>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.
But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)
In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...
How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man


We're talking about who or what created life, the universe, and everything. So yeah, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I say, "I don't know." However, asserting that you do know what did, or didn't does seem to be quite insane. Someday maybe we will know, but that day isn't today.

If you want to think that's petty, fine, but you seem to be projecting, IMO. Same with your "insights" into NDT's thought process. You seem to be putting a lot of words and thoughts into NDT's head that he didn't make...or assert to. These assertions that NDT and agnostics are cowardly is insulting and unfounded and again, if I dare say so, seem to be projecting your own insecurities onto NDT. And again, you're conflating the idea of god with religion. Atheists continue to make this flawed claim that if god does somehow exists, that obviously the theists are correct on religion and that god is this petty douchebag that likes to play with peoples lives and do shit like changing the laws of science for shits and grins. If god does exist, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that god is nothing like Q from Star Trek.

I think it's quite the opposite of being cowardly and "not taking a stand" when one comes out publicly "takes a stand" to correct atheists that he is not an atheist. Obviously, if agnostics are the cowards you claim them to be, NDT wouldn't be coming out on this issue. Talk about being petty. Again, you doth protest too much. Atheists like to throw accusations of cowardice a lot for some reason....I'm sure that would be an interesting psychological study.

"It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason..." I don't understand why you feel the need to ridicule it in the first place. You can't really cry foul about being petty when you make a statement like this. Again...no better than theists in this regard, you're one and the same. And really, if agnostic is subject to ridicule. Is it really the safe route? I'm sorry you feel you have to crush those who blaspheme against YOUR religion.

@Boise_Lib is quite right on this. Atheists really need to take a chill pill. The defensiveness, and quite frankly anger, when it comes to the atheist reaction to agnostics only serve to illustrate that you're no better than theists. Atheism always seemed to be more about getting revenge on theists instead of being logical and rational.

Try loving instead of hating, you'll live longer.

Cold whisky?!?!!? Blasphemers!!!!

@spoco2

You THINK you know the truth of there even being a god, and you believe you know who this god is. But these are THOUGHTS and are not backed up by ANYTHING whatsoever. 2+2 = 4 is backed up by being able to SHOW it... you can take 2 beads, take another 2 beads, count them, and have 4 beads.

You cannot point at ANYTHING and say 'See, there's my proof that there is a god, he is the one in the bible, and that is true'.

If you prayed to Jesus Christ and sincerely admitted that you are a sinner, asked for His forgiveness and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, you would come to know there is a God. It is something which can be empirically verified.

And I said that it was fine for you to believe that there was one true god. Go right ahead and believe that you have found that 'truth'. It's your forcing of YOUR belief in this on others, this belief that cannot be shown to be true in any way. This belief of yours that a man who sleeps with another man is damned to hell forever and so should be feared and scorned is horrible.

If it's fine to believe that Jesus is God incarnate, then it is also fine for me to obey His commands, one of which is to preach the gospel. This is a fundamental right that every american has according to the first ammendment. Why should I be censored? You feel free to say what I believe is not correct. Why shouldn't you be censored?

A man who tells a lie, steals something, blasphemes the name of God, or looks at a woman with lust is on his way to hell. One sin isn't necessarily worse than any other sin; the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned. So the man who lies is just as guilty as the man who sleeps with another man. God cares so much about the well being of His Universe that He punishes all sin with eternity in hell. He cares so much about us that He gave His only Son to take our place in punishment, so we could be forgiven and have eternal life. Those who reject His mercy will have to face His justice.

My beliefs, those of science and observable phenomenon, do not say anything about how people choose to live their lives. My morals state that anyone is free to be with whoever they want to. They can live however they want, including believing in an invisible man in the sky with a long, flowing beard, as long as that way of living doesn't try to do harm to others.

You are doing harm to others. Mumford and Sons are not.

Many of your views may hide behind apron of true science, but I can guaranatee you that the presuppositions of your worldview are not based on empirical testing. As far as who is doing harm, if you saw someone in a burning building, would you not stop to try and rescue them? At least one atheist understands this:

http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-gets-a-Bible

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

These Yelp reviews are completely blasphemous. What happens at Abortionplex stays at Abortionplex.>> ^longde:

282 hilarious reviews of the Abortionplex on Yelp, e.g.:
5 Stars---The buffet on the mezzanine level is great (avoid the seafood though- they don't replace it often enough) and the gift shop downstairs has cool tchotchkes and stuff (I got a coat hanger license plate frame). And I really like the combo deals- bring a friend and get 1/2 off the 2nd abortion, every third abortion get a free trip to the buffet, etc.
But the Abortionplex Funzone is the best part. Classic 80s arcade games like Joust, Rampage and Tron, all set to play for nickels, plus a row of top-notch skeeball machines. Most places that have skeeball feature machines that are broken or run down, but these are all brand new, and the prizes you can win with game tickets are much better than the plastic junk you usually get at Chucky Cheeze and Peter Pipers. I am definitely having my next birthday party at the Abortionplex! I hope my wife is pregnant again by then.

"...and then he got wasted and impregnated his daughters."


Also, I believe "holy cow" is pretty damn blasphemous. I mean, God had Moses order the Israelites to kill their own brethren because of it (Bible stories for children).

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I mean if some dude gets into office and wants to believe God created us and science is crazy talk.....what bearing does that have on 95% of what this guy is going to be doing? I mean he's clearly an idiot to dismiss thousands of years of study and millions of years of proof, but his belief only possibly impacts what is taught in schools as far as I can see.
Do you really want someone you just described as an idiot running your country? I would rather see someone who's political ideology I disagree with, but I still consider smart (i.e. Ron Paul, if he wasn't an idiot creationist).


I sort of agree with porksandwich, what you SHOULD be looking for is a person who is smart enough to realise that he isn't running the country FOR THEMSLVES. I was also an atheist and i was long before it was "cool" to be an atheist. However, what atheists also have to understand is that there are a lot of theists too, and the governance of the country has to reflect both groups of people.

Fortunately, that can be done. Scientists have been exploiting atheism for years to make our lives easier and easier whilst theists reap the benefits of blaspheming without getting their eternal soul dirty.

When i was a kid, the education thing wasn't even an issue i don't think; we taught science and i think religion was mentioned in passing as a sort of "if you want to be religious you can be" kind of thing. But everyone really knew that the sciencey bit was true, and it was easy to know that because there was proof.

You can fit god around your science no problem, but it has to be your own god. I am now agnostic; because it is impossible to know given our current understanding. However, i do believe that there could be a greater being - a god - but he would be MY god, understood in my own way, and not a god pertaining to the major religions.

You can be entirely rational, even academically excellent, and fit your own god around science. Perhaps science is merely discovering and charting an environment created originally by another sentient being? We cannot know and in a way it doesn't matter because if there is a god, imo, he is intangible and therefore has no bearing on science; thus science and religion are married without a problem.

I'd rather be a lying, blaspheming thief than a smug, self righteous asshole.

It isn't petty. Do you call the destruction of a perfect creation and bringing death into the world, petty? God is the ultimate King and judge. He has laws and there are penalties for breaking those laws. He told Adam very clearly and in advance the penalty for sin is death, and Adam did it anyway.
He is a God of justice, so He is going to punish all sin..but He is also merciful, which is why He sent His Son into the world to pay the price we could never pay ourselves.

>> ^acidSpine:
God plunged the world into darkness and death over one sin? Yeah that's about the pettiest thing I've ever heard.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Just one sin was enough to plunge the Earth into darkness and bring death into the world. That isn't petty. What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.
>> ^acidSpine:
Yep, when the punishment is infinite torture all that stuff sounds petty to me. The god you describe is petty, vainglorious and infinitely evil <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
No sin is petty, because all sin leads to death. There is no such thing as a small sin. If you've ever lied, stolen, blasphemed God, hated someone, or looked at a woman with lust you've broken most of the commandments. God isn't interested in playing the gotchya game with someone. He is willing to forgive. It's the people who want to continue sinning and refuse to reform or change their ways that He is going to punish. This life is a brief moment compared to eternity. Is it really worth it to you to gain a short term pleasure at the sacrifice of your eternal future? Your rebellion isn't going to gain you anything except death.
btw, if you heard the clip Hitchens admitted why he rejected Him..because God would put a damper on his preferred lifestyle..again, there is nothing new under the sun. this has been the song of unbelievers for millenia..rejecting God because they want to do it their way

God plunged the world into darkness and death over one sin? Yeah that's about the pettiest thing I've ever heard.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Just one sin was enough to plunge the Earth into darkness and bring death into the world. That isn't petty. What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.

>> ^acidSpine:
Yep, when the punishment is infinite torture all that stuff sounds petty to me. The god you describe is petty, vainglorious and infinitely evil <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
No sin is petty, because all sin leads to death. There is no such thing as a small sin. If you've ever lied, stolen, blasphemed God, hated someone, or looked at a woman with lust you've broken most of the commandments. God isn't interested in playing the gotchya game with someone. He is willing to forgive. It's the people who want to continue sinning and refuse to reform or change their ways that He is going to punish. This life is a brief moment compared to eternity. Is it really worth it to you to gain a short term pleasure at the sacrifice of your eternal future? Your rebellion isn't going to gain you anything except death.
btw, if you heard the clip Hitchens admitted why he rejected Him..because God would put a damper on his preferred lifestyle..again, there is nothing new under the sun. this has been the song of unbelievers for millenia..rejecting God because they want to do it their way

Just one sin was enough to plunge the Earth into darkness and bring death into the world. That isn't petty. What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.


>> ^acidSpine:
Yep, when the punishment is infinite torture all that stuff sounds petty to me. The god you describe is petty, vainglorious and infinitely evil <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
No sin is petty, because all sin leads to death. There is no such thing as a small sin. If you've ever lied, stolen, blasphemed God, hated someone, or looked at a woman with lust you've broken most of the commandments. God isn't interested in playing the gotchya game with someone. He is willing to forgive. It's the people who want to continue sinning and refuse to reform or change their ways that He is going to punish. This life is a brief moment compared to eternity. Is it really worth it to you to gain a short term pleasure at the sacrifice of your eternal future? Your rebellion isn't going to gain you anything except death.
btw, if you heard the clip Hitchens admitted why he rejected Him..because God would put a damper on his preferred lifestyle..again, there is nothing new under the sun. this has been the song of unbelievers for millenia..rejecting God because they want to do it their way

Yep, when the punishment is infinite torture all that stuff sounds petty to me. The god you describe is petty, vainglorious and infinitely evil

>> ^shinyblurry:

No sin is petty, because all sin leads to death. There is no such thing as a small sin. If you've ever lied, stolen, blasphemed God, hated someone, or looked at a woman with lust you've broken most of the commandments. God isn't interested in playing the gotchya game with someone. He is willing to forgive. It's the people who want to continue sinning and refuse to reform or change their ways that He is going to punish. This life is a brief moment compared to eternity. Is it really worth it to you to gain a short term pleasure at the sacrifice of your eternal future? Your rebellion isn't going to gain you anything except death.
btw, if you heard the clip Hitchens admitted why he rejected Him..because God would put a damper on his preferred lifestyle..again, there is nothing new under the sun. this has been the song of unbelievers for millenia..rejecting God because they want to do it their way

No sin is petty, because all sin leads to death. There is no such thing as a small sin. If you've ever lied, stolen, blasphemed God, hated someone, or looked at a woman with lust you've broken most of the commandments. God isn't interested in playing the gotchya game with someone. He is willing to forgive. It's the people who want to continue sinning and refuse to reform or change their ways that He is going to punish. This life is a brief moment compared to eternity. Is it really worth it to you to gain a short term pleasure at the sacrifice of your eternal future? Your rebellion isn't going to gain you anything except death.

btw, if you heard the clip Hitchens admitted why he rejected Him..because God would put a damper on his preferred lifestyle..again, there is nothing new under the sun. this has been the song of unbelievers for millenia..rejecting God because they want to do it their way

>> ^acidSpine:
You're right, I couldn't commit murder and recieve forgivness 'cause I don't believe this nonsense. But I don't think were talking about murder here are we? When you talk about sin, you're talking about a whole raft of petty little "crimes" against your god. Maybe you should be more specific when you accuse Atheists of rejecting god so they can sin all they want. What do you mean by "sin" in this case? My guess is it's a bunch of meaningless social norms you'd like to subject society to (for my second guess I'll say you won't bother to answer the question).
Hitchens (who isn't my intellectual idol btw, that would be Noam Chomsky <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">) would be quite right to reject this deity on the grounds that he finds it's moral code abhorrent although I'm quite convinced the rejection comes, in Hitchens' case, from the aforementioned total lack of evidence.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're right, I didn't state that very well.
There isn't anyone good. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Without Jesus, we are all hellbound. But, the good news is that God made a provision for us.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, to pay the price that we ourselves could not pay. We are saved by faith in Him, that He rose from the dead. Thereby, we are saved by the grace of God, not because of something we did.
Now, your example is not valid. You cannot manipulate the grace of God. Your life isn't guaranteed, and the only reason you're drawing breath right now is because of God. If you think you can go out and commit a bunch of crime and then ask God for forgiveness later, knowing full well what you're doing, you're sadly mistaken.
btw, at least your idol Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to admit the real reason why he won't come to God for forgiveness..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA&feature=related
skip to 6:25

God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation how He pleases. God caused a global flood which killed everyone in the world except for 8 people. God recalls the lives of over a million people every day. It's in His hands. It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily. He has the power over life and death and is well within His rights to use it. Who are you tell God what He can or cannot do with it? This entire world belongs to Him.

You seem to be under some illusion that people are generally good. They're not. Have you ever read a history book? People are generally sinful. God dealt with people as they deserved. Are you blind or just stupid? Do you not see the evil going on in this world? Everywhere you put a human authority, you have corruption and death. There aren't any innocents here. I think you are just naive.

I don't know what your sins are, but you do. You are guilty and without Jesus you will stand condemned for them at judgement day. Your sin, btw, isn't just not honoring God, it's also blaspheming Him and speaking all sorts of vile things against Him. You just can't seem to keep your mouth shut about Him. You gravitate to everything I do or say about God here, just to get your mockery in. Well, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole:

Galatians 6:7

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Satan doesn't force people to do evil, nor do people get confused about what is right and wrong. Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong. God allows people to use their free will choice, and He allows them to reap the consequences of their actions. He gives them every chance to repent and gives them fair warning of the consequences if they don't. Everyone has a real chance to prove themselves in this world, and if they prove themselves to be evil, then that is what they are. God isn't looking to send people to hell, but if they prefer doing evil then they deserve to go there.
This isn't about what you consider fair, lets just lay that joke to rest. This is about your desire for personal autonomy and your rejection of Gods authority. It's your desire to sin without consequence. Like every other unrepentent sinner, you are a hypocrite who shakes his fist at God because he knows full well that he is guilty and doesn't want to be judged for it. You refuse to come to God for forgiveness because you prefer your sins.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

In one breath you tell me "Everyone has a god given conscience which tells them right from wrong." Then in the next you say God doesn't give a shit about what I consider fair? I'm just supposed to shut up, obey, and worship? The list of atrocities committed by your God in the old testament is long and thoroughly revolting, and I'm just supposed to swallow it all and sing his praises?
Talk about hypocrisy!!!
You want to put a joke to rest, stop with that bullshit about wanting to sin without consequence! I know full well that actions harmful to one's self or others have consequences right here and now. No need to wait for divine justice. And the only "sin" I am committing as far as you know is the one about not worshiping God. But honestly, that's all part and parcel with my understanding that he doesn't exist. So unless you have some specifics about my "sins", your assumptions are meaningless and just make you look like a judgmental ass.
"Think for yourself. Otherwise people will think for you, to their own benefit." - Max 11:13