I don't remember where I heard this but I will paraphrase it as best I can by memory:

Theists beware--this has been known to be the most devastating argument to theism the world has ever seen.

"My friend has a dog. When his dog is hungry he feeds it. When it has to go to the bathroom my friend's wife let's the dog outside. The dog is happy: they provide plenty of toys, a nice bed, and top-of-the-line dog food. Sometimes the dog pees inside and my friend's wife holds the dog by the snout and looks the dog in the eyes and says "baaaad dog!" My friends dog has had loving owners since it was a puppy and it will have loving owners until the day it dies which unfortunately will be soon because the dog is getting very old and moves slower and slower every day. But eventually my friends dog will in fact die and that will be the end of my friends dog."

Again, theists beware: "My friend does not punish his dog with eternal torture, give his dog a brain and command him not to use it on pain of hell-fire, or any of the horrible things theism does to people. This has lead me to the conclusion that I would rather be a dog in my friends world than a human in Yahweh's world"

ps, dont get mad at me -- I warned you in bold print at the start that this has been known to be the most devastating argument to theism the world has ever seen.

/Argumentum Ad Poochem.

You need to read J.P. Moreland because he says there is no eternal fire or torture by God. Hell is God's fall back position and the hell is self imposed because people choose to be separated from God and God then respects their choice.

By a fall back position he means initially God didn't create hell. Sort of like people emigrating to the colonies then finding out they'd have to have prisons.

All dogs go to Heaven.

/ thread.

I don't see how this is an argument against theism...it's seems more like yet another argument for how, if god did exist, he would be douche.

Your friend needs to call Cesar Millan...

I agree with Splendour. Hell, hades, Gehenna the lake of fire were originally created for Satan and his angels.

Our case is stronger than I thought.

Our position is unbeatable.

This is at least the second time I've watched you start a post with this phrase and it bugs me a bit. It sounds like you are condescendingly telling the OP that he is obviously wrong and you are right because you are so well read and he isn't.

That may not be your intention, but it kind of comes off that way.

How about, instead of "you need to read J. P. Moreland because he says..." you write, "J.P. Moreland states that..."

/phrasing nit

That may be unfair to Splendour. It has been found that oftentimes Splendour hasn't read what she tells people to read. She has posted links to support her statements that she has never read. So she may not think 'he is obviously wrong' and will be corrected by reading it since there's a respectable chance she's never it read it herself.

I'm quite certain we have seen on this forum that reading what she suggests often shows that the person has said the opposite of what Splendour thinks its says, particularly if its a matter of science.

Then she usually says something like, "stop paying attention to the lies" or "you're using your IQ and not your SQ or EQ".

No. Splendour is an idiot and does that all the time. She does not have common sense. For those reasons however it is not nice to make fun of her.