Get used to that if you're trying to have a discussion with EricHiggin.

The way Catholic teachings put it is that there's salvation for everyone, including non-believers. So it doesn't matter. Supposedly, you will have to choose your own fate at the end of times, and if you're any smart after realizing that the Christian God and his celestial court exist, you're not going to choose eternal damnation. 

You made points backing up your thoughts. I questioned those points. Now you're saying that's not how things work?

You made an analogy about a doctor, and why it's ok for them to choose not to be as helpful because of their rights. Those rights are God given. Otherwise they aren't really rights, they're just things humans or the Gov gave to you for the time being, which could also be taken away. Without God, rights, if you would want to call them that, would only be temporary, like a parking pass. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

So what happens when the doctors rights are eventually taken away and they're forced to work more to help others, within their capabilities so they don't unnecessarily harm anyone? If people think God should work more, care more, and do a better job, then that should be fine for the doctor as well, no? The doctor does care about people don't they? If God doesn't exist, and the human/Gov given rights get taken away, and the doctor is forced to work more, then it also shouldn't be a problem, because their rights were simply removed for the greater good.

It didn't used to be sadistic to sacrifice human children/adults to some god. It has been for a while now though. What exactly falls under sadistic? Did humans better themselves, or did God? Maybe both?

That's fine. I just wanted to say that, in Christianity, there's mercy and salvation for everybody, which is one of the biggest oddities I found in the religion back when I was a child, when I was a follower. The Catholic Church does have a saying that goes by "outside the Church there is no salvation", but when I read the canonical passages there were plenty of things that never clicked with me in this regard. So it rendered the whole religion even, pointless, or at least it made it lose clarity. 

People help other people for something in return. Whether it's the positive feeling they get for being useful, or something like food or money, etc. Offering stuff to get people to do things for you isn't some diabolical concept. Offering them better things, so you in return get better things isn't crazy either. Why God would offer eternal life in heaven makes sense. Not being a helpful useful person can lead to a life of hell more often than not.

You might work/help for little in return, which makes you feel like you're not expecting anything you don't require to live, which is totally fine, but that doesn't mean people help for nothing, and aren't more productive with better incentives, more often than not.

In the past three posts, you posed 17 different questions to me. Most of those have little if anything to do with the point I was making.  Neither science, where rights come from, nor moral relativism were relevant to any of my points, as far as I can tell,yet for some reason I'm getting questions about those things. If I actually answer those questions, then we're going to be having 17 different lines of conversation.  And I have a feeling that any answer I give will just spawn more questions. That's probably why your last post to permalite contains THIRTY SEVEN separate questions.  

Questioning can be a very effective way to communicate in real time, when the questions are relevant and when we are limited to addressing one question at a time, and can follow it to its conclusion. Even online, questions can be useful when they are used sparingly to clarify an central concept, or to establish a particular point.  But, in this case, you're essentially trying to have dozens of separate conversations at the same time, and no, that's not how conversations work, at least not the kind that I wish to spend my time having.  

The only god I believe is in the holy trifecta of The Nintendo, The Capcom and The PlatinumGames.

There is absolutely no need for Religion in a modern society, but there is certainly a need for Science.

Science flies us to Mars, Religion flies us into buildings.

That isn't what I am saying, nor is that what I have said.

What I am saying is there is absolutely ZERO evidence for the existence of yours or anyone else's God, thus we can discard those claims with equally as much evidence.

That is the absolute logical position.

I would be worried if any individual regarded the Bible as fact and would thus question that individuals mental faculties.

Also... Science isn't required to prove or disprove your God exists.

The burden of proof lays upon the individual making the claim, thus if religion makes the claim that God exists... Then they are REQUIRED to prove it.

Otherwise... What stops me from making the claim that the Flying Spaghetti monster exists? You would be required to believe it unless you can disprove it. - That is the logic you are using.

Could be argued that the propagation of weapons were propelled by religious rhetoric, didn't the USA make a religious spew before it used the Nuclear Bomb?

Science isn't required to prove or disprove that God exists.

Religion -IS- required to prove or disprove their God exists. They are making the claim, the burden of proof lays upon them.

The Burden of proof is required by the scientific method... And has proven to be so beneficial that it is even used in the court of law.

Why are you trying to justify suicide? Your line of thinking is dangerous.

Yes, anyone who decides to end someone else's life are mentally ill.

I see mangled dead bodies every day, I have had people die in my arms, what you are proposing is not reality.

False.

Science isn't required to disprove the tooth fairy, again... You need to understand what the burden of proof is, the individual who makes the claim is required to prove their position.

Am I biased? Nope. If you can prove God exists, I will believe it... Until then I am going to discard your proposition, because that is all it is... A fairy tale, no more real than Micky Mouse or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But one thing is for sure... Is that perhaps you might be biased considering you are willing to throw your entire support behind something that cannot be proven and might be nothing more than a con?

He didn't even know me.

Well then that just makes it extra nice don't it?