Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your premise, Delicate, seems to be that atheist critique is meaningless for coming from an atheist.

Why then do you come here seeking it?

That's not my premise at all.

Rather my premise is that "An atheistic critique of theistic claims, feeble as they have been (see the posts on this forum), does not amount to evidence that there is a cornucopia of core doctrinal differences BETWEEN CHRISTIANS."

Put another way, if the point is "There are soo many core doctrinal differences between Christians, bro," you can't point to an atheistic critique as evidence.

... because the critique is from an atheist.

Or are you saying atheists cannot read?

Until you address the issues put before you, we've only your word to go by that "atheistic" (your word) critiques are invalid -- without you having justified your dismissal.

That implies that the modifier "atheistic" is key to your refusal.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, by addressing the points put to you.

[Esquilax]

I'm still wondering how one differentiates between a core and peripheral doctrine, beyond "what Delicate needs at any given time." Right now this just seems like another one of those roadblock terms christian apologists are so fond of, that can be deployed any time there's a need to just halt a discussion before the christian is shown up as wrong, but has no set definition so it can apply to whatever's convenient.

[GUBU]

Having just taken the quiz linked above and gotten 100% correct, I challenge Delicate to take the same quiz.

www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0105/Are-you-smarter-than-an-atheist-A-religious-quiz/When-does-the-Jewish-Sabbath-begin

Of course you've got to laugh at the CSM's own definition of atheism:

"Some might disagree with Pew's characterization of atheism and agnosticism. Strictly speaking, atheism is the belief that God does not exist."

Presupposing that god definitely exists when there is absolutely no evidence for god's existence is a fairly large leap even for a propoganda rag.

[Rhondazvous]

Let's hear all about how wonderful fucking religious shitwits are.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/teenager...rk-church/

Teenager describes fatal beating at upstate New York church

An upstate New York teenager told a court on Wednesday that members of his family and others struck him in the genitals and on other parts of his body during in a brutal attack at a secretive upstate church that killed his older brother.

They believed in the laying on of hands. I'll bet that wicked younger brother neglected to tell the court he hoped to see his brother in Heaven. He was wicked, I say—doing the work of Satan, who is the accuser of the brethren.

[Rhondazvous]

And we must remember, no good parent would ever tolerate anything but sincere and complete worship from their children. Children must be made to understand that they are completely dependent on their parents and can not possibly think their own sense of morality compares to that of the parent.  Children should be taught to feel shamefaced and afraid that any moment of joy not stemming from time spent worshipping the parent will be punished.

I did indeed tell my son that if he ever looked me in the face that I'd strike him dead. I'm a loving father, you know.

Good for you, PT.

Though I must say, Yahweh did let his parental guard down and showed a little mercy by inviting Moses to look at his ass.

[Rhondazvous]

Willfully so.

The Taliban-esque "One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true" is what I would probably list as "clue #1" on that end.

Such a world exists only in their minds.

[c172]

Toddlers these days and their ambivalence towards quantum physics. sheesh!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The Taliban-esque "One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true" is what I would probably list as "clue #1" on that end.

Such a world exists only in their minds.

But that's exactly the problem. It exists in all of their minds.

And as such, whenever they start to develop political clout (particularly in a democracy), they see no fault in that proposition. If  Christianity is true (or Islam, etc.; take your pick), becomes Since  Christianity is true... and then, to them, it is immoral not to apply its principles to others, even if the others don't understand why it's "necessary" to apply those regulations to their lives.

It is the entire basis of the Moral Majority movement that sprung up out of the Evangelicals in the Reagan years through the late 90s, and which continues to this day. We keep saying "the Justices would not allow it", forgetting that if the fundies can elect a radical into the Oval Office, he would happily stack the Supreme Court with Justices who are as religious-fanatic as Thomas and Scalia, ones who'd be glad to give a wink and a nod to theocracy in America.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I did indeed tell my son that if he ever looked me in the face that I'd strike him dead. I'm a loving father, you know.

Good for you, PT.

Though I must say, Yahweh did let his parental guard down and showed a little mercy by inviting Moses to look at his ass.

Well, that's just creeeeeepy.

[abaris]

Though I must say, Yahweh did let his parental guard down and showed a little mercy by inviting Moses to look at his ass.

I can't imagine how anyone is feeling elated when reading that particular bible passage and not burst out laughing. Same with the bit where god wrestles some guy and kicks him in the nuts.