The Intruder "Let me know when you've read the entire book instead of quoting selective verses out of your misunderstood context."

That's fairly hypocritical of you, given your cherry picking which parts to believe are valid. Is murder ok for instance, or slavery, or trafficking women prisoners as sex slaves if they're virgins?

The Intruder "Seriously? So if you go and kill someone, "your god is responsible for it"?

Sounds very irresponsible of you to me that you refuse to take responsibility for your evil! I'm just glad the rest of us aren't so stupid or we'd be imprisoning "your god" and not you."

I wouldn't resort to ad hominem attacks like stupid if I were you, especially if you lack the intelligence to understand that culpability for an act need not be limited solely to the person committing that act. Even fallible human law recognises the act of aiding and abetting a crime, so how stupid would someone have to be to claim a perfectly benevolent being with limitless power and knowledge exists, but is not in any way culpable for doing nothing to prevent ubiquitous suffering? Worse still is the claim this being designed and created a planet where continuous ubiquitous suffering was an inevitable consequence, and long before the first humans evolved for this asinine idea that such a deity could shift the blame onto one species of evolved primate.

Yes indeed, you'd be wise to avoid throwing words like stupid around, if such a simple concept is beyond your rationale. Or the simple concept that claiming that same deity regularly intervenes through miracles, but cherry picks the result in the most arbitrary and callous fashion, and yet is not culpable for suffering it could therefore according to your religion's own rationale, have easily prevented.

Next time some rich televangelist is thanking your deity for his wealth or someone is gushing praise on that deity for the miracle of saving their life in a catastrophe that killed thousands, including children and babies, you may want to ponder what manner of cruel sadistic amoral being would wield such power in such a callous and indifferent way. Then thank your lucky stars there isn't a shred of objective evidence that it is real.

I know I do, every day....

The Intruder "this world is not what God wants it to be yet."

Another unevidenced assertion, this long seemingly endless list of unevidenced assertions is very tedious. However the claim doesn't help, as it directly contradicts the claim that the christian deity has limitless power, therefore it is absurd to follow this claim with the asinine assertion there is anything it can't control. This is precisely what I mean when I stated that many of your religion's claims are directly at odds with the objective evidence. Epicurus summed up the contradiction nicely, and did it millennia before humans created your religion and deity.

"Apart from the bible, my observation alone tells me that this world is the work of a programmer"

I have now run out of patience with your bare assertions, and all such assertions will be dismissed in the same manner they are asserted. quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur is the original Latin of the newly popularised epistemological razor, now renamed after the late author and polemecist, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens razor applied, and henceforth will be reapplied vigorously where it is warranted.

"the programmer doesn't want to be involved in this world( his program) to directly fix it."

Sigh, another unevidenced assertion, and again one that is directly contradicted by the core teachings of christianity in the claim for miracles, AS I ALREADY POINTED OUT, do you even read the responses?

"The bad designs are inevitable "

Not from an omniscient omnipotent deity, that's an asinine assertion, and again unevidenced, and again already been refuted. This is starting to sound a lot like I'm being preached at, and I don't care for that thank you.

"he grudgingly intervenes once in a while"

Another contradiction, and this designer is starting to sound like an incompetent bungling halfwit, like the one Heller describes in Catch 22. Do you know what omniscient and omnipotent even mean? Not to mention being callously indifferent to suffering. Each new unevidenced assertion you espouse simply reinforces the contradictions of christianity's core teachings you're trying to solve. Theists have struggled unsuccessfully for centuries with theodicy so I always find it amusing when a theist claims to have solved it, and then trots out the same cliched old rhetoric and fallacies taught to small children in Sunday school classes. It's like religion sticks with some people, and retards their intellectual capacity for critical thinking permanently.

"Religion and science are not opposed to one another. "

Of course they are, don't be absurd. However the statement is entirely moot, as science validates its assertion with objective evidence, and religion and theists can't demonstrate any for their claims. Nor is science the pursuit of happiness, again this is absurd rhetoric, science is a method, a tool box to help us understand how the physical world and universe works. How we use that knowledge is entirely subjective.

"we know that God doesn't want us to waste our talents"

You claim it, but knowledge requires objective evidence, and you can demonstrate none.

The nonsense at the end about the origins of science is as laughable as it is irrelevant. Science is a method, that gathers and tests data and models of the physical world and universe to expand our knowledge of them. Religion is not supported by any objective evidence, neither is the existence of any deity.

To claim science is a religion is imbecillic, a cursory Google of the definitions of both words destroys that farcical piece of rhetoric. So I'm at a loss as to what you hope to achieve by peddling such a dishonest cliche?

Science may well have its origins in philosophy, so what. Modern hydraulic suspension and pneumatic tyres originated from solid wooden wheels on wooden axles, its beyond stupid to claim that means they're the same, again I'm baffled as to what you hope to gain from such obviously dishonest rhetoric.

WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR ANY DEITY?

If the answer is none, then comparing theism to science is farcical.

@ The Intruder

" this world is not what God wants it to be yet"

Please expand on this, and explain what your imaginary god wants this world to be?