It DOES follow — provided that "it" is "then it's somethng worse".

It's something worse to decry the immorality of the sky bully? Huh?

When we say that we don't want anything to do with "person X", we're saying we plan on avoiding this person. When we say we don't want anything to do with "god X", we're suggesting that he doesn't exist.

That's still a non-sequitor. What the sky bully wants would be independent of what I want. Even if the sky bully makes me interact with it, that doesn't mean that I have to desire it.

Can you name any specific examples of someone saying "I want nothing to do with a God who does X" said by someone who believes in such a God?

Why should I need to? If the Xian god exists and behaves like the tyrannical, genocidal maniac that is described in the Bible, then I want nothing to do with the Xian god. Nowhere in that statement did I suggest that god does not exist. I made a statement attacking the supposed morality in the Bible and/or that god holds if god does exist.

Of course, my point here is that Ebon didn't say this. So, I think we agree on my main point.

What was your main point again? That Ebon didn't use this bad argument that you are claiming (insisting?) that some atheists use? Like Alex, I've not heard any atheists use this argument either. Perhaps an example would be good.

We can avoid "said person", but we cannot avoid a big "sky bully", if one does exist. Wanting nothing to do with said sky bully is irrelevant, as long as the sky bully wants something to do with you. When we say that we don't want anything to do with "person X", we're saying we plan on avoiding this person. When we say we don't want anything to do with "god X", we're suggesting that he doesn't exist.

Can you name any specific examples of someone saying "I want nothing to do with a God who does X" said by someone who believes in such a God?

Of course, my point here is that Ebon didn't say this. So, I think we agree on my main point.

Have you really never heard anybody say "I want nothing to do with a God who does X"? If this isn't an argument that God must not exist, then it's something worse.

Huh? That doesn't follow. Saying that I want nothing to do with an immoral god is not the same as saying that god does not exist. It is a statement of the morality displayed by said entity. If I said that person X's morality abhores me and I want nothing to do with said person, did I just deny the existence of person X?

It's not an argument which a thoughtful person would make, but don't we all have times when we speak without thinking? Have you really never heard anybody say "I want nothing to do with a God who does X"? If this isn't an argument that God must not exist, then it's something worse. If there's a bully who's going to take your lunch money, wanting nothing to do with him doesn't matter. You've got to figure out how to gain the upper hand.

"God doesn't exist because the god of the Bible is horrible."

I'm not aware of any atheists who make this argument. What I have seen repeatedly is arguments reducible to "God probably doesn't exist, due to the total lack of evidence and various logical problems entailed by the qualities God supposedly has. Given that the god of the Bible is horrible, this is a good thing" which are then strawmanned into the above by apologists for religion, theist and nontheist alike.

(The closest argument to your example I have ever seen is the argument from evil, which concludes that the existence of "God" as traditionally defined by Abrahamic religions (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent) cannot logically be reconciled with certain facts about the world that we live in, since those qualities necessitate the foresight, ability, and desire to prevent needless suffering, which the majority of suffering in the world demonstrably is. The unfortunate insistence of apologists for religion of pretending that this argument is not conclusive because "it is possible that there really is a good reason for all this suffering" is a bit like suspending judgement in a geometry problem because "it's possible that someone will find a way to construct a square circle.")

No, in the end, it matters whether God exists, not God is moral.

That depends on what one is arguing. If one is simply arguing that god exists, then god exists independently of whether god is moral or not. If one holds to the Xian myth, however, that god is omni-max, then it does matter whether god is moral. Similarly, if one argues that we get our morality from the Bible, it matters whether god is moral or not, etc.

Admittedly this punishment did not come from my parents - hence my 'conversion' never really took place. I did briefly convert to Mormonism when I was suffering clinical depression in my twenties, but at the time I was looking for answers to my own personal suffering. I am glad it helped me to realise my true atheist roots...

It must be said - I agree wholeheartedly with Ebonmuse's rather dry repost that "I wasn't concerned by the answers he couldn't give, but rather by the answers he did give."

Ultimately that us all that really matters.

I'm not sure who the "you" is you're writing/responding to, but I'll just jump on in anyway. I have noticed that both sides use a sort of "I don't like it, therefore it's not true" kind of reasoning:

Christian: "God exists because life would be meaningless without him."
Atheist: "God doesn't exist because the god of the Bible is horrible."

... At least it seems that both side use this kind of reasoning. I haven't read all the comments, but I did read the original entry, and I don't see where Ebonmuse is guilty of this. He's not saying that God doesn't exist because He's horrible, he's saying that his friend's reliance on the Bible has led him to some warped conclusions.

Or are you asking us to see it from John*s (*name changed) point of view? That's fine up to a point. I have been in similar situations as John* when I was a Christian - having to justify God's atrocities. I think one person did comment that if the Bible ever suggested that the Israelites kill a bunch of women and keep the men for themselves, he'd have given a different answer in the end, even if he thought homosexuality was wrong.

No, in the end, it matters whether God exists, not God is moral. After all, He's bigger than us. (Ooh, we're all really impressed Down Here, I can tell you.)

No. It doesn't. So whether or not you AGREE with the characteristics of God and what he has done DOESN'T MATTER, it's irrelevant. You can't argue that God doesn't exist because you don't like him or the bible. He either exists or he doesn't. But he doesn't NOT exist just because YOU DON'T LIKE HIM! See my point? That's why your friend can't argue with you, he just believes in God and he can't argue on his behalf.

Oh, but there are so many "justifications" for why god just has to be such a dick, it makes your head spin:

1)Life lessons for humanity
2)Opportunity for growth
3)Opportunity to exercise faith
4)It's not me, it's you(humanity)
5)god is just, so he HAS to do this even though he really hates to, --- poor guy.
6)free will - after all, what of the freedom of all those rapists and genocidal maniacs if god stopped them in their dastardly tracks?

7)It's OK, as long as you're saved, everything will be fine in the end

8)In the neverending future, you'll look back and will see the wisdom of all that god did and allowed and you'll agree 100% because then you'll be supernaturally wise and capable of understanding.

The list actually goes on, but I'm getting tired already.