(May 15, 2015 at 9:41 am)Hatshepsut Wrote:(May 14, 2015 at 11:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Really the ball is in the atheist court because it is up to them to show that a perfect world is even possible.(May 15, 2015 at 1:02 am)whateverist Wrote: "A perfect world": what the hell is that? ... it doesn't mean the non-chirpers need to respond.
The "Best of All Worlds" thing has been hammered to death by now, yet Chad's complaint has a tweet of merit. In particular, to knock omnibenevolence from its pedestal, the atheists need demonstrate the stronger result that God has failed to create the "best of all possible worlds," not merely that he has failed to create a perfect one.
The only thing I see established in the omnibenevolence goings-on is that we humans can conceive of only limited benevolence. Things get problematic real fast if this quality starts existing in infinite measure.
First: "the atheists" don't have to do anything. Atheists need not demonstrate anything about a god... like, since we lack a belief in such an entity, we don't think "God has failed" anything. The only reason some of use that language is because it's that of the religious person we're speaking to, and we're challenging their beliefs.
Second: you have a real problem with this shit. I'm really sick of you lumping atheists together the way you do.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
