I've read the several other threads on your blog that went long and every one was with someone who ultimately arrived at the conclusion that you are an intellectually dishonest and mean-spirited debater. Add me to the list.

You told me above that I was playing God but you tell me you know better than I how I arrived at my own conclusions based on a few posts on a message board. You're a piece of work, Wes.

Of course I reject your assertion that boils down to the claim that "if you carefully study this, you'll come to the same conclusion I did". I think you have allowed your bias override your epistemic faculties such that you do not believe in God not because you lack the epistemic warrant needed but because you lack the desire to accept the necessary conclusions that would result from accepting the belief that God exists and that you are not He.

In short, I do believe you are wrong about not only the facts but also about the process by which those facts are obtained and how those facts relate to the subject (specifically the existence of God).

I also find this phrase to be very strange "you cannot logically assert that I deserve eternal torture". Logic does not provide us information about good/evil nor does it inform us about the existence of not of eternal torture. These are all categories of thought you have no basis for and so attacking me on them is intellectually dishonest at best (and a shameless ploy to ride this conversation even further off the rails at worst).

"I feel sorry for you for needing twisted logic and presuppositional apologetics to be able to sleep at night believing people that are unlike you deserve eternal torture."

Is that an appeal to emotion or what? That whole phrase makes absolutely no sense. I would love to see you try and parse that out but I am afraid that the very attempt would just be too painful to watch.

I may be wrong about the facts, which I have stipulated on numerous occasions. Because you cannot logically assert that I deserve eternal torture for that makes you need to change my position to argue against and still hold that your god is just. And you support this by inserting your opinion on how overwhelming the evidence is.

I feel sorry for you for needing twisted logic and presuppositional apologetics to be able to sleep at night believing people that are unlike you deserve eternal torture.

Yes, I am arguing from my "own theistic box" just like you are arguing from your own atheistic box. The fact that we are biased to the conclusions we believe are right says nothing about whether we are actually right or not. In other words, the strength of our beliefs or the bias of our dispositions does not have any bearing on the facts.

If you continue on your present course of unbelief (and I pray you don't), God will not judge and condemn you based on a mere error in judgement but on a willful refusal to accept what the evidence overwhelmingly points to.

Additionally, your last statement really shows your epistemic bias here:
"If you can actually take a step out of your box and analyze this and respond without presupposing the existence of your god then I welcome your response."

Do you mean that the only way I can understand you is if I accept your presuppositions and reason according to YOUR atheistic/naturalistic biases?

Also, righteousness has nothing to do with this conversation. Further more, righteousness can mean nothing in your system so why even bring it up?

Of course, I could have reached the wrong conclusion. Your god deems that people like me deserve to be eternally tortured for this error in judgement. This in no way, shape or form is consistent with a being that is all-loving and just. This incohernecy is one of the many reasons I don't believe he is true.

If you can actually take a step out of your box and analyze this and respond without presupposing the existence of your god then I welcome your response. If you're going to call me names and label me with bad words to make yourself feel better about how righteous you are to be on the right side, then don't bother.

The entirety of the thread isn't meaningless, just your last comment to me. How can I be blasphemous and exhibit hubris towards a being I don't think exists? You're arguing in your own thesitic box, not hearing what I am saying.