Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Pat Mustard]

Global Warming?  Not man made, and obviously not true.   Nothing but an Obama conspiracy.  Most scientists are wrong.  Man can't effect the climate!  Only God can.

AGW denialism in christian circles springs from domnion theology, actually. The idea springs from Gen. 1:28 in the KJV:

And God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

So the idea is that, as god gave humans the world to own and control in toto, there is no way that he would have made the world in such a fashion that humans could actually turn around and destroy it (or to be more accurate, change the climate so radically that it becomes unlivable for most lifeforms including humanity). So because god said "I made the world for you, everything in it is yours" then the world cannot go through global warming. QED

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I don't think that's a fair evaluation of the Christian position.

Effectively, they think that God made the world for the perfect version of humanity (Adam), and only once we had "fallen" did "corruption" enter the world, destroying the previous paradise. In the Christian version, we are to blame for the way we have handled the stewardship of the planet... it is, ironically, a surprisingly secular position, despite its belief that "sin-magic" is the root cause.

Of course, this goes against all we have learned of the brutal nature of the evolution of life on earth... multiple mass extinctions that wiped out as much as 90% of the species on the planet, "snowball earth", and the clear genetic evidence that we did not spring from a single pair of individuals. So, there's that.

[abaris]

Effectively, they think that God made the world for the perfect version of humanity (Adam), and only once we had "fallen" did "corruption" enter the world, destroying the previous paradise. In the Christian version, we are to blame for the way we have handled the stewardship of the planet... it is, ironically, a surprisingly secular position, despite its belief that "sin-magic" is the root cause.

And they never question that. Now I'm making a blanket statement, because I know a lot of christians, who actually don't subscribe to that bullshit. But for the sake of argument, since we're obviously talking about the more fundamentalist bunch.

Adam, a perfect simpleton, not knowing the distinction between good and evil, is punished for something he couldn't wrap his mind around in the first place. Eve, made out of spareribs of Adam, in order to make women a second class being.

Doesn't that strike them as perfectly man made? And I mean that in the male, paternalistic sense. Obviously not, which leads me to a rather spiteful assumption. They (male) like what they're reading and see no problem with that.

[Angrboda]

You're asking the wrong questions, Delicate.  Perhaps, instead of looking for justifications for atheism, you need to look for justifications for religion.  See, that's very important here because I'm not so much a hard-line atheist as much as I simply haven't found any religion or deity that continues to sound believable after some basic questioning.

So, if you'd like to ask some specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.  And if you'd like to explain your beliefs, I'd be happy to ask some questions about them.

I have looked at justifications for religion and found them credible. Many if not most of the critiques leveled against them from internet atheists look terrible on closer scrutiny and this can be demonstrated, time and time again. [...]

Then why don't you demonstrate these justifications if they're truly credible.

[IATIA]

I have looked at justifications for religion and found them credible. Many if not most of the critiques leveled against them from internet atheists look terrible on closer scrutiny and this can be demonstrated, time and time again. [...]

Then why don't you demonstrate these justifications if they're truly credible.

Because of the inability to actually find one.

[Rhondazvous]

Original sin is a completely sick concept even if the ridiculous story could ever be true.

god sat around timelessly for eons then one day decides to create this vast cosmos and on one little tiny itsy bitsy teensy weensy speck of it, create intelligent life condemned to hell for all eternity if they do not worship their creator.

Now, is that really ridiculous?  

Oh but dear, you know the story doesn't go like that. We have to keep our critique true to what the book actually says without superimposing reality onto a perfectly good tale.

According to the Bible, there was no cosmos. There was the Heavens, where god lives and the Earth where man lives. And rather than being small, the Earth was a huge job with the sun and moon right here in the Earth's atmosphere so they wouldn't get lonely.

When you look at it that way, it's not so ridiculous. It's not be true, but it's not ridiculous.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah of course it's not ridiculous hehe

In fact if he received a formal complaint I think God would agree Rhonda.

[Minimalist]

Original sin is a completely sick concept even if the ridiculous story could ever be true.

Yes but the shitheads desperately need it because the whole fucking story is built on that absurd house of cards.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Yep my response to the knowledge vs free will argument is always I knew you where going to say that.  And then ask them if they had a choice to say it anyway.

Again, this ignores the fact that Gaud doesn't just know what will happen, he's also responsible for the existence of all the agents that execute those happenings and is therefore the only being with the power to prevent or change anything those agents might do (by choosing not to create something, for example).


Again, I go to the robot example. If I create a robot and it glitches out and kills a bunch of people, but there was no way for me to know it would do that, then I wouldn't necessarily be responsible for anything the robot does.


If, however, I know the robot can or will eventually glitch out and do this (even if it wasn't expressly programmed to), and I still build the robot and change nothing about its programming, I become directly and personally responsible if that glitch activates and people die.


So either Gaud created the Universe with free will and can therefore be surprised by it and is therefore not omniscient, or all of space-time is the inevitable result of Gaud's singular action of creating the Universe with exact knowledge of how it would unfold, meaning that at best he is personally responsible for all actions, and at worst all actions are really only one action (Gaud's), and we are mere results of that action with no agency of our own.

---

Just to note, your reply here, doesn't really have to do with mine that was cited, as they are different topics.  My comment was on the question of if knowledge precludes free will.  I do not believe that it does.  I normally resist a change in topic, until one issue has been discussed, but this is at least the second time with me, that you have diverted to this topic, so I would like to address it. 

One thing, that I think is often overlooked when making such comparisons, is position.  This is not meant to be a free pass, but only to point out, that when making comparisons, that if any person did this, it would be wrong, are some what inaccurate.  For instance, I am not free to detain someone in the same way that a judge or an officer of the law are able.  Similarly a government can decide that any suffering incurred in war is for the greater good, however similar circumstances for an individual claiming the greater good as reason are not acceptable. 

This article http://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on...jZv9zZdESk describes a number of objections, to the question if a good all knowing God, could allow evil.  It discusses that evil is not a thing, but a lack of good.  Similar to darkness being a lack of light.  It also discusses a number of virtues, which would not be present, if evil was not possible.  Similarly it encompasses a larger view of the overall picture where allowing evil or suffering may be a greater good, even if in the specific we cannot see it or understand it.  That the struggle produces a character which cannot be achieved if there was no choice or free will.  That temporary suffering is allowed in regards to a greater eternal good.

As said before, this is a difficult subject, especially if we or a loved one is suffering at the moment.  Understanding is not going to help at this time, and I think that scripture teaches us that this is not a time to provide reason, but for compassion, and to grieve with the person.  I think that there are a few issues with your robot analogy.  One robots do not have free will, and it is unclear whether humans could even create a morally responsible robot.  Second is position and knowledge.  We do not have the authority or the knowledge to make such a call;  even if it is believed, that a greater good could come from it overall. 

It is not an easy topic, and I don't expect those who do not know God, or are seeking opportunity to present a negative view of God to be convinced.    That is to say, that the result of this philosophy is going to be largely dependent on your previous view of God.  I do think that it however shows that a reasonable defense can be made in regards to the problem of evil, and the presence of suffering does not necessarily negate God's omnipotence, omniscience, or his benevolence.  From the article "God made a world in which true moral decision-making and development of virtues is possible in humans, manifest by persons whose character is formed through growth and struggle."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Evil need not be only an absence of of good; indeed, that is more properly assessed as morally neutral.

Evil is active malevolence.