Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

Maybe many athiests hate god

I get the feeling you may be unable to conceptualize atheism.  Try to imagine what it's like to hate something you don't believe even exists.  How much do you hate the tooth fairy?

In any case I do find myself in agreement with Richard Dawkins' observation that scientists cannot truly be atheists, as there's no way to prove god doesn't exist.

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.

So, yes.  Based on the (lack of evidence) I find the existence of Yahweh to be about as likely as that of the tooth fairy.  And I don't hate the tooth fairy.


Regards,

[|iR|Focalor]

So, yes.  Based on the (lack of evidence) I find the existence of Yahweh to be about as likely as that of the tooth fairy.  And I don't hate the tooth fairy.

I do. That bitch owes me 20 bucks! Those teeth belonged to the smaller kids in the hood, but I punched them out fair and square. PAY ME!

Seriously though.

For herd-conformity and labeling purposes in the context of this paragraph, I'm an atheist. I'm not pissed or unhappy at the idea that God would create this world. This world of mine is a pretty cool place despite the fact that there are an awful lot of assholes sharing my planet with me. Anyone who claims to be atheist simply because they have a beef with Jehovah is obviously not an atheist. There is more to it than that. It's quite ridiculous that one earns the name "atheist" simply because they choose not to believe in Jehovah, who is only ONE of thousands of gods that man has given a name to. I don't hate Jehovah any more or any less than I hate Ra or Vishnu or Marduk. To me, a god is nothing more than the embodiment of a set of ideals. While some of those ideals I may find to be utterly retarded, I do not truly hate the ideals as much as I hate the followers of such ideals. The followers of any particular god are the ones I don't like, especially the ones who feel it necessary to educate me and convert me against my will. Like I said before: assholes.

Focalor's recommended reading:
Essay: God of the Assholes by Anton Szandor LaVey

[reaper]

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative.

If a god is so outrageous to you, and the alternative explanations so probable, pick a side.  What kind of worthless definitions are these.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.

In what context does someone have to proof god exists, in court it's held as self evident god exists..

[|iR|Focalor]

I can respect an honest athiest. I have no respect for those athiests who seem intent upon forcing athiesm on everybody (i.e. the ones who say no crosses in public places, no "under God" in the pledge of allegience, no quietly distributing pro-life literature near abortion clinics).

Atheists (especially the ACLU) have no problem with crosses in public places. However, they do find it objectionable to find a cross or the 10 commandments in a judicial building or any government property, which is in effect public property by way of taxes paid by all citizens to maintain the property. We've been over this topic already at length, but it leads one to believe that our government holds one religion more valuable than others. Furthermore, as long as no one is required to include "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance, there isn't anything to object to. Unfortunately some people (like yourself, obviously) aren't going to be satisfied until everyone is forced to accept your view that our country is God-fearing nation founded upon impeccable Christian morals as evidenced in the character of each and every one of our founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence. As for pro-life/pro-choice... I could care less what those two warring factions do to one another.

Yes, Focalor, I can agree with you that there are some obnoxious Christians who will try to force God on you. They are the minority, and I have no respect for them either. And those "Christians" who shoot abortion doctors...deserve to be fried in the electric chair like any other murderers. They are not Christians, so do not judge all Christians based on the views of a radical few.

Wow. So I assume that all Christians are crazy abortion clinic bombers now? I did not know that about myself. Tell me more.

Do you hate Zeus?

If not, why not?

I do not hate Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, Aphrodite, or any other of the Greco-Roman gods. They, however, were man's attempt to place his ideas on his gods. Notice their behaviors: they lust (Zeus), feel jealousy (Hera), and control people (Eros). In every way, they are just grigantic men without any control. The God of the Bible is different. He is wholly good, not swayed by human passions. And no, I do not hate Zeus. Why should I hate that which does not exist?

First of all, you should go back and read the portion of the Holy Bible where the 10 Commandments are given to the jews. "Thou shalt not have any gods before me." Why? Because "God is a jealous God." Secondly, I don't believe that Jehovah exists either. By some of these statements you've made, I can't help but think you believe that I hate Jehovah. Like you said, why hate something that doesn't exist? What does it accomplish? Hate tends to put me in a bad mood. I'd much rather be happy and worry about all the shit that I can perceive with my senses rather than spiritual pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams.

By the way, there is evidence for God. How about the total lack of transitional fossils?

Using scientific terms like transitional fossils does not make one a scientist. Nor does it prove any point. This is why many atheists point their fingers in ridicule. For centuries, Christians have inserted this default explanation that "God did it." as if it were an all-encompassing scientific solution to any theory. If something has no explanation... God MUST have done it. It's a miracle from God. Or God moves in mysterious ways. Science has no need for such faith-based conclusions because it is the relentless pursuit of absolute truth. Until the scientific method can be used to find the truth, it is only called a theory. According to science, the existence of God is but a theory. According to Christianity, the existence of God will ALWAYS BE just a theory because according to the Holy Bible, no mortal man may see or hear God. The lack of transitional fossils only proves one thing according to the scientific method... that there are no transitional fossils. At this point, it is only THEORIZED that they exist because there is no tangible evidence that they do. Kinda like there is no tangible measurable evidence that God exists either.

Why are there so many "missing links"? And why is there so much helium in zirconium crystals? It would all have leaked out over billions of years. And what about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states: "The entropy of the universe must always decrease or stay the same. It can never increase." This precludes order from arriving from chaos, as that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. DNA mutations increase entropy, not decrease it.

Once again, the default explanation that "it's because God did it" is not sufficient enough to answer those theories. This kind of shit happens when people who hold a doctorates in theology try to masquerade as those who might have a doctorates in science. And these examples you provide happen when those same numb skulls print out pamphlets for everyone in church to read so that they may be "better equipped" to evangelize as Jesus commanded. Believe it or not, I've been inside a church without bursting into flames before. I saw that book already.

[reaper]

"your god is not here today priest"

the exorcist

[quadz]

I do not hate Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, Aphrodite, or any other of the Greco-Roman gods. They, however, were man's attempt to place his ideas on his gods. Notice their behaviors: they lust (Zeus), feel jealousy (Hera), and control people (Eros). In every way, they are just grigantic men without any control. The God of the Bible is different. He is wholly good, not swayed by human passions.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

One gets the impression you haven't read the Old Testament recently.

It's just eyerolling what a nasty SOB god is in the old testament.

I hate to keep quoting Dawkins, but he summarized it so nicely: 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.

(as the LORD commanded)

By the way, there is evidence for God. How about the total lack of transitional fossils?

Might I enquire as to whether you may have been home schooled?   There are a wealth of transitional fossils.

Why are there so many "missing links"?

On the contrary, we should be amazed we've been able to unearth fossils from as many different species as we have.

http://tastyspleen.net/~quadz/sillypx/trevol.jpg

Most living things that die, thoroughly decompose without a trace.  Frankly, if there were NO gaps, that would be the bigger mystery.

And why is there so much helium in zirconium crystals? It would all have leaked out over billions of years.

I don't know that one.  Clearly, when confronted with a mystery, our best bet is to seek a supernatural explanation.

And what about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states: "The entropy of the universe must always decrease or stay the same. It can never increase." This precludes order from arriving from chaos, as that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. DNA mutations increase entropy, not decrease it.

It doesn't work that way.

Entropy increases in a closed system until equilibrium is reached.  Thermodynamics places limits on a closed system's ability to do work.  There's no 100% efficient conversion process from heat to work.

"Creating order from chaos" is doing work.  It is not a violation of Thermodynamics.  It's just helping the universe reach its equilibrium state.


.......................

( starting to suspect I'm being trolled???  )

Regards,

[|iR|Focalor]

Might I enquire as to whether you may have been home schooled?

Quadz knows his shit too, I see. I was home schooled during 9th and 10th grades by a private Christian tutor. All of my school books (including science and biology) were purchased from a publisher that also provided most of the text books in use at Bob Jones University in South Carolina, basically what you might term as an "independant fundamental Baptist college", the same college that made headlines years ago because of their long-standing policy against interracial dating. Consequently, they cited the verse stating "Be ye not unequally yolked" as the basis for such blatantly racist beliefs.

Anyway, to make a long story short... all of the "evidence FOR God" that Eternity stated sounded uncannily familiar to me, like deja-vu. I thought I had read it in one of the pamphlets at the Baptist church I attended in my teens, but now I remember that it was from my 10th grade biology textbook.

The history books I used were even worse. It was PAINFULLY obvious how out-dated they were. I would read and read and read hoping to MOVE THE HELL ON THROUGH THE LESSON TO ANOTHER EVENT, but no such luck. The textbook would CONSTANTLY spend insane amounts of time detailing the same points over and over:
*Why Capitalism was so awesome
*Why Communism was such an evil system obviously devised by the devil himself
*How Reagan was basically the savior of the planet
*How the USSR was hell-bent on world domination and global enslavement

And for 11th and 12 grades, I attended a private Christian school. It was all the same textbooks though. For those 4 years, I obviously took everything I read with a grain of salt vast mountain of salt.

[quadz]

Hi, I'll be happy to reply in more detail later.  Heading out to dinner, etc.......

BTW, Quadz, why do you think I am trolling you?

Well, for example, when I see statements like this:

The helium in zirconium crystals is actually the result of alpha decay from radioactive particles.
[...]
I simply believe the earth to be ~6000 years old, as most science indicates.

How can you be talking about radioactive decay in the same breath as claiming "most science" indicates the earth to be ~6000 years old?

We don't have just one method of dating fossils (C-14)... there are numerous methods including rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, uranium/lead, as well as correlative dating of the rock surrouding the fossils, etc.

Well, gotta go... but your claim that most science indicates the earth is only ~6000 years old seems so absurd ... yes, it does tend to make me wonder if i'm being "trolled".

More later...

Regards,

quadz

[quadz]

What does it matter if I am homeschooled or not (I went to a Christian high school)? If I were, would it change the validity of my arguments?

I wasn't challenging your arguments on that basis.  (I wouldn't want to commit the Guilt By Association fallacy.)  However, I was indeed curious.  (cf. the home schooling scene in the Jesus Camp documentary.)

I simply believe the earth to be ~6000 years old, as most science indicates.

Can I presume there exist peer-reviewed papers published in one or more reputable scientific journals that substantiate this Young Earth claim?

Please offer sound scientific reasons as to why the earth is old.

Here's one for starters:

( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer )

As to calling God an SOB: this attempt to raise my dander doesn't need a reply. Please refrain from mindless name-calling.

When I had re-read my post a minute or two after having hit the Post button, I'd contemplated changing that part to "nasty so-and-so" instead of "nasty SOB", precisely to avoid these kind of distractions.  However, after recalling various incidents in the Old testament, I felt SOB seemed warranted, so I left it.

I'm sure Yahweh is big enough to take it.

Entropy increases in a closed system until equilibrium is reached.

Quadz, all scientists (young-earth & old-earth) realize that entropy can never decrease in a closed universe. It increases without bound in a closed universe environment.

Okay, now I feel like I'm being trolled again.

What I was responding to, was this:

And what about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states: "The entropy of the universe must always decrease or stay the same. It can never increase." This precludes order from arriving from chaos, as that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. DNA mutations increase entropy, not decrease it.

Given that you stated entropy decreases, I felt the need to restate the concept before replying.  (I did not call you out on that point, as I presume it may have been a brain-fart.)  But that is why I restated: Entropy increases in a closed system until equilibrium is reached.

But that clarification was not the important part.  The important part is your claim that certain kinds of work can't be done.  ("Order from chaos violates the 2nd law.")

The claim is nonsensical.

It would be equivalent to saying the heavier elements in the universe (Helium through Iron) couldn't have been formed in the fusion reactors of stars.  (Another kind of order from chaos.)

[...... I could respond to the rest -- (Dawkins' claims about the Old testament God) ... but I feel that would be a distraction from your assertions about entropy.  Which I really would like to explore further.]


Regards,

quadz

[haunted]

Eternity.. you're wrong man! (I mean this in a friendly way..)

Debating the age of the Earth is the worst approach you could take with your stance! It has already been proven, without a doubt, that the earth is not 6,000 years or less old. Carbon-14 dating or any other isotope/radioactive decay models flat out prove that the Earth is 4-5 billion years old. This is a common misconception among many religious people... I am not religious whatsoever, but growing up and participating in the little religious activities I did, I never took the bible that literal. I considered it a fairy-tale for the most part, the importance lying within the morals / meanings behind the stories. And just so you know, I am currently Agnostic.. in my case meaning that I honestly feel that god most likely does not exist, but either way I don't really care. It's not like I could debate / talk about it with anyone around here anyway, lol...

Also, this form of 'radical christianity' that you speak of is not a minority. It's actually the vast majority where I live within an hour's driving distance from me respectively. Television is even worse though. The evangelical christian stuff is without a doubt "radical christianity"... And them alone are a large enough group of people to harness and win a national election!!! (gg karl rove)... I'm not sure what country you live in, but Radical christianity is _everywhere_, and it's so a part of our social norms that you can't even refer to it as radical, really. Christianity has always been the main bogus religion that attempts to force their beliefs on others(spreading the word)......What an insulting and ridiculous thing to do(spreading the word equates to "believe like I do because you're wrong and i'm right, even though I have no legitimate proof for my beliefs), especially with no ground to stand on. You really can't complain about atheists trying to force their beliefs on others because that would be very hypocritical, but you definitely would never have to worry about that posting here, it's just friendly debate.

And yeah, quadz took the words right from me with the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

[haunted]

I still don't feel like you're fully grasping the concept of entropy and spontaneous changes / increases... I won't bother explaining it because you didn't reply to what I said anyway!!   

Also, you need to do some more research in these fascinating concepts like distorting space. You're saying that you believe that it's true, but in actuality the likelihood of this happening is near scientifically impossible for it to work out how you say...... 

ps. many things follow Einstein's theory of relativity, but it doesn't mean a whole lot; gravity exists and yes it affects everything.. 

[kren.Z]

 q

[QwazyWabbit]

So many points, so many misconceptions and interpretations. Too confusing to sort it all out.

Thermodynamics states that over the whole of a system entropy must increase. Your equations were about the entropy across the manifold of the system and doesn't address the internals of local "hot spots" where work can be done and entropy appear to decrease. But the principle of entropy was a theory presented by Kelvin a long time ago and doesn't account for space-time or current theories of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics entropy can "reverse" and matter appear from "nowhere" or particles can coalesce into more-ordered systems than they were before, but at the expense of an increase in entropy in another place in space-time.

The law of entropy assumes the direction of time is unchanging and the laws of physics are uniform throughout the manifold encompassed by the equations. One could say this is an assumption based on a faith. Stephen Hawking has made some pretty interesting statements about his thinking on entropy and the arrow of time and the potential for reversal, either local or universal, and the big bang vs. the big crunch.

Current scientific measurements place the age of the solar system at 8 to 12 billion years, the earth-moon system at 4.5 billion years and the universe at somewhere near 25 billion years. The age of Sol is computed from its radiant output and spectral signature and proportions of Hydrogen, Helium and the products of the fusion process. Age of earth is computed from the usual radioisotope ratios and the predictable and consistent decay rates of those isotopes. The age of the universe is based on the apparent expansion rate and the red shift of the most distant objects we can observe, but we are getting constantly better at seeing more distant objects so the age estimate is increasing.

A "bubble constantly being inflated" is a four dimensional object, not a two dimensional one. (3 space and 1 time dimension)

A jewish friend of mine stated the jewish estimate of the age of the earth is 8000 years.

The 6000 year number comes from a study of the geneology of the old testament conducted by the Vatican, I believe under pope Urban II, with the assumption that ALL the generations were listed and the ages consistently tracked without any "missing transitional fossils" of the creation of Adam through the generations leading up to Christ. This was done after fixing the birth of Christ in the calendar and the calendar itself - which had to be fixed again in 1610.

The buddhist estimate of the age of the earth is somewhere closer to 64,000 years.

The Mayan calendar counts from the creation date: August 11, 3114 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar or September 6 in the Julian calendar. So 3114 + 2009 = 5123 years since creation, a far more precise date than anything pronounced by Christian creationists.

So we can conclude that since the "truth" of the bible is the undisputable word of God and nothing was left out that the generation counters might have missed, we can fudge the age of the earth around all we want. We can even further excuse these rash numbers by saying the "celestial day" in Genesis is not a "solar day" of present earth and we can make the ratio anything we want by "holy authority" from a mortal man who wasn't there at the time.

The truth of the matter is that the "age" of the generations of man can only be estimated from historical (written) records or myths passed from generation to generation in stories. The age of these historical records is not much older than 6000 years therefore it's based on some pretty limited information. The evidence is pretty strong that man as a species is older than a few hundred thousand years.

As for the time dilation effects and the "bowl" theory of the universe, this is all fudge from a creationist distortion of a very complex mathematical theory the creationists clearly don't understand - or more properly - don't want to understand, as they would rather present it as a "proof" for their faulty system of rationalizations and counter-points to the scientific methods.

Scientific Creationism is a system of distortions and rationalizations and deliberate misrepresentations of scientific theories designed to mislead followers into believing there is a "scientific" basis for faith in creationism. ( I use the word system here very loosely as SC is merely a collection of talking points about scientific principles rather than a true system of consistent thought.) I would futher assert that SC is a misnomer. It's more correctly named Creationist Scientificism, the distortion of science to rationalize a myth of creation.

[QwazyWabbit]

jealous: The jealousy that Richard Dawkins is talking about is not like what we call jealousy. God calls himself "jealous" because we need human terms to describe God's attributes

Exodus 20:3-6 Forbids worship of other gods. Does not deny their existence. A true one and only god has nothing to be jealous about.

control-freak: I don't understand where that comes from....

Exodus 20:1-26 The commandments. Exodus 21 the procedures. If you don't see control in these prescriptions, what do you see?

ethnic cleanser: Wouldn't you put to death infanticidal murderers?
(The Canaanites were well known for putting their babies onto burning altars.)

Genocidal wars too numerous to count in the O.T. not just against the Caananites.
Well-known? Where is their evidence of these acts outside the Old Testament? A society based on human sacrifice cannot survive. See Mayan civilization.
The O.T., written by Jews describe their enemies in disparaging terms. This is classic propaganda for justification of wars written by the victors or one side of a conflict.

a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent, bully:
          Racist: NOT! God welcomes all races to believe in Him.

Only in N.T. and only due to political necessity for alliances. (Corinthians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews) all urged unity of purpose and faith in the name of perpetuating the Christian faith. In O.T. God was the god of the chosen people and other races were barred from membership. The Hebrews who believed the Messiah had come in Jesus, became the first Christians. They barred membership to other races (Gentiles, Romans, Greeks) unless they became Jews first and were circumcised. (a deliberate act of discrimination) Paul worked long and hard to convince them to bend their rules that God and Jesus never pronounced. To the Jews of the period, the Messiah was their king and savior, not king of Mankind, this was a later modification of the history written in the N.T. decades after Jesus' life.

Infanticidal: NOT! God orders infant-murderers to be put to death.

No, he ordered the murder of other tribes or races and their infants.

Genocidal: God was executing punishment on the wicked.

No, the "speakers for God" were ordering the murder or enslavement of other tribes or races in order to take their lands or property for themselves.

Pestilential: This word is unwarranted and useless.

Exodus 7-12, the plagues upon Egypt: Frogs, Gnats, Flies, against livestock, Boils, Hail, Locusts, Darkness, also Exodus 11:1 And the Lord said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. Afterward he will let you go from here. When he lets you go, he will surely drive you out of here altogether."

And the angel of death descended on the first born of Egypt and they died. This act of infanticide and genocidal mass-murder is still celebrated as the Passover.

Megalomaniacal: If this were true, why doesn't God come down and stomp out all the sinners?

If God is omniscient, why did he not see the serpent tempting Eve and prevent it? Preventing the first sin by the first woman would have prevented sin altogether.

Bully: I would appreciate it if someone points to a Bible passage where God bullies somebody.

Genesis 3:15-17
Punishment of Adam and Eve for the sin of knowledge. Expulsion from Eden. A loving, caring god would have foreseen and prevented it. Resulting rationalization for the story is that God made man with free will that he might choose to follow God or to stray. If that is the case then why does God punish the chooser? If free will was built into Man why is God surprised at the outcome? I am especially fond of the finger-pointing of Adam at Eve and Eve at the serpent for the whole mess. Even the first Man couldn't take responsibility for his own choice when he knew he had chosen unwisely.

[|iR|Focalor]

jealous: The jealousy that Richard Dawkins is talking about is not like what we call jealousy. God calls himself "jealous" because we need human terms to describe God's attributes
control-freak: I don't understand where that comes from....
ethnic cleanser: Wouldn't you put to death infanticidal murderers? (The Canaanites were well known for putting their babies onto burning altars.)
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent, bully:
          Racist: NOT! God welcomes all races to believe in Him.
          Infanticidal: NOT! God orders infant-murderers to be put to death.
          Genocidal: God was executing punishment on the wicked.
          Pestilential: This word is unwarranted and useless.
          Megalomaniacal: If this were true, why doesn't God come down and stomp out all the sinners?
          Bully: I would appreciate it if someone points to a Bible passage where God bullies somebody.

It is my belief that God did not create man in his likeness, instead man created God (and any other gods) in his own likeness. I find it rather odd that in the garden of Eden, the serpent informs mankind that the fruit of the tree will make man "like gods, knowing good and evil", and yet later God must explicitly state the things that he finds to be evil with the books of the law and the 10 Commandments. Jealousy is basically envy. But anyway.

To address your other rebuttals:

Racist: NOT! God welcomes all races to believe in Him.

While there are no cut and dry cases of pure racism in the Holy Bible that I can recall at the moment, the Old Testament does say that the jews are God's chosen and favored people. Some might interpret that as racism. Not me, but perhaps that's what Dawkins was referring to.

Infanticidal: NOT! God orders infant-murderers to be put to death.

If you remember the whole story of how the jews were enslaved by the Pharaoh of Egypt, Moses demanded that Pharaoh release them. When Pharaoh refused, God spoke to Moses and told him to instruct all of his people to smear blood over the doorway of their houses so that the angel of death would pass over them. Of course none of the Egyptians did, and so the first born male child of every home died in the middle of the night, including Pharaohs son, which was what eventually convinced him to release the jews... at which point he changed his mind, went after them, and met his end when they attempted to follow them across the Red Sea.

Genocidal: God was executing punishment on the wicked.

Wicked? That's a relative term that only applies in the context that YOU are using it provided the other person also holds the same belief that the Holy Bible is the true word of the one true God. With your own answer, you acknowledge that he WAS in fact genocidal ...but according to you, it was always justified. Radical Muslims have sought to exterminate what they consider to be heretics since Mohammed crusaded across the Middle East for the glory of Allah. Within the context of the dogma of ones own religion (if it is called for), of course genocide will always be justified to the person subscribing to those beliefs.

Pestilential: This word is unwarranted and useless.

I wouldn't say that word is completely unwarranted and useless. Dawkins was describing how the God of the Old Testament comes across as an asshole. In his opinion, a so-called loving creator that would inflict the misery of pestilence upon his creation was a "capriciously malevolent" thing to do.

Megalomaniacal: If this were true, why doesn't God come down and stomp out all the sinners?

This isn't true? You already acknowledged that God advocated genocide in punishment of the wicked. In that particular case, he himself doesn't need to come down and stomp out anyone, his children do the dirty work for him. There were other instances in the Old Testament where he DID lay waste to large numbers of "sinners" with his OWN HAND. Remember the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah? God destroyed them all with fire. If that isn't megalomaniacal enough, remember the part where it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? Not only did God destroy every single human being on the planet with the exception of Noah and his family, he even destroyed every animal that was not kept on the ark with Noah. I guess the animals were sinners too.

Bully: I would appreciate it if someone points to a Bible passage where God bullies somebody.

Sure.

*clears throat*

God: "Oh Abraham! My good buddy! How's about you take your own son Issac, lay him up here on this rock, and jab a dagger through his gullet for me. I'd really appreciate that."

Abraham: "WHAT!?! Are you fuckin' nuts!?! Why!?!"

God: "Because I said so, pip-squeak."

Abraham: "But I don't want to. I love my son. I would never harm him for anything."

God: "Oh yeah? Well you're gonna do it for me, otherwise you don't love me... and I don't think I need to tell you what the hell's gonna happen then, do I?"

Abraham: "No, sir. As you wish, sir."

(Abraham raises the knife)

God: "Stop! Jesus man! Okay, okay! I was just kidding, bro! So you love me, we're cool now I guess. No hard feelings, aye?"

Abraham: *sobbing like a bitch* "Oh no, not at all, sir."