So Amon Goeth, the butcher of Płaszów and baptised catholic, is in heaven, and the jews he murdered in his concentration camp are rotting in ****.
That is a very, very bad system, and I urge you to stop believing in it, and start believing in literally anything else.

Ok, you need to stop with this "my believe is my private thing"-claim. Because it very obviously isn't, and my proof is that this is NOT your private home, and this thread is NOT about christianity and/or christians. But in spite of that, ImperialYeet started talking, without any prompting from anyone, about how he is a christian and how the flood is real and logical and hillary is a satanist for sacrificing goats or whatever. And your comment to that was "yeah, pretty much all that, but in a nicer tone." At that point, you have put your belief out of your private sphere and into the public. 
ImperialYeet wants us to believe that the biblical flood is a real, factual event that is 100% real and relevant for this debate. He took his personal opinion and claimed that it is undisputable, logical fact. And only when people started to critizice that claim did you turn around and argued that this is not actually about facts, this is about opinions and personal belief.

Christians: Atheism is so nihilistic, without god, all is so meaningless. Atheism is so negativ.
Also Christians: WE ARE ALL FLAWED SINNERS, KNOWLEDGE EQUALS DEATH, ALL MANKIND IS FOREVER FLAWED!!!
I would honestly urge you to try life without your belief. Just for a while. A few weeks or a month. You don't need to become an atheist. Try Islam. Try the catholic church. Try buddism. Or maybe, maybe speak to atheists and try living without a god.
You may realise that you can live a good life without the constant reminder that you are evil and bad and sinful. And you can still do good things. In fact, you may meet a bunch of good people that don't deserve to rot in **** for an eternity because they committed the grave sin of not-being-christians.

Several things:
A) I agree that the bible is not supposed to be about science, and you are correct that proving evolution doesn't disprove god or religion. My problem  is... those ideas came from your team . Atheists and scientists were not the ones claiming that evolution disproves god, Radical christian preachers said that. Same goes for the literal bible vs. metaphorical bible.
B) Regarding "all gods or no god", the point is that pascals wager does not work in a world with more than one religion. Because than you could believe in god and still not go to heaven.
C) How can "One’s understanding of science and one’s understanding of the Bible" be at odds? Both answer completely different questions ("how" and "why").
D) You are free to believe that a life without god has no meaning for you. I would argue that the abrahamitic belief system is much more nihilistic than atheism. Not only is the world just a broken, "early-access"-version of heaven, all the good deeds are not done out of true kindness, but just because people are afraid of going to "the bad place". Existance has no end, so anything you create in life is worthless because heaven is the true paradise regardless of what we do here, so why not kill yourself and go there directly.
I would argue that your reward for a life well lived is ... that life. The fact that there is no "life 2.0", no "life+", no "life, but with extra cheese and onions", is what gives your life any meaning.

First of all, thank you for recanting your earlier statement. It really restores my faith in humanity that we can all agree that killing 6 million jews is bad.
Secondly, how is that system any different from "do good things, go to heaven"? To quote the rick and morty meme, "that's just the first systems with extra steps".

What does "embrace Jesus Christ as your saviour" mean? This is not satire, I really want to know. Because it apparently does not mean "just do good things", but something different/more.
Two questions:
What if Adolf Hitler requests God's salvation?
What happens if devout muslim and nobel peace price winner Malala Yousafzai dies?

ImperialYeet said: "A quick view on my faith:There is one God, 3 in 1 and He sent His Son to die for us.Proof: Fossils form instantly." "Fossils can only form instantly. That is a fact." "(...)but the real logical answer(pushs glasses up*) is a global flood."
As you can see, he clearly did not talk about a belief or an opinion, he talked about facts. Observable, unbiased facts.
You said: "dude i totally agree with what youre saying(...)"
So do you agree with him or not? Because if yes, you would also not state an opinion, but a fact, and if you do not, than I would be really confused about your earlier post.
Well, with all due respect, I don't think you understand what pascals wager is. Pascals wager says that if god does not exist, it does not matter if you're a believer or a non-believer, but if god does exist, believers go to heaven and non-believers do not. So logically you should be a believer.
And as I have said before, that only works with one religion. Because what do you do when you are a christian, and the jews/muslims/taoists are right?
So what does get you into heaven? I am honestly curious. Because the only other christian alternative that I know of is "you only go to heaven when you embrace Jesus Christ as your saviour". And that alternative is ... much worse.

Ok, you need to stop with this "my believe is my private thing"-claim. Because it very obviously isn't, and my proof is that this is NOT your private home, and this thread is NOT about christianity and/or christians. But in spite of that, ImperialYeet started talking, without any prompting from anyone, about how he is a christian and how the flood is real and logical and hillary is a satanist for sacrificing goats or whatever. And your comment to that was "yeah, pretty much all that, but in a nicer tone." At that point, you have put your belief out of your private sphere and into the public. 
ImperialYeet wants us to believe that the biblical flood is a real, factual event that is 100% real and relevant for this debate. He took his personal opinion and claimed that it is undisputable, logical fact. And only when people started to critizice that claim did you turn around and argued that this is not actually about facts, this is about opinions and personal belief.

Several things:
A) I agree that the bible is not supposed to be about science, and you are correct that proving evolution doesn't disprove god or religion. My problem  is... those ideas came from your team . Atheists and scientists were not the ones claiming that evolution disproves god, Radical christian preachers said that. Same goes for the literal bible vs. metaphorical bible.
B) Regarding "all gods or no god", the point is that pascals wager does not work in a world with more than one religion. Because than you could believe in god and still not go to heaven.
C) How can "One’s understanding of science and one’s understanding of the Bible" be at odds? Both answer completely different questions ("how" and "why").
D) You are free to believe that a life without god has no meaning for you. I would argue that the abrahamitic belief system is much more nihilistic than atheism. Not only is the world just a broken, "early-access"-version of heaven, all the good deeds are not done out of true kindness, but just because people are afraid of going to "the bad place". Existance has no end, so anything you create in life is worthless because heaven is the true paradise regardless of what we do here, so why not kill yourself and go there directly.
I would argue that your reward for a life well lived is ... that life. The fact that there is no "life 2.0", no "life+", no "life, but with extra cheese and onions", is what gives your life any meaning.

If you agree with him on the biblical flood being a real event that happened just as in the bible, than it is not his tone that makes you look terrible.
And the same goes for the election not being over.