You are welcome to your views and I wish you well. Your post still ignores much of the challenges I mentioned.
Well, I made a particular point in my first post, and I am willing to defend it. That doesn´t include taking each and every unrelated challenge that somebody later poses to me.
It also still ignores the consequences of your expressed views per my previous comments.
Arguments from consequence? Consequences of what?
I am merely pointing out what we observe to be the case. Don´t shoot the messenger.
But if you are satisfied with atheism, a mere negative response to the theistic question posed at the head of this thread would seem redundant, and I have to wonder what's the point indeed.
This question is not redundant for the reason that I am an atheist (and nowhere in my argument "God doesn´t exist" showed up as a premise.
Moreso, when I used the terms and phrases from original post, it was you said you didn´t even understand what they meant. So you apparently would have to have a word with the original poster. As far as the OP is concerned, I think (and tried to show) that it is
not posing a theistic question but an implicitly atheistic or antitheistic or misotheistic question. From a theistic perspective (or at least I have been told so numerous times) it is not permissible to tell God what to do. Yet, the entire OP is circled around the question what God should do or not. It´s not my question - it´s the implicit question of the OP. Don´t shoot me for pointing this out.
To me it´s a problem that you seem to work from the erroneouos assumption that I want to attack your God or prove that God doesn´t exist, or criticize God, or show that God is impotent or whatever. All this is not my point nor my motivation.
And I am not sure I understand why you insist on controversy where, in my understanding, we agree in essential things.
E.g. you said
Violations of rights and fights for rights are not prima facie evidence of divine impotence any more than they are of government impotence. Nor is present lack of or delayed enforcement sufficient to conclude that enforcement will never occur, especially in the divine case.
If I am reading this correctly you are saying here that God (although having edicted or declared our rights) leaves humanity to its own devices when it comes to granting and protecting these rights. This was exactly my point.
I notice that a right is granted and protected when I can make use of that right. Let´s, e.g. take the "right of free speech". I know it´s granted and protected when I (and everybody else) can speak freely without being silenced or censored. Whilst, when this is not the case the right (although possibly declared and edicted) is not granted/protected.
What I understand you saying above is: 'When you want a right to be granted and protected, don´t rely on God to do that. It´s not God´s job, it´s the goverments job." And again: That was and is exactly my point.
As for your elaborations on "hope and meaning" provided by the prospect on eternal punishment in the afterlife: That may be some sort of consolace, it does, however, not change anything about the fact that certain rights aren´t granted and protected right now.
The rest of your post appears to digress from the actual question at hand, and stray more into the area of asking "Does God exist?" or "Is it better to believe in a God or not?". Which I never meant to discuss here, and which aren´t the OP questions.
If you feel there is a substantial point in your posts that pertains to the question at hand but that I ignored or overlooked, I explicitly invite you to repeat or quote it, so I can address it.