1. 
It's not that actions don't have consequences, it's the specific consequences that are being questioned.  Why does some stuff send you to Hell?  A lot of it doesn't seem to make much sense other than "because God said so", and that's not a reason any better than "because your dictator said so". 

Faith is fine, but you have to stop confusing what is good enough for you as an answer and what is objectively a good answer for everyone -- and remember, unless I'm mistaken you are saying this applies to everyone. 

From my perspective, I think your relationship may well be completely one-sided.  It's like you're being held hostage.  Back when they came in to rob the bank, they made everyone sit on the floor.  A couple were near the exit, and one of the robbers egged them on to try to escape.  The woman convinced the man they should run for it, but they got shot.  Then one of them shot the guy who egged them on.  He said, "We don't want to hurt you.  That guy was sadistic or something, I don't know but it won't happen again.  At least if you don't try to escape."  Well, that guy Joe is pretty friendly, and you feel like you're real good pals now, he gets you stuff from the vending machine and you just know that it'll all be okay as soon as they get their money and get away.  You're even thinking of joining them.  Someone sitting near you is muttering something about Stockholm syndrome.  The worst part of it all is that the whole thing is in your head!  There are no God robbers. 

The point of that story is not to offend but to try to illustrate a point.  Jesus' sacrifice is for what?  Original sin, along with, I suppose, all the rest of the stuff your ANCESTORS did.  Why is that your fault?  God said so.  What happens if you don't acknowledge all the stuff that they did as your fault and how awesome it was that Jesus took care of that inherited baggage for you?  Hell.  Why?  God said so.  See a pattern here?   

In fact, God being omnipotent and omniscient and all, he knew all of that was going to happen before he even created the universe.  Now I wouldn't blame him for all the bad stuff people have done, even if I believed in him, but I would say he gets an EQUAL share of blame since he made it happen just as surely as the people with the blood on their hands.  So, in a way, he made SURE those people were going to go to Hell before the Earth was even formed.  If he didn't want it to play out that way, he could have just made the universe differently, but he chose not to.  How loving does that sound? 

2. 
I think you are being pretty dishonest here, let's go back a couple steps in the quote box:  "More, you act like having no freedom and living in fear of a dictator, that gives you no real choice, that doesn`t love you or care about you, is the same as someone who loves you, died for you, lets you choose and gives everything to make you happy."

Now you are making it sound there like the choices are not something imposed on you by God but just regular old free will that you can take or leave with no more consequences than anyone would face as the natural result of whatever actions they took (instead of arbitrary punishment like imprisonment for political disagreement with dictators). 

Let's contrast that with "It`s a choice, you might not like the outcome but it`s still a choice, as honest choice that you base solely on your will. Freedom."  Now it sounds more like you're saying, "Well, he knew what would happen if he spoke up to Stalin like that, so nobody can say he didn't know the consequences.  It was his choice, he made it freely." 

3.  See the last two paragraphs of (1), adding to the second-to-last paragraph, "And while we're at it, why does it sometimes sound like people can't walk across the room or fart without committing a sin?  Who decided doing anything and everything was a sin anyway?  Oh yeah, God." 

So he's almost omniscient and almost omnipotent is what you really mean. You can't say he is omniscient and then say he doesn't know something. Or that he is omnipotent and cannot do something.

Omni means all. Omni doesn't mean almost everything or almost all. If God is omnipotent, he can create another God or destroy himself if he wants. He can make something be and not be at the same time, even if our limited minds cannot understand that. But you cannot ascribe a trait such as omnipotent and then change the meaning. If God doesn't know everything, including what will be happening, then he is not omniscient. If God cannot do something, even if that means contradicting himself, then he is not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways. Omnipotent and omniscient are very strong wording with very exact meanings.

To respond to that argument, God's omniscience and omnipotence do not need to be denied. Someone could just give the free-will defense. They could argue that the very act of giving people free-will counts as a good action because it allows for a greater level of moral goodness in the world. If people are not responsible for their own actions, its difficult to understand how we can hold them accountable for their actions or ascribe moral worth to their actions. To take a point from Leibniz, its about making the greatest possible world, and the greatest possible world requires free-will.

As far as the main point, I don't think many religious scholars would argue that God is not responsible for creating the world in the way that he did. It was a free choice he made, and he made a world that allows for human's to have free-will. Because he is the cause of the universe, there is a connection between how he designed the universe and the possible actions humans can make (good and bad). However, the existence of the evil resulting from human actions does not count against God's goodness given that free-will is good. Once again, the point is making the best possible world and not actually making the world with the least amount of suffering or evil. I think we can both imagine a world where no one suffers because God controls every action of the individual's inhabiting the world. I would argue that saying this is a good world in itself is inaccruate (the goodness would lie in God and his decisions-not the world itself).

First of all look at the underlined portions. You can't even go a paragraph without contradicting yourself.

Second I still hold all religions are fairy tales. There are plenty of morals to learn from Aesop's fables, which I have already said are just as valid as whatever you get from the bible (and keep in mind Aesop was around 500ish years BEFORE the fairy tales of Christ came about). Furthermore asking what makes christianity's morals right right ones is the exact same thing as comparing it to any fairy tale and its validity. If you can't realize that then I am sorry for assuming you would understand the argument, obviously I was wrong. You can find a "moral of the story" in any story. Name me a fairy tale and I'll give you the moral. Little Mermaid? Don't be an idiot and sacrifice your life for lost love. Hensel and Gretel? DOon't take candy from strangers.

Yes, if you actually read my past arguments you would have known that I said  if fairy tales give the same correct laws as Christianity than by all means go and compare them. That wouldnt make the New Testament any less vailabe or credible. The diffrence between the New Testament and fairy tales is that New testament contains stories about the person that actually historicly existed and was real while fiary tales have imaginary characters. Another diffrence is the point and scale between fairy tales and the New testament.Fairy tales usually stick to the one moral point trought the whole story and have much smaller purpse than New Testament which contains lots of morals teachings together and aims to teach every person how to live a good life, and that mean New Testament has a lot bigger purpose and aim than any fairy tale out there. And ''the moral'' of the story is the most important thing in the sotry.

I also already gave you a good example of another religion with its own morals going against christianity's. According to the Aztec's it is very moral to be sacrificed to a given god, it betters the entire population's wellbeing by appeasing said god, and you can win wars or have bountiful harvests depending to who the person was sacrificed. Correct me if I am wrong, but this practice isn't exactly in line with Christ's teachings. It was very moral for a person to be sacrificed.

You still cant seem to distinguish a difference betwwen the practice of worshiping and a moral. Aztecs religion says the killing was OK if you do it for God/in the name of God. That is a religious pratice. But I bet if you could have asked Aztec person if he would gladly kill someone just for the heck of it he would have said NO because it goes against his morals. They only thought killing was OK if you do it in the name of Gods (the same way christian soldiers felt during the crusade but they were wrong too unfortunetly) There are hunderds of religous practices that disagree with Jesus's teachings (actually, most if not all of them are from dead, forgotten erased pagan religions by dead forgotten erased people) but I am sure any person of any religion wouldnt disagree with his morals. Any good person, that is

Well you obviously did not understand me, again. I did not say if we don't know much about a belief, I said if we know nothing about a belief.So we dont know anything about Christianity? Maybe you dont, but dont use it as a fact. Which is true ofr any given religion. There is absolutely 0 reproducable and observable evidence for anything that pertains to a god And to contrairy as well. There are absolutely no evidence that the existance of God is a made up lie.(other than the fact that meditation actually relaxes you). Meanwhile the Big Bang has had several pieces of evidene, which is observable and reproducable, therefore it is infitely more right than absolutely any bullshit any fairy tale has ever claimed.Hahaha, LMAO, epic self pwnage right there, funny that  you mention Big Bang. You wanna know why? Big Bang was a thoery THAT CATHOLIC CHURCH CAME UP WITH. Yes, thats right, catholic as IN CHRISTIAN, as IN PEOPLE WHO PROMOTE GOD. The thoery was first proposed by a catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. Why dont you go and learn a little bit about Christianity and Big Bang before we continiue this conversation, huh?You also fail SPECTACULRLY to understand the point, because the people who believed that the earth was not round is wrong, not right. If you don't have any information, you are guaranteed to be wrong.So just like atheists? Is there any info that God doesnt exist. I mean, God is the most easiest, most reasonable explanation for the creation of universe.  In fact it wasn't until there was some mild evidence to suggest otherwise, which the ancient Greeks found. Even better, let's run with your analogy. The Greeks found a small amount of evidence of the spherical nature of Earth, and lo and behold they were more right (infact they were absolutely correct) than any other bullshit people had come up with before that. Substitute "spherical nature of Earth" for any topic, and you will find that religion is just as believeable as any fairy tales, and is simply wrong. In fact, before there was evidence there was a whole lot of shit circulating around about what the earth is. It is flat, it is on a turtlle's back,etc. etc. All those beliefs are the equivalent of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. etc. Basically they are ALL WRONG, simply because no informatin exists.So until we get no information on alien life in space, alien life in space doesnt exist and its made up by humans, but when we find evidence, the aliens automatically somehow magiclly appear in the universe right away even thoug it wasnt there before we found the evdence? I hope you realize how retarded that analogy is. Christianity, Judism, Hinduism etc etc are ALL BASED N FAITH. Just like atheism, we dont know if its wrong or false, none beleiff system has evidence for its existance, thats why its called A BELIEF. it means it hasnt been determaned as true or false based on lack of evidence on both sides, there are only thoeries and arguments about the beleif being wrong and right, but neither side has been proven right or wrong and never will be.

Lastly, I have proved MANY times why atheism is more right than any religion, however as seems to be the trend with you, I will have to reiterate because I assumed you understood and I was wrong. Take the entire space of "T," where T is the combination of all the different combinations of "things" that created and govern the entire existance. Within this T, there is a space A, in which some sentient being/force has/had a hand in existance. Both spaces are infinite, however the space A is far less inifnite than the space T. For an atheist to be wrong, the truth has to be within A, for him to be right it has to be outside of A. Meanwhile for a religious person to be right, they not only have to be within A, but also have to be in a very spcific, infitesmally small, subspace in A. Simply because the space where atheists can be wrong is much much, infinitely, smaller than the space in which ANY religious belief is wrong. Therefore atheists are less wrong than religious people, infinitely so. I sincerely hope you understand at least this argument.

That is only if your agrue about the SPECIFIC religion. If thats the case, than MATHEMATICALLY,atheism has bigger chance of being a right beleif. If you argue about religions or theism in general (which I tought you had, maybe I misunderstood you) than MATHEMATICALLY theism has a MUCH BIGGER chance of being a right belief. Not like this point matters thou because your original point was that an atheist person is a lot less likely to end p in Hell than a religious person. I proved that to be wrong.

For a simple example of how both a religious person and an atheist can be wrong: Some comic being went to the Cosmic Taco Bell and had a Burrito. He suffered from food poisoning and shit out our universe. Just like you don't care about what you shit out, it doesn't give a damn about anything in its shit, meaning our universe. In this case atheists are wrong because then there is a god-like being, but all other religions out there are also arong (unless someone out there says that our existance came about from soeone's shit). Keep in mind that this is simply one possibility out of an infinite amount of possibilities. What you descirbed  there is a deist.Dont know if your heard about them.The reason they are infinite amount, is because we have 0 information about what happened before the Big Bang. Therefore ANY specific theory, which is what religions are, have the probability of being right as 1/infinity, which is equal to 0. Until we have more information that dates before the Big Bang any theory is wrong.And Big Bang being the CHRISTIAN thoery is irrelevant right?

Edit: You DO realize that "religious morals" is the exact same thing as "religious beliefs," correct? Especially when you claim their are the universal morals.

No, lets compare Islam and Christianity to disprove you. Christians beleive (and that, thus, being a religious belief) that Jesus Christ was a son of God and Muslims think he wasnt a son of God but a prophet and that is their religious beleif. But they both agree on his morals. Even Qu'ran describes Jesus Christ as one of the most important prophets in thier religion. So they have a different religious belief on JesuS Christ, but they both beleve in his morals.

To respond to that argument, God's omniscience and omnipotence do not need to be denied. Someone could just give the free-will defense. They could argue that the very act of giving people free-will counts as a good action because it allows for a greater level of moral goodness in the world. If people are not responsible for their own actions, its difficult to understand how we can hold them accountable for their actions or ascribe moral worth to their actions. To take a point from Leibniz, its about making the greatest possible world, and the greatest possible world requires free-will.

As far as the main point, I don't think many religious scholars would argue that God is not responsible for creating the world in the way that he did. It was a free choice he made, and he made a world that allows for human's to have free-will. Because he is the cause of the universe, there is a connection between how he designed the universe and the possible actions humans can make (good and bad). However, the existence of the evil resulting from human actions does not count against God's goodness given that free-will is good. Once again, the point is making the best possible world and not actually making the world with the least amount of suffering or evil. I think we can both imagine a world where no one suffers because God controls every action of the individual's inhabiting the world. I would argue that saying this is a good world in itself is inaccruate (the goodness would lie in God and his decisions-not the world itself).