People are free to express their erroneous views just as I'm free to provide what you misconstrue as an overconfident rebuttal, Pilgrim. It is not always about 'welcoming' people here. Some ideas and beliefs are clearly not worthy of merit in the face of reason, logic and evidence. And I've stated before that this holds true even for Holocaust deniers---and we've had one recently who was free to express his views just as we were free to impugn them. Opposing parties during that discourse create an enlightening and informative thread. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm not going to hault the tone of my affirmations whilst others freely express the courage of their own convictions. Not going to happen no matter how many imaginary slaps I'm threatened with.
If some individuals feel negative and shut down conversation, then they have a problem and perhaps are not ready for an intelligent and adult conversation. I'm sure you remember the squid who certainly didn't have a problem as reflected in his approach ...
I'm not here to ensure that people remain on this site. If they don't possess 'staying power', it is not my responsibility to tread on eggshells because they are weak and unprepared to read opposing comments. People have to learn that the corollories of their expressed views won't always be what they expect. One must be prepared to be challenged. Are you prepared to be challenged, Pilgrim?
The ontological problem is relevant because people believe in God for all sorts of erroneous reasons. In fact, with my Excalibur analogy, I emphasise why believing in such a Being, in any way shape or form, is completely unfounded. And it appears that my argument goes unchallenged as you are unequivocally willing to simply dismiss it because apparently most people are not concerned with such philosophies. If they aren't concerned, they should be---both believer and unbeliever alike. Why? Because it matters in a profound way; it cuts right down to the kernel of the God concept and renders it paradoxical as well as nonsensical.
The God you seem to believe in does not exist. You say He's almighty and powerful? You say He's able to deliver? Deliver what? Endless suffering and a doubtful revelation written by medieval men? What kind of god fails to deliver a cogent word?
What kind of god sends his alledgedly innocent son to take the punishment for the truly wicked in order to exonerate them? Imagine you taking the fall for Oscar Pistorius or Jimmy Saville ... Would that be justice? What would that teach Charles Manson? That he can infract as much as he wants because there are plenty of divine patsies?
There is no evidence of a heavenly plan and there are no divine prophesies. Much to the contrary: there is no plan at all. And the pious know this which is why they enforce the idea of faith
---one must be completely submissive; surrender all logic and reason; believe without question; respect the celestial leader; revelation cannot be too conclusive otherwise we cannot demonstrate absolute trust in Him; God shouldn't have to prove Himself to us because He is God; Kim Jong Un shouldn't have to prove himself to North Koreans because He is to be revered as the Dear Leader etc.
This is mental retardation. This is an infantile, sadomasochistic prostration. Anyone who obdurately continues to believe and worship a being that cannot be, and if He were it would be depressing to contemplate such unchallengeable dictatorship, is worthy of ridicule and contempt.
The Bible is far from being a reliable historical narrative. It assumes the Earth is a stationary centre of the universe. And we can't even be sure that Jesus existed, and if he did, what is the difference between him and say, Sai Baba or Marshall Applewhite?
Scripture is manmade. One only has to compare it to the deontological works of philosophers like Immanuel Kant to see that it is nothing but the ramblings of immoral and amoral medieval barbarians.
My two cents.