“If I do not accept Jesus as Lord, I will be tortured for all eternity. I can’t help it if I can’t believe something. I’m not evil. I just can’t believe in invisible people. Your god would torture me forever. I wouldn’t treat a dog that way.”
I figured you meant in terms of compassion, but the clarification was needed given the ambiguity. I know you don’t believe, but assume for the sake of argument that He exists. In what way are you better? Certainly not knowledge, power, or a host of other attributes, so that’s why I was asking what criteria you were using when you asserted that you were better than the Christian deity.
BTW, what is your field? I see no reason why someone who has a very logical brain can’t be a believer. I’m a mathematician and have no problem believing. In fact, I know a number of other religious mathematicians (though many keep this side of themselves pretty quiet). On the other hand, I don’t know very many religious physicists (in the closet or not). My hunch has always been that this is a result of the difference of method between the two areas.
I am kinder. I am more forgiving. I understand why some people can't believe in things without evidence. I wouldn't torture Osama Bin Laden out of vengence. Not for a minute, not for an hour, and certainly not for all eternity. Don't get me wrong, I would kill him with my own hands. I just wouldn't torture him.