Do u believe in god?

If God wants moral human beings why don't they make moral human beings?

The point of that argument is that this is how he makes moral human beings. If he just made beings that were already moral and always did the right thing then they wouldn't be the most moral human being they could possibly be, as they're not making the choice to be moral, they're forced into it. If you made a robot that was programmed to always do the moral thing, people wouldn't say the robot was a moral being in of itself because it's just following programming. Same applies if one were to 'program' humans in such a way.

I guess he's not trying to teach us to harm each other, but the option to cause harm has to be there in order to make the best possible people. Guess he's got hell for the write offs, if you believe in the whole heaven and hell thing....

The rest I sort of agree with you on, God is a much easier concept to deal with if you detach the religious book rubbish from it.

I don't questions God's existence because of the existence of bad people in the world, I do believe that they would give us free will and there is always a choice to act in whatever way we want but a lot of the things that we are told to hate (LGBT people for example) don't make any sense in my eyes, I'm gay, I have never made the choice to be gay and while I may one day truly believe that God exists, I would believe that they made me this way and do not hate me or want others to hate me for something that doesn't hurt people and is not self inflicted

I believe organised religion is simply for mass control.

Oh God you're one of those ones that think they're the most intelligent people ever but don't even acknowledge that the Bible and other holy books aren't the only argument for God's existence. You're worse than the guy that throws random pointless words in front of his belief systems.

Organised religion =/= God

Bruh... I'm taking the piss out of another guy... my comment is a meme

Completely.
In my opinion, there is no other love like it. And despite the atheist's opinion of a lack of proof for God's existence, there is nothing in this world that I could even begin to believe more than I do in God.
A lot of atheists talk about how there is no proof of God but how many atheists have actually taken the time to research God's existence by looking at both sides of the argument? Personally, my belief in God first came about when I was researching these arguments. It led me to discover that the universe and the conditions in which we live are simply too perfect. The probability of so many different aspects of the earth, the universe, and its makeup being this perfect is so next to none, its essentially impossible. I can't even begin to believe that all of this utter perfection is simply down to chance.

In a more subjective way, living for Christ has given me a new purpose and a significantly happier outlook on life - its given me morality. If there is no God, then meaning, value and purpose are ultimately human illusions. If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary.

This is what I believe. And you may think that believing in something like God is weak or naïve, but I don't agree. God loves each and every one of us, no matter how many times we screw up, and even if we distance ourselves from him. Simply praying to God and asking him to reveal his love will bring you so much closer to discovering the real answer to this question than you can even imagine. God's love is unconditional, and no argument is going to change my view on this subject

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him"

Right, where to begin, where, to, begin.....

The ontological argument is a joke, and asserts things which cannot be proven,

Mhm most of them are crap, but then you've got Swinburne who argued that scientific explanations of how the world worked explained nothing. Scientific laws only explain things in relation to other scientific laws. A rock falls because it has weight, which is caused by gravity, which is caused by planets and such. But for an explanation as to how the laws came to be in the first place, Swinburne decided that the simplest explanation was that it needed a personal explanation, ie a being with motivations that brought such scientific laws into existence.

The problem of evil has been countered?? REALLY??? where.

Free will is a cop out by the way. If god is omniscient then he knows every single action that each of us will make, which nullifies the notion of free will. if however he does not know what we are going to do, then he is not and cannot logically be omniscient, once more nullifying his omniscience

Really, god loves everyone does he, so why will I, despite being a good person, go to hell. To me the notion of god and his "love" is similar to that of "Stockholm Syndrome". Basically love me, or I will make sure you suffer for ever. I have researched both sides and found the god one basically academically flaccid, and guilty of lazy thinking. Or alternatively, if god loves everyone explain this passage against the disabled:

Leviticus 21:18-23King James Version (KJV)
¹⁸ For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
¹⁹ Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
²⁰ Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
²¹ No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
²² He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
²³ Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

So god loves the disabled so much they are not worthy of god. Wow, that is so loving. As for conditions in the universe being to perfect for life, I take it you are not a science undergrad then, because if you where, you would not have used that line, because it is simply not true. In fact the universe is actually hostile to life, and if any life managed to get a foothold it would be remarkable.

Also, if jesus existed (which is highly debatable) then he did not die. He was inconvenienced at best, meaning that the whole John 3:16 line is a joke.

Really, god loves everyone does he, so why will I, despite being a good person, go to hell. To me the notion of god and his "love" is similar to that of "Stockholm Syndrome". Basically love me, or I will make sure you suffer for ever. I have researched both sides and found the god one basically academically flaccid, and guilty of lazy thinking. Or alternatively, if god loves everyone explain this passage against the disabled:

Leviticus 21:18-23King James Version (KJV)
¹⁸ For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
¹⁹ Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
²⁰ Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
²¹ No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
²² He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
²³ Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

So god loves the disabled so much they are not worthy of god. Wow, that is so loving. As for conditions in the universe being to perfect for life, I take it you are not a science undergrad then, because if you where, you would not have used that line, because it is simply not true. In fact the universe is actually hostile to life, and if any life managed to get a foothold it would be remarkable.

Also, if jesus existed (which is highly debatable) then he did not die. He was inconvenienced at best, meaning that the whole John 3:16 line is a joke.

First of all, my saying that God loves everyone is true. It's about whether a person chooses to accept that love and do something about it. It's not about being a 'good person' in general that will exempt you from hell, but the belief in God the creator. Hell is the ultimate price to pay for not accepting God, it's nothing to do with how good a person is based on human values.

No, its only true because you choose to cherry pick the nice bits of the bible. Tell me, did god love those he [supposedly] drowned in the flood, or how about the 42 kids who were ripped apart by she bears because they called Elisha "bald head", Seems a bit extreme to me, just because some kids called a bloke a name. But then again that's what your god deals in isn't it, extreme acts of violence, and ohh how he loves violence against children.

As to your Leviticus reference, these verses are entirely taken out of context. These things were addressed to the Aaronic priests in the old testament. The chapter as a whole clearly indicates this. So saying God doesn't love someone because of a disability based on these passages is inaccurate. Furthermore, throughout the bible, God is constantly seen to have shown love towards the people (such as the disabled) who were otherwise seen as outcasts at the time, thus proving how he sees them as just as worthy as you or I.

Ohh the old canard of "its all out of context. NO it is not, next you'll be telling me that the passage which tells people to stone homosexuals to death was out of context. Your god is incapable of showing love, and is the most spiteful character in fiction. Why else would he order a rape victim to marry her rapist??

Your argument that "the universe is actually hostile to life, and if any life managed to get a foothold it would be remarkable" just supports my argument, really. The fact that there is life in this universe despite these 'hostile' conditions is what makes it so amazing. If the conditions were to have been any different, life would not have been possible - despite the extreme odds against it, the universe was able to support life and you still believe it was just down to chance?

Wrong, you cannot have it both ways. If (and when) life is found on other planets, how is your religion going to adjust, will the microbes that (might) exist on Europa be gods creation too. The point is, is that chemistry, biochemistry and biology being as they are, even though the universe is hostile to life, life has arisen and it will not be just on this planet either. If this planet truly was just for us then why are there other planets that may well support life. I'm sorry, but that does not fit the biblical narrative at all. Also there is nothing chance about the formation of the universe. How did it happen?? I'm not sure, I'm a biologist not a physicist, so you'd have to ask a physicist for clarification to how the universe began. But once chemicals began to form out of the guts of supernovae it was only a matter of time before carbon compounds began to form, which would ultimately form the bassi for all life from Archea bacteria to redwood trees, dinosaurs and humans.

The notion that Jesus' existence is highly debatable is another thing I cant agree with you on. The fact that Jesus did exist is something that any unbiased historian can agree on down to the sheer amount of documentation, with numerous reliable texts and eye witness accounts (from both in the bible and from outside sources).

[citation needed] what evidence is there from between 4BCE to 35CE to suggest that jesus ever existed, which is verifiable. I think you'll find there is zero evidence. With the first evidences being produced around 80CE which was well after jesus alleged death. Its all word of mouth which, when one is looking at evidence is worthless.

I realise how this has quickly escalated into a debate and so I'm going to end my comments with this response^.

I'm not trying to enforce my beliefs upon anyone with my argument, I just can't even begin to understand how someone can live with the belief that there is no purpose. Thank you for your time.

Yes, most definitely.