Cosmic background radiation and redshift are just observations that have an interpretation, not necessarily scientific proof of a Big Bang. The Big Bang isn't a scientific theory because it can't be tested, scientific theories MUST be testable and falsifiable; the concept of dark matter and dark energy are both requirements for the Big Bang model to work, but the very nature of these "elements" and "energy" are that they are unidentifiable, and are therefore as testable as the theory that there is a God.

As for the idea of a God, the question of whether or not a God exists hasn't been answered - that question NEEDS to be answered before even asking the question "Did a God create the Universe?". Even if a God exists, there is no evidence that a God created the Universe. Why would the Universe be so vast and empty? What is the point of planets, moons, and asteroids? If an intelligent creator existed, you would imagine it would have done a better job. With all of the elements and make-up of the Universe, it is easy to imagine that a God sees us as rather insignificant. The only way we're going to get out and explore the Universe is not through any means that the religious universe is providing. Christians, Muslims, you guys don't exactly worship Minerva. I can fully understand why the Athenians considered Minerva to be their matron Goddess, why the Romans considered Minerva as a part of their Holy Trinity (with Juno and Jupiter).

The Christian Holy Trinity is not even mentioned in Christian scripture. Why not go back to the roots of Christianity when Sophia was a major concept - Sophia is Wisdom. Why not also go back to the time when Jesus was not a historical figure, but rather a personification of the Logos? Take these concepts to heart, and then protect the environmental integrity of the Earth, and explore the Universe - as that is all perfectly in line with the Christian Destiny as it was before the perversions of the Early Catholic Church in the 4th through 15th centuries.

Scientists, remember that the the true mark of a scientist is constant doubt, not acceptance of philosophical theories of the Universe that are only "What seems most likely at the moment".

It took me years to come to my position and I assume it took you years too so it would be unlikely that either of us would change their point of view so much that we would both agree, especially given that we are talking about things that we cannot experiment upon. I find such discussions useful in that if you only discuss such matters with people you agree with then you don't get exposed to other ideas that while you might disagree with them still might have merit to them.

I have never been to either so I can't recommend either but both should be fine choices as both are rich in sun and history. I hope you enjoy your holiday.

We agree that there is a real physical feeling but we disagree as to it proving the reality of the supposed cause of said feeling. It is not surprising as if one believed such feelings had a supernatural cause then they would be believers and if they are not believers they will attribute such feelings to natural causes.

The Omphalos hypothesis/last thursdayism is old hat (I mentioned it in other posts in this thread) and it is true that we cannnot know if our senses give us a correct representation of the world or not (see simulated reality).

You are incorrect in that you need to take your senses on faith. You only need to take the correctness of your senses as an initial hypothesis and go from there. If you gather evidence that your senses are deceiving you in one respect then you can disregard those cases of sensory perception (for example, optical illusions); that is we can do what you said "you can believe that the world is consistent until something demonstrates inconsistency". However if one wishes to do as you do and deny everything their senses tell them then you can create as many self-consistent worlds as you wish but you cannot know anything about whether you are right or not as you would need to have senses in order to test those theories.

In other word your approach doesn't elevate faith to the same status as sensory knowledge but denies yourself the only tool you have to test your theories on the world.

If you accept your senses as a tool but are ready to discard their input in whole or in part if evidence indicates that you should then you can not only create self-consistents theories of the world but also test them.

If you really believe that our senses give us an incorrect representation of the world and that we should start by disregarding them then I challenge you to live by that belief and not to eat or drink as it is your sense of hunger that tells you you need to eat and your sense of fullness after eating that tells you that eating removes hunger and your senses of taste and smell that tell you it is enjoyable. If you deny them then you have no reason to eat or drink at all. If not then you acknowledge by default that there is some value on what they tell us and thus can be used as an initial basis on which to build.

BTW, we already know that our senses give us an inaccurate perception of the world as they tell us that the chair we seat in is solid even though our scientific understanding of it tells us that most of an atom's volume is composed of emptiness.

I don't know either way on the first part.

The second part I disagree as you might know if you read my posts to DelioPT. This means that for me, even if he exists, then he still is not worthy of worship.

Which is circular logic: 'I know because I believe because I know because I believe...'

Let's recap:

You: "And Jesus really did exist, its a historical proven fact."

Me: "As far as I know the only eyewitness accounts are found in the bible which cannot be used as a source of its own historicity and there is no Roman record of his crucifixion. While it doesn't disprove his existence it certainly mean that it is not historically proven."

You: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus"

Me: "And where do they cite extra-biblical sources of either eyewitness accounts or records of jesus? Using the bible's claim that there was a man called Jesus as proof that there was a man called Jesus is like using the Wizard of Oz to prove that Kansas or Dorothy existed; it might be true or not but it provides no proof."

You (paraphrased): give the same list but in video form instead of textual form.

How does changing the medium of the list improve your argumentation?

I know that there are a number of historians of the first and second century that believed Jesus existed. I agree that it mean that it is most probable he existed. I disagree that it is historical evidence that he did exist because unless they were eyewitness themselves (unlikely as most were born after he died and of the few that were alive then we have only fragments) or unless they reported the accounts of eyewitnesses.

If you witness a crime you are an eyewitness and can testify about it. If you tell me about it and I am convinced of the accuracy of your claims then I cannot testify because all I would say would be hearsay, no matter how reliable I might be.

Saying Jesus existed and the proof is those guys believed he did and they should be trusted is a logical fallacy (argument from authority).

If you want to accept these historians as proof then you must also accept them as proof, among other things, that Saturn existed as a historical figure (Thallus as reported by Tertullian), that Zeus and Cronus (and by extension the Titans) existed as historical figures (Thallus again, this time reported by Theophilus Bishop of Antioch) and that Jesus's father was a roman soldier (Celsus, talking about Pentera as if he existed).

If you think that they are not evidence of the existence of these beings then they cannot be evidence of the existence of Jesus in and of themselves either.

I actually watched the video a second time because near the end the guy said abut the accounts: "claiming to be in some cases eyewitness accounts of the historical happenings of the events of this man's life" and thought there were some that I missed but even with rewatching I did not find any. I suppose the quote refers to books in the new testament as if there were non-biblical eyewitness accounts it would be much better evidence than hearsay and he would thus have put it front and center.

The best evidence is of course records as eyewitnesses can be unreliable (ask any cop) but AFAIK we also have not yet found any records of the census near his birth nor of his crucifixion

A few more thing about the video:

I totally agree, over 2000 years a lot of evidence would have been erased that would have been available to those historians. This makes it more likely that they are right but is not evidence itself. Your claim that I am challenging is that we have such evidence today; to the best of my knowledge we don't. This includes the possibility that some of the earliest historians could have interviewed such eyewitnesses (maybe even the apostles like the video says about flavius josephus). If they have done so and if they had included such eyewitness accounts in their writing then such accounts would be evidence as they would not be hearsay from these historians but an account by those eyewitnesses.

• It mentions that we had no extra-biblical evidence of the Hittites prior to the 19^th century and thus a lack of evidence is not a disproof.

I totally agree and I am not claiming that there will never be any evidence of a historical Jesus, only that as of today there is none that I am aware of. If you had brought such evidence (eyewitnesses/roman records of his birth/trial...) then I would change my opinion on the availability of such evidence but so far you have only presented hearsay. Similarly, if there was to be a new archeological find of Jesus's trial then my opinion would change too (pending some testing to make sure it is not a fake of course).

• By the same standard there is no historical evidence that Socrates existed.

I totally agree. Similarly to Jesus we only have eyewitness accounts from his followers so we cannot prove that he existed either. Note that in both cases (Jesus and Socrates) I am not claiming the negative claim (that they didn't exist), just disputing the positive claim (that we have evidence that they did exist).

If you do know of any extrabiblical eyewitness accounts or records of Jesus's life I would be genuinely interested as while it doesn't theologically matter to me whether a man named Jesus was actually born in Bethleem* I find it intellectually interesting.

* even if he didn't exists somebody existed who created his teachings

As a matter of moral I agree as if his system is moral then it is worthy of being followed regardless of whether he existed and was a deity, whether he only existed as a man or didn't exist at all.

I do think that atheism is irrational as you cannot disprove the existence of god. However, as I am not an atheist* me thinking atheism is irrational is not enough to make me think that my belief is too; though I am open to the possibility as while I reasoned my way to my current system of belief it is quite possible that some irrationality crept in (I'm only human).

* My position is that whether god (any single one or collection of them) exists or not is an intellectually interesting question but totally irrelevant to my religious stance as for me the question of whether a god is moral or not is more important than whether he exists or not. I actually lost my belief in the morality of the christian god (and thus ceased calling myself a christian) before I lost my belief in him. I do think that there are part of christianity that are good moral precept and worthy of being followed though.

You forgot 3) That god exists.

If god does not exists then no matter how much you believe and no matter how good a person you are then even if your faith is true then it still is a true faith in false things. And how do you know 3)? Through faith... and thus the circular logic is completed. You know because you believe and your faith is true and your faith is true because you believe that god exists.

see above.

Atheists believe that there will be no self whatsoever once dead so if they are right then they cannot even find absolutely nothing because there will be no self for them to find it. If there is a self for them to find absolutely nothing then there is a life after death (even if it consists of an eternal consciousness of nothingness) and thus they were wrong.

You were claiming the latter. I am claiming that it is no excuse.

A lot of it is selection bias as they are more likely to be coming from a christian background or at least from a country with strong christian roots. I also have problems with some of the moral teachings of Islam that I have head of but as I was not born in a Muslim family the bulk of my theological thinking was done with the bible and not the koran so I am not in as good a position to criticise it as Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq.

Yup, if he is wrong he is likely to soon know.

Yes it is, which is why I retracted it earlier. I was just pointing out that you also were leaning in that type of thinking.

See right above.

Even the doctrine of the original sin? for me it is completely immoral as it the same as punishing somebody's children for the acts of the parents (and the grandchildren...).

Which reminds me that I still have to read The Golden Bough:

"The book scandalized the British public upon its first publication, because it included the Christian story of Jesus in its comparative study, thus inviting an agnostic reading of the Lamb of God as a relic of a pagan religion. Frazer removed his analysis of theCrucifixion to a speculative appendix for the third edition, and it was entirely missing from the single-volume abridged edition."

No, he was not tried for atheism but heresy. Hobbes was accused of atheism even though he was a christian because he believed that there was no incorporeal substance and that god was corporeal. So I guess it would mostly depend on the century whether you would have been seen as a heretic or an atheist.

I do not agree with all the moral teachings of the new testament so i will have to disagree on that.

I was more thinking of people, like me, who see the old testament as a way for a ruling class to impose its laws on the rest of the population by claiming divine authority and the gospels as an (imperfect) attempt to reform those odious teachings. As opposed to a book about revealing god and bringing humanity closer to him as generally viewed by jews and christians. That's why I would have changed the all to almost as not all who studied the bible came to the same comclusion as to its purpose.

Remember that it started with me claiming that the new testament contradicted the teachings of the old testament, you countering that it was because they teached different domains, me pointing out that sometimes they taught in the same domain in contradictory way, like the old testament teaching to stone people for various things (and thus resist evil) while Jesus taught not to resist evil. You then pointed out the story of the woman taken in adultery.

I took it that you meant that Jesus was not contradicting the old testament in this case as he offered the possibility of stoning her and thus pointed out that him not doing it even though he met the standard he laid means that he still contradicted the old testament. If that is not what you meant then how was bringing that story up showing that he did not contradict the old testament?

In other words, I am not saying that he personally had any reason to cast that stone but the fact that he didn't is a direct contradiction to the old testament, which was my initial point.

Pain doesn't harm a person, it is a warning signal that a person is either harmed or about to be. That some people associate it with pleasure is not the norm but it is not inherantly harmful either and the art of sadomasochism in sex is to inflict enough pain to give pleasure while not inflicting so much that it harms the person. I would agree that masochism pushed to an extreme where people get harmed is bad but most things taken to the extreme are bad.

As for spanking, pain is part of the reason it is pleasant, but only because the pleasure of the sensation once the pain is over is higher than the pain. Same things with masochists. 

Lol. I wouldn't judge you if you were.

Yes, but you claimed that the belief in his godhood part was not necessary. I agree that being good is also necessary (but not enough) and so is his sacrifice but we disagree on the third requirement which is belief in him as saviour. According to you (if I understand your position correctly) Jesus's sacrifice + being good are enough. According to Mark 16:16 it is not and you also need belief in Jesus.

I talked about it in more depth in my discussion with DelioPT but basically, if heaven and hell are about rewarding/punishing morality/immorality then the only requirement should be the morality of a person, not their belief which has more to do with the culture they were raised in than with any morality. I just do not see it as moral to punish people for having the wrong parents.

My view is that while I would expect the new testament to hold moral views similar to those held in the days it was written if it was written by non-divinely inspired men, I hold that if it was written by a moral god then we should expect its morality to be higher than the morality of the time it was written in and such it should decry slavery as immoral. That it doesn't indicates that it either was not written under divine influence or that it was but that the divinity influencing the writing is not a moral divinity and thus not worthy of worship.

The point is even if my "soul" is destroyed at my death (which you find terrifying) then I do not find that terrifying. Nor do I find the prospect of going to the hell the catholics believe in terrifying.

What?? There is nothing wrong with putting people to death for practicing free speech? Like hell there isn't, I guess you agree with the fatwah against Salman Rushdie then. The death part is specifically refered to as coming from god (the LORD said) so If it really came from paganism then it is just another indication that the bible is not divinely inspired but the work of man.

No you are right, you claimed that believing in him was not necessary but you did not claim that his teachings were enough. Sorry I misspoke. But still, it doesn't change that Mark 16:16 lists belief as necessary, which was the point.

For the part about Jesus not wanting to build a church see Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church".

And a rich history in paganism too. I hope you enjoy your holiday.

And to finish on a lighter note: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cizYB7RTVg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX-Aldx-LM0&feature=related

We will have to disagree as we are going in circle. You think that god giving bad laws is not a failure, whereas i think it is.

We will have to disagree on that too (as we are going in circles here too) as I see the non-moral parts as diminishing the whole and you see them as doing the opposite.

So are there no acts originating from god (and thus moral by definition) that you would find immoral if not coming from him?

In the case of the mass murder of the inhabitants of the city of Jericho there are 4 choices that you can think:

1. You think that it was moral (as it was a command from god) and that a similar mass murder by humans with no divine approval is also moral.

2. You think it was moral (as it came from god) but that the same act carried out by humans with no divine approval is immoral.

3. You think that it was immoral despite the divine command to do it and that the same act carried out by humans with no divine approval is also immoral.

4. You think that it was immoral with the divine approval but moral without it -- I think we can forget that possibility but I just listed it for completeness.

If you believe 1 then IMO you are not a moral person as you can view immoral acts as moral as long as you believe that god ordered them (like muslim terrorists).

If you believe 2, then you are a moral relativist as you apply a different moral standards for the same acts depending on whether it came from god or not (in other words you apply a moral standard to god that is different than the moral standard that you apply to humans).

If you believe 3 (I do) then god can't be the absolute morality as he issued immoral orders.

I do not judge him by his thought, only by his (claimed) actions and there are plenty of them that are immoral (especially in the old testament).

If you teach him something that by default sends him to hell then it is as much your fault as if you pushed somebody in front of a car. How do you think it would work in court if you said "Your honor, while I did push him in front of the car it is his fault that he is dead as it was his decision not to move out of the car's path".

It was your action that caused him to risk hell and thus it is your fault if he goes there.

They accept it through faith, not through proof.

You said earlier that there were parts that were not about morality; if you think about it, the parts that are not about morality but about belief are the parts that put people in jeopardy and you do not need to teach them about biblical cosmology to teach them about morality so yes, it is different, though the former (teaching about god) encompasses the latter (teaching about morality).

But one does not put him in danger of being tortured by default while the other does (according to your belief).

For the former (immoral) I agree, for the latter I disagree as it is not my fault if an immoral being chooses to arbitrarily torture people for doing things that are not immoral and thus should not result in torture for doing them. 

Nope, because you changed the default case from going to heaven to going to hell and you bear the responsibility for that. Like if a person pushes someone in front of a car they changed the default from "not getting killed by a car" to "getting killed by a car" and if the default happens then the person doing the pushing is responsible for the outcome. 

No, I am starting from the point that if a person does good or not then that is their responsibility but when you put them in a situation where even if they keep doing good they still get tortured then it becomes your responsibility. If they become immoral later on then the blame is shared between them and you because two wrongs do not make a right and their subsequent immorality does not excuse yours when you taught them thing that put them in peril.

By torturing them even if they are good persons? Strange love that.

You can teach the moral part without teaching the other parts. If they ask to know more even after you warn them of the danger, then it is their decision, if you teach them without warning them and giving them an opportunity not to hear then their blood is on your head.

Its good to see that younger people are becoming more and more rational.

Pointing out that something is a sin doesn`t make me a moral relativist - as some actions are outside of God. I find one thing moral and another immoral.

"If you teach him something that by default sends him to hell"
"By torturing them even if they are good persons?"

This is where we really part ways. Nothing is seen as a default situation. You don`t, by default, get heaven or hell. Before and after people learning about God is still the same situation: either heaven or hell.
if teaching about God is putting someone in front of a car, so is showing them the world. In the end they step aside or they get run over. And i don´t understand why you keep seeing that teaching the word of God is pusing someone in front of a car... no one pushed anyone to anything. In a sense all i do is: this is a road, watch out for cars as they might kill you. Stay on this side because it`s safe.
And showing people about the world does put them in danger of hell.
It`s faith and morality together that might save you. Might because you have to have both to find salvation.
And about faith, people have faith because they see proof, but, as i said, it`s not something everyone accepts as enough. It`s not like there isn`t the Bible, miracles or apparitions or even that they don`t feel anything inside them.

You keep seeing being good as enough for salvation, when it`s not. Everyone can be good to the people that they like. What about forgiveness, for example?
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" -Matthew 5:43-48

Everything in God is of importance. Deciding to take this or that thing out is playing God.

Both.

(Note that I am a muslim)

It is not that that makes you a moral relativist. What makes you a moral relativist is that the bible (especially the old testament) describe many cases of immorality performed by god and yet you equate him with morality. For both to be true it means that you need to apply a different moral standard to god where what he does is not immoral even though under the standard you apply to humans it is. different standards mean you are a moral relativist.

That's not what you said earlier. You said on one side that good people that did not accept god (positive action) went to hell (default action in the absence of the positive action) but those good people that did not know about god went to heaven (default action in the absence of the positive action).

How is it? If I teach them science or bring them traveling around the world (both of which are showing them the world) I am not putting them in a situation where they inherently risk being tortured unless they do something specific. If you teach them about the spiritual world you believe in you are putting them in a situation where they inherently risk being tortured unless they do something specific.

Both are actions undertaken by a person putting another person in a situation where absent any action a great peril awaits them. Would you say that Jigsaw, from the movie series Saw, is not immoral because "In the end they escape the traps or they get killed"? I doubt it, yet what you propose doing is worth as the torture you propose to subject them to is not temporary until their death, like in the movies, but continues for all eternity.

If you warned them and they asked to know then you did not metaphorically push them, if you didn't warn them then you pushed them by leading them in the dangerous situation without warning them.

Nope, if you teach them about god you are first pushing them onto the road and saying "if you don't get off the road (believe in god) you will be killed (damned)". Had you not taught them, some of them might have been in danger, others might have been safe but it would have been their own responsibility. Now that you have interfered and made sure they all were on the road it becomes your responsibility.

Showing people about this world does not. Showing people about the supernatural world you believe in does.

Then why are you not a muslim? By the same standard they have proof too, it is not like there isn't the koran, miracles or apparitions or even that they don't feel anything inside them?

Then why are you not an hindu? By the same standard they have proof too, it is not like there isn't the vedas, miracles or apparitions or even that they don't feel anything inside them?

I am not saying it is, I am saying it should be; that it isn't just shows that it is not about morality.

And everyone can be good to people that like them, even god. What is hard is being good to people who don't like you, so hard that god himself can't do it and sends them off to be tortured instead.

So it is a case of god saying "do what I say, not do what I do" as he preached to love even those who don't love you yet does not do it himself.

I am not arguing whether it is playing god or not, I am arguing whether doing so is moral or not. In your system of belief it is not as it condemns good people to a torture they would not have otherwise suffered.

So, if God does something then it`s moral but if humans do it it`s immoral?
And who created life and morality? I can`t judge but God can. Is this two sets of morals aswell? Moral relativism exists on leveled playing fields, like you saying that something is morality and me saying that it`s not. It was God, who is morality, who created morality, who decided what is morality.
To understand God`s ways you can`t reduce it to just morality since He`s not just morality, otherwise you won`t understand Him. To understand His morality you have to know all of Him.
How can you, honestly, judge God`s morality when you weren`t the one who created morality? You are making yourself God as you decide by your own criteria what is morality. And i ask you, is that what you want to do?

That`s not what i said, nor what i have been saying. I always said that - even pointed out those who lived before Christ - that people can go to either heaven or hell even without knowing the word of God, but the same situation still applies after knowing the word of God. So, in that regard, the same two possibilities exist without change.
What changes is that, and this is where we disagree, is that knowing might someone`s action/responsability but deciding on that something is the person`s responsability. Mine ends with the telliing, his begins with the deciding.
When i spoke about knowing the world, i was trying to say that people all around know what can lead them to heaven or hell, even before knowing of God. Leaving your life, as extreme as it might sound, is travelling a path: good or bad. And you can change any second of your life.
You say that salvation should be about morality. But isn`t life more then morality? Isn`t more than just morality? So, in both cases, why should it be reduced to just a part of it to acquire salvation or hell?

When i teach someone something, i teach them about the good or the bad, but the message always focus on the good - so is the word of God - but i also speak about the bad as a warning so people can understand why it`s good, why it`s bad and repercussions on both actions.
That`s not throwing people in front of a car. It`s showing them a way, asking them to walk on the sidewalk because it`s good for them but warning also of the dangers for those who decide to walk in the street. I only showed the way, it´s people who decide where to put their feet in. And that is not my responsability.

I honestly do not know about other religions, but i do know this: Christ is our saviour. And that`s all i need to know.

God isn`t good to people?
If God wasn`t good then Jesus wouldn`t have died to so we could regain heaven. What Jesus always asked of us was to reject ourselves, accept our crosses and follow Him. Didn`t He do that, even literally?
Do you think that by punishing God doesn`t care? God gives us all the chances in the world to accept Him. Our reward, whatever it is, good or bad, is the consequence of our actions. It`s not God`s fault that we made mistakes in the first place.

If your read about the marian apparitions that i pointed out you would know that God tries everything to save us. He even lets our prayers and sufferings have a role in the salvation of others. If that`s not caring, then i don`t know what is.

Why the question mark as I do not claim that? I claim that if something is moral when god does it but immoral when humans do it then it is moral relativism.

Who created life is irrelevant.

Who created morality? You believe god did. I believe morality is an emergent property of intelligence/sapience. When an animal commits infanticide we do not see it as immoral because they lack the capacity to make moral judgements. Of course we don't call it moral either, instead we call it amoral. If a human commited infanticide then we see it as immoral because a human is intelligent enough to make moral judgements. 

Moral relativism is when one person has two sets of moral standards (or more) and apply different sets to different entities, not when two entities have different moral standards.

No, that would be two different moral system. Moral relativism would be saying that you can't judge my moral system by the standard of your moral system or vice versa (saying I can't judge your moral system by the standard of my moral system). I am saying that you are a moral relativist because equating morality to god means that you can't judge god's morality by the standard of human morality.

If you really believe that then you cannot honestly categorically say that either the 9/11 terrorists or the hebrews who commited mass murder against the city of Jericho are immoral as they claim to have been doing it on god's order and thus whether their acts are moral or not depend on whether they are right in that belief.

I can say that what they did is immoral because even if they are right in their belief that it was ordered by god it still would not make their acts moral.

Furthermore, if you really believe that consider the possibility that your system of belief is right in most aspects except one tiny inversion. The inversion being that Yahwe is not god and Lucifer is not satan but that the world was created by Lucifer (who is thus god) and that it is Yahwe that rebelled against Lucifer's (and is thus satan).

If you believe what you said about god deciding morality then in such a world you should be a Luciferian as god(lucifer in this example) would have decided what was morality.

My view is that as morality does not come from any divine entity (whether Yahwe as you believe to be the case in this world or Lucifer as in my example), in such a universe I would not have to blindly follow the moral system decided by Lucifer even though he would be the creator of that universe and thus god.

We can reduce his moral system to just morality. If he corrupts it with things unrelated to morality then we can judge their effect on his moral system. Whatever non-moral system he has that does not affect morality I am not interested in.

Because I have a brain able of abstract thought on people's actions and their consequences, whether positive or negative and I am not afraid to use it. I am not claiming that we can reach moral perfection with our brains as some aspects are complicated but we can detect gross violations of morality, like many actions commited by god.

I am not making myself to be god, I am just taking god to account for his blatant violations of basic morality. You don't need to claim to be god to claim to be able to make moral judgement. If that was so then you would be unable to make day to day moral judgement without first checking in the bible to make sure that it is the correct judgement.

I know what you said but you also said that once they do know of god, if they do not accept him then they are going to hell. So a good person that would have gone to heaven on the basis of his good deeds when not knowing of god would now go to hell because you told him about god unless he did the extra action of believing, just like a person might not have been run over on the basis of staying on the sidewalk when not being pushed on the pavement but once pushed on the pavement they have to do the extra action of getting of the pavement.

The fact that that extra action is available to them and that the pushed person still has the two possibilities (run over or not run over) does not exonerate the person doing the pushing from being culpable of attempted murder and neither does the fact that the person you taught about god  has the extra action of believing available to them and that they still have both possibilities (go to heaven or hell) exonerate you from being culpable of attempted torture.

You might want to rephrase the bolded portion as it doesn't make sense.

However, if I understand what you are trying to say you are wrong as the telling puts them in more danger than they were before.

Before the danger was for them to be bad people.

Now the danger is for them to be bad people OR to be good people but not to believe.

You increased the danger by your deliberate actions and that is that increase that is immoral (unless you warn them and they agree to take the risk).

First, that would not be knowing the world but knowing another world (the spiritual world).

Second, if that was true then why do different religions have different requirements for salvation and why do some religions (like the Jews and some christians) not believe in the same kind of heaven and hell most christians do?

I already said why in other posts: Because if it isn't about rewarding morality and punishing immorality then it is about rewarding those who like you and punishing those who don't. It is cronyism at its worst. I can respect those who believe in heaven but not in hell but those that believe in hell in such a system argue that eternal torture for failing to be god's crony is acceptable and I totally disagree. Even if it is true it is still a system worth rebelling against (just like there are systems that are "true" in that they exist or existed but they are/were worth rebelling against).

If you started with the bad as a warning "if you listen to me and don't believe you will be tortured for eternity even if you are a good person" and gave them the option not to listen to you then I would have no problem as it would be their informed decision and thus their responsibility.

It is if you don't tell them of the dangers of listening to you. A closer analogy would be that you are putting blinders on them and leading them in front of the car but the result is the same and the immorality of it doesn't change with the method of putting them in front of the car.

Except that simply telling them is putting their feet on the street unless they get off it (just like telling them about god is putting them in hell unless they believe).

But you having faith that it is so is no more proof than a muslim believing that "there is no god but allah and Mohammed is his prophet" is proof of the correctness of a Muslim's faith, which was the point I was making.

Straw man. I am not claiming that god is never good to people. Indeed I believe that he is good to those that love him but as Jesus himself pointed out, how dificult is that?

If god was good then he wouldn't have arbitrary requirements for avoiding being tortured. That he is willing to have good people tortured because they do not believe in him is reason enough to say that he is not absolutely good.

What's the point of hell? When you punish a kid you do it soon after he did his mistake so he can learn from it and improve. God is doing the equivalent of not punishing a kid until they are dead and then doing all the punishing (and then some) when they have no opportunity to improve anymore.

So do allah and bramah... why don't you accept them?

Debatable if he is the one who made us.

But it is definitely his fault if our punishment is for things that have nothing to do with morality as he is the one who set-up the system.

He tried more in the times of the Hebrews so it is hard to say that he tries everything nowadays.

So who should I believe? The bible when it says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" or the catholic church's doctrine of reparation?

Besides, do you think that releasing criminals because somebody else (their mom, their wife?) is really really sorry they did what they did and grovels for forgiveness is caring? I don't think it is caring. It is just stroking god's vanity to get what you want.

If he cared he would not merely threaten all through people's life and then punish them by torture for a duration much longer than their life. Instead he would punish all through a person's life, in proportion to their crime (which an eternal punishment isn't), to teach them to be better. You know, like parents do to their kids and the government to adults (though imperfectly for both).

There would be no nonsense of getting off due to the acts of others but would be earned by good behaviour and/or change of heart (as god can see that) from the condemned.

"I claim that if something is moral when god does it but immoral when humans do it then it is moral relativism."
No, this is the difference between God and men. Of course, it would be easier to understand or accept, if you first accept that God is the creator and only He or by His command can certain things be done. We aren`t God so we aren`t allowed to do what He does, because we aren`t even like Him to behave like Him.
So, even if someone says it is the name of God, doesn`t mean that He is speaking through them.
That`s why i spoke about leveled playing fields. Given your example of moral relativism it shows that we are on the same level, but doesn`t apply to God.
To me, of course i can`t judge God`s morality since my morality comes from Him. But could anyone do it? Well, are you God to understand Him in a way that is fitting? A man judging his maker without knowing His maker doesn`t seem that will lead to a good result. I can judge human actions because i am human, but i don`t know what it is to be God in the same way that i know what is to be human.
And i`m sorry, but in my view, that is playing God as you are switching roles.

If you know about the Bible, then you know that Satan had no power over Jesus and Jesus even exorcized and gave power to do so to the apostles. Also, it is said in the Bible that hell was created for Satan and all the angels that followed him.

The danger of hell or heaven is exactly the same. It was and still is 50/50. Is there more criteria to decide on salvation? Yes, there is. But doesn`t change anything. Did things become unbalanced? No they didn`t.
You say that i should ask if someone wants to know more, well, should i ask people if they want to know or be shown about life? Because in knowing about life they also risk heaven or hell. Isn`t that the same principle? If i am guilty of teaching/showing someone about life - which even starts at giving birth - i am also guilty of throwing them to the street -  as you say. Isn`t the person`s decisions that will give them heaven or hell, while living their lives? When people raise their kids do they ask them - as you want - before opening the door of their houses to go to school, friends, etc?
I don`t think that there is anything you that doesn`t, eventually, put them in heaven or hells path (simple or complex things). That`s what happens in a world where people live together.
It`s the same context when i tell them about God.
Things is, yes there`s a risk, the same as before, but the questions isn`t that, it`s why people believe and why they don`t believe. This is what makes the difference. Because, in the end, the risk is meaningless when people can and do decide what to do.

I see the sidewalk as heaven and the street as hell. In my view i put them at the beggining of both. That`s what`s done when there are two ways to go. He or she is the one who decides where to walk. For saying that i threw them to the street, you also need that i threw him to the sidewalk aswell - which doesn`t make sense. Why? Because even if they were good, doesn`t mean they were bound to be good for the rest of their lives.
It`s their responsability for all their actions. It would be mine if i hide something from them or forced them to something that they couldn`t avoid. But they can.
What you are doing, is assuming that someone is already saved because they were good. All you can honestly say is that they were good until a certain period of time.

"Second, if that was true then why do different religions have different requirements for salvation and why do some religions (like the Jews and some christians) not believe in the same kind of heaven and hell most christians do?"
I honestly don`t know. That`s a question you need to ask to those people.

Associating God with cronyism is not understanding God at all. God doesn´t favour "His friends" - as i showed in the quote from the other post -, He rewards those who accept Him and He punishes those who say: You are not my Truth, Life and Path and end up following someone else, something else or themselves.

Then you should ask those other people why they don`t believe Christ to be there saviour.

"So who should I believe? The bible when it says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" or the catholic church's doctrine of reparation?"
Both. Our prayers are for God to touch their hearts to help guide them with faith and have mercy on them even for those who are in purgatory.
"If god was good then he wouldn't have arbitrary requirements for avoiding being tortured. That he is willing to have good people tortured because they do not believe in him is reason enough to say that he is not absolutely good."
It`s not an arbitrary requirement but only to those, like you, who see salvation only through morality. But as i said before, God isn`t just morality. Not for those who knew Him and not for those who didn`t know Him.
So, they were good, wanted nothing with Him (rejected Him as Life, Path and Truth), yet, they still get Heaven, which is exactly what they rejected in the first place? That makes no sense to me. It was those same people that put themselves in a position to be damned. Rejecting those 3 categories is the reason for hell. Accept it or not, that`s the reason. The purity and sanctity of God has no room for anything else but those in whom He lives.
Who says that God doesnt`t punish you or that He doesn`t try to help you change? That`s what happens throught your whole life. That`s why God gives you all the chances to change your ways.

"I don't think it is caring. It is just stroking god's vanity to get what you want."
When people pray for the conversion of sinners, they do it for the good of those people. They touch God`s heart and He does what we ask of Him. Is that so bad?