION had it ever happened, would be a stupid act. He had himself tortured in order to save people from himself for violating rules that he made, when he knew what was going to happen. Who exactly was he trying to impress? Imagine if one of your friends did something to piss you off - what would make more sense:

1. Just forgive and forget.

2. Cut one of your fingers off and if they accept it as a gift forgive them - if they look at you like oyu're a nut or don't accept it or whatever - beat the crap out of them.

And at least your friend knows for a fact you exist!

Oh noes, I banged another man, that's high treason against humanity.

I believed in a pantheon, that's horrid.

Again, your god is a whiney dick, all the other gods probably picked on him when he was little. 

I don't know about all of you, but when I read that Keven actually said "However, the most loving thing God can do is say, "Look at Me! Look at Me!" because God is the only all-satisfying, infinitely worth, perfectly beautiful being" it hit me almost the same way the adrenaline does, but as a huge blow of absurdity. How freaking arrogant is that?!? And I know a Christian won't understand this, because they approach this from a completely different stance, but holy hell! Actually, my brother and I were talking about God and Christianity a few months back in Chicago, but were going to the salvation army to look for cheap books and old clothes, and he said to me something un-able for me to quote (not because it was super intelligent, but because of it being months ago), but he said what a Christian SHOULD say was basically what Keven said. We both got a big kick out of that, and I got an even bigger kick just now out of that fact that a person actually proposed this.

This argument about a sin being an infinite crime because God is perfect seems to me to be not quite thought out.

My sins, if they are in fact actually wrong, do have actual effects and consequences. But they must be finite, at least within the natural realm. So, what happens to them when God sees them (assming God exists)? Well, it seems like God projects this finite act onto his infinite self. And if God is omniscient, meaning that he knows everything, he must know that the act is finite within the natural realm. He must know that the ramifications here in the natural world are finite. So he must know that when they become infinite to him, that is completely his responsibility and his fault--he did, after all, create all of the perameters of existence and is responsible for making the finite act into a finite crime.

In short, they become infinite because of God and will his full knowledge that they were finite before he makes them infinite. It's much like something that you (generic reader) may do that seems insignificant to you, but because it is a pet-peeve of mine I project it into a larger crime than it is. That's my fault, not yours. Similarly, it's God's fault sin is infinite, not ours.  This God of yours, Kevin, is much to anthropocentric.

Shaun

a simple challenge to this is the fact that none of us, neither you or me, asked to be born. i suppose if in a proposed theological framework i asked a God to be born, then i might owe this God something. but I didn't. offending this god is not deserving of infinite punishment since his creation didn't ask to be created.

I don't dis-believe on authority.  What authority are you even referring to? I've been open-minded about it, and I'm not convinced.  Your personal experience cannot be evidence for me, by definition.  I would also question your understanding of epistemology, considering what you claim to know.  That's a different issue. 

I have no hostile comments.  I'll simply say that I have looked at both sides and find Christianity not only not convincing, but not even remotely convincning.  I would kindly ask you to not assume that atheists have not looked at both sides.

Shaun