So when you asserted that " there are two types of religious people" and proceeded to define them you were lying?

The Bible explains that All men experience the Word of God and it is up to them to accept or reject it. I don't interpret that as being the Bible, but rather the universal principles which God propagates through Christianity and all other natural religions. Then it comes down to how different people interpret the Bible which yields nothing of value. My point originally was that Ultimate Justice is embodied in God's existence and, like a parent, he has the right to punish us when we need according to his Universal Principles and the health of our soul. Asking "how" in the Bible has to be answered with the Bible, because it claims the ultimate of its own knowledge, which would mean it isn't written to be scientifically or morally verifiable. It's true by virtue of its being in the Bible. When we moralize and think God has No Reason we have to accept the superiority of his actions and wisdom as prerequisites to interpretation of the bible in the first place.

How is the limitation of the capacity of individuals to cause harm or destruction bad in any sense? How can someone support the opposite?

If a culture furnishes an individual with norms and social roles then wouldn't it be ideal to have a culture that furnishes individuals with norms and social roles that do not include a weapon as an automatic and entitled right, when the types of problems destroying this country relate to organized crime? Wouldn't be ideal to raise people with the knowledge that their environment is free enough for nobody to be oppressed with concentrated power? Wouldn't unnecessary aggression be unwise to cultivate within a given culture? The rights of the constitution must be recognized as describing the America of 200 years ago. With the power of scientific knowledge and technology we have new social and civic duties to our nation and people. Isn't enhancing lifestyles of all more valuable than concentrating power in the hands of socially and politically destructive people? Seeing as though anybody's need for fires arms is criminals in the first place.

Kierkegaard was a great existentialiat philosopher, I'm sure you know. He said that his convictions are a result of his childhood and it being taught to him everyday. He realized the reality of subjectivity and justified his faith with the idea that one only sees the truth of a principle when they ALREADY FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE IN IT. So the acceptance of faith definitely has something to do with some subliminal acceptance of certain metaphysical principles which rely on theism for support, such as altruism as a moral ideal. Fear and love are just two forms of support that belief in the existence of god gives people, and this ease in living in their own minds is what they preach about. You have such a naive understanding of the ontology of faith and spirituality that you honestly believe people only believe in God because they're scared or love everyone. What a claim, but is horseshit. Don't talk like things are so clear to you and that opposing perspectives are automatically invalid just because YOU can't justify it.

The whole principle of belief and faith has to do with the conviction that there is a higher force and source of insight in the world. When you blindly follow YOURSELF you end up like the Athiest who cannot even fathom the idea of God because the cultural remnants of Post Modernism blind him into thinking and believing in himself as original or authentic, and thus the absolute basis for moral judgement. If you are so convicted that God isn't real that it literally just doesn't make any valid sense to you remember that it is your own personal bias which gives the illusion of your own validity. Science cannot measure the existence of a being who's nature is outside of the limits of time space and matter, because these are the insights of science: material. Science still cannot formulate a theory of manifestation that doesn't change every 10 years because science cannot go beyond or prior to the limits of reality as it is. Atheism is faith because e existence of God is immeasurable. Just like gravity, it's existence is perceived in its effect, not it's material observability, which there is none of. To call gravity a sovereign force is the same claim that the force which created existence is itself a sovereign force.

Say a child steals from his mother because he feels deeply that she doesn't spend it wisely enough and only buys junk food and cigarettes. His choice to transgress his mother's will (that he not steal) May be justified to the child, but we would agree that the mother is MORE justified in teaching her son a greater lesson about people's autonomy and the limits of people's rights to other people's rightly earned property. While the child sees himself as the martyr of a higher cause he is mistaken. His punishment is a result of his self righteousness in the face of greater wisdom. This is the problem with most atheists (I'm not a theist), it is that you are all so proud of yourselves as intellectuals that you truly believe your evaluations of justice and moral value as TRUTH. Self righteousness is disgusting whether it's in the form of atheism or theism.

As if he knowingly has created a foot race to salvation and allows the manifestation of racers with no feet.

If God is omniscient and created humanity with the knowledge of each of their lives, then it follows that he also knew who will and will not accept Jesus before creation happened in the first place. Since human beings have been given the capacity to suffer eternally (hell) by the will of God himself, then it also follows that God knew when he added hell as a reality that it would invariably lead to the eternal death of his own creations. God doesn't choose who will and won't go to hell, but he allows their manifestation with the knowledge of their non capacity to interpret and understand the reality of his word, which leads to eternal death in hell.

How can an Atheist want to be a moral person? How can a nihilist be a moral person? They aren't morals to these people, they are actions which are necessary as a result of an understanding. There is no desire to be anything because the idea of morality to these belief systems are nil. They are actions which follow logically from current situations and relationships. THERE IS NO DESIRE TO BE MORAL. It isn't about morals or acting morally. Perhaps certain actions which are done by people are considered moral by people who believe in such things, but to a nihilist there are no morals, just actions. If a nihilist does something that is considered moral they had no desire to "do the right thing" or be a moral person. They do what they do because of their understanding of the relationships and situations they are in. They are doing actions which logically follow from an understanding. I am not saying morality is objective, I am saying that charity can be a result of how one truly is and not what one truly wants. We are all a walking set of ideas and principles. If they support a reality in which certain actions are absolutely necessary then they will do them. SOme of these actions are charitable and therefore selfless because it is what the person necessarily had to do according to the way that they are which is then a result of principles and ideas. There is no want to be moral. To your next point I say that when one sees a homeless person and gives him an apple out of necessity of function there is no questioning "Is this my function?" It is an unconscious reaction resulting from the most primary beliefs or ideas in ones psyche. What we do is us serving our function. There is no question, just the action. Of course there are many people who act "selflessly" for gratitude, but I am saying that selflessness is possible when one acts that way because in their minds they cant not act that way. WHen we are in a certain situation we weigh the information so we can act the most necessary way according to our understanding, which is what we have learned and understood as experience goes on. If in a situation one does something that can be considered charitable or selfless it wasnt for the sake of charity or selflessness. It was because that action in that place and at that time was necessary and you could not have functioned in another way. Yes I am saying that there is no free will. One does nothave the choice to act any way, because all actions are based on information, which is synthesized by a physical object (brain) and physical law applies to all physical objects which means that all the information that your choices are based from is a result of the physical processes of your brain thus making your choices deterministic. The act was selfless, because there is no consideration of the self. Just because one did not have a choice does not mean that their action was any less selfless. WHEN ONE GETS NOTHING FROM AN ACTION AND ANOTHER DOES IT IS SELFLESS. You keep saying there is a small amount of selfishness in all these situations when in reality you are holding that claim with the idea that since WE are the ones who are motivated it must mean that our motivation is for ourselves or has some sort of reflection of ourselves in it. Yes, actions are subjectively based and just because we act on subjective motivation does not mean that we are GETTING ANYTHING FROM IT. One is doing what one must and that is all. It is just an action there is no thought about the self. How are all obligations selfish to some degree? Please answer that question with logic. You keep spinning arguments around to some idea that obligations are for oneself to some degree but you havent used any logic to actually support that. My question to you in your response is "If my mind has synthesized life thus far in it's own way and the information being presented compels me to act in a certain manner which benefits another and not myself, how is that obligation of logic selfish in any degree?" What am I getting from sufficing this necessity? What keeps this from being considered a selfless act?