Very nicely put .

Yeah, why would an infinite being do anything different? Why would He create a universe? Why does he need a universe now that he didn't need an infinite amount of time before now?

And if you want ludicrous, why does He need worship? Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless being need to be told how great he is by His own creations?

Option one assumes an evil God. I’ve given this a good deal of thought and I can’t come up with a reason for an omnipotent, omniscient being to be evil. In our species evil always seems to spring from a need or desire. People commit evil acts because they will get, or think they will get something from the commission of that act. A person steals because she needs or wants a material thing. A bully bullies because he has low self-esteem and by making others suffer he makes himself feel more important. What can an omnipotent omniscient being possibly have to gain from the commission of an evil act? (For that matter, what can an omnipotent omniscient being possibly have to gain from the commission of a good act? But that’s a whole other discussion).

IMO, option 2 is more likely. The Deists believed in a God that set everything in motion but thereafter did not participate in the universe. If any God exists (which I doubt), this one makes the most sense.

That's an interesting way to put it. It seems undeniable to me that the vast majority of people accept the religious teachings that they received in childhood. This is evidenced by the fact that populations of one religion or the other remain that religion from generation to generation. If people thought for themselves about such matters there would be a lot more change.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying it's possible that an interventionist God exists but that His threshold for intervention is greater than the holocaust.

That's true, and it's a good point. But if that's so, divine intervention is so rare as to be statistically insignificant. My point in this debate is that people pray for intervention in things that are far less important than the genocide of millions of people, and we know He didn't stop the holocaust.

Yep, I agree with the above argument. Hardly surprising since I'm the one who made it.

Well, to use your example, in a democracy, either representative as practiced in the US or parliamentary as practiced in Europe and elsewhere, we wouldn't be voting for "x", "y" or "z". We would be voting for representatives who would vote on "x", "y" or "z". Presumably proponents of "x" and "y" would come to some sort of compromise and defeat "z". At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

The role that political parties would play in this scenario would depend on the ramifications of the issue on whatever binds the party together.

And, BTW, what binds the party together may not be political ideology. Today the US parties are divided along ideological lines with the Republicans representing conservatives and the Democrats representing moderates and liberals. But that's not how it always was. Up until about forty years ago, both parties had liberal and conservative wings and region played a much bigger role.

You make several excellent points. I find it ironic that many of the very same people who would criminalize the burning of the flag, are the one's applauding Joe Wilson's shameful act of disrespect.

The flag is a symbol. Physically, the flag is of no importance and of minimal value. It's importance and it's value are in what it symbolizes, not in what it is. You can burn what it is, but you cannot burn what it symbolizes and what it symbolizes is personal. To one person it may stand for everything that they perceive as being right about America, to another it may have exactly the opposite meaning. If what we call "freedom" has any meaning at all, it means that we are free to believe what we will and we are free to express our beliefs.

I may think that a person who burns the flag is an idiot, but I will stand of for his right to do it. I have no problem with that because I know that no matter how much he tries, he can do nothing to harm what that flag means to me.

A convenient argument, but completely untrue. He was Catholic, although I don't think he was a particularly religious one. Even so, he made frequent references to God in his speeches.

Of course, it could be argued that he was a secret Atheist who only used God to further himself politically, and that may very well be true. If so, it is probably equally true of many of our Bible-thumping American politicians.