Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[RoadRunner79]

I don't understand what that last bit means, but I'm glad to hear it was a joke

Oh... Ill informed about evolution? Right I get it.

I was arguing an editorialized version of what is being said. As someone correctly pointed out, this was a straw man which no one who supports evolution (and understands it) believes.  When this is done against religion, it is not any more valid.  This is what many sound like to us, when arguing against Christianity and people are not accurately portraying the scriptures (or editorializing). 

There where some other things as well, that are not directly related.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's probably a difference between inaccurately portraying scriptures...and portraying scriptures in a manner in which you don't, personally, believe, but that some other christian group does.  It's not like we're short of options. If you think that these things sound like bullshit...then your beef is most likely with your fellow christers. If you can find some reason that I should privilege your batshit crazy over theirs, that I should consider your portrayal of scripture accurate...and theirs inaccurate, then by all means....share.

While you're at it, maybe you should share that with those other christers as well? That's where I'd start, anyway.

[Mudhammam]

It doesn't really matter what sophism Delicate or any other theist can cobble together in defense of their omnipotent, omnibenevolent monarch. Such a creature is simply incompatible with observation of the world.
1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.
2. There is unnecessary and excessive in the world.
3. God does not exist.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must follow. The logical deduction of God's attributes guarantees the first premise, and the only justifiable inference one is entitled to make - given the information we possess - obliges one to grant premise two. Therefore, the nonexistence of such a deity is established.

[Losty]

I don't understand what that last bit means, but I'm glad to hear it was a joke

Oh... Ill informed about evolution? Right I get it.

I was arguing an editorialized version of what is being said. As someone correctly pointed out, this was a straw man which no one who supports evolution (and understands it) believes.  When this is done against religion, it is not any more valid.  This is what many sound like to us, when arguing against Christianity and people are not accurately portraying the scriptures (or editorializing). 

There where some other things as well, that are not directly related.

Lol the problem being that people who support Christianity (and understand it) actually do believe this stuff. What's an example that's been used here that no Christians actually believe?

[RoadRunner79]

There's probably a difference between inaccurately portraying scriptures...and portraying scriptures in a manner in which you don't, personally, believe, but that some other christian group does.  It's not like we're short of options.  If you think that these things sound like bullshit...then your beef is most likely with your fellow christers.  If you can find some reason that I should privilege your batshit crazy over theirs, that I should consider your portrayal of scripture accurate...and theirs inaccurate, then by all means....share.

I covered that too... there are all sorts of views on evolution as well....  Should I choose the weaker and less widely held ones to argue against as if it is the whole?    And there are also editorialized arguments I have seen, which aren't viewed in Christianity at all. 

But if we come upon a disagreement from the scriptures in the future, I am happy to have a theological discussion in support of the difference of views (if one takes the matter seriously).

[robvalue]

There are many views on evolution yes, but if you're tackling anything other than a genuine scientific theory, you're just dealing with some crackpot. So you can kick the crap out of their stupid ideas for sure, but you haven't addressed the actual theory of evolution. There is a way of determining what is proper science and what isn't, and it's not a matter of opinion.

Christianity on the other hands makes no testable claims at all, so there's no possible way to determine who is correctly interpreting the bible and who is not. It's just Christians all calling each other Not True Christians™. Christians can argue with each other after some basic assumptions about the general truth of the text. But when talking to an atheist and that assumption is no longer granted, you're left with a story book, and us wondering why you care about anything it has to say.

[GrandizerII]

It doesn't really matter what sophism Delicate or any other theist can cobble together in defense of their omnipotent, omnibenevolent monarch. Such a creature is simply incompatible with observation of the world.
1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.
2. There is unnecessary and excessive in the world.
3. God does not exist.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must follow. The logical deduction of God's attributes guarantees the first premise, and the only justifiable inference one is entitled to make - given the information we possess - obliges one to grant premise two. Therefore, the nonexistence of such a deity is established.

If an omnibenevolent and perfect God exists, there should be no suffering at all. The ultimate good should be achieved by just good without any necessity for evil. If God is perfect, that is.

[robvalue]

Right. Like I was saying in another thread, the only defensible God is one of limited power which is just doing its best.

But even then, unless we have some way to actually assess what it's doing and why, we can't possibly know what its intentions are.

[Whateverist]

If you want to believe in magic fairy tales of fish walking out of the water, and what history has never recorded anyone seeing.... Don't let my reason stop you!

Thanks. I won't.

[Mudhammam]

It doesn't really matter what sophism Delicate or any other theist can cobble together in defense of their omnipotent, omnibenevolent monarch. Such a creature is simply incompatible with observation of the world.
1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.
2. There is unnecessary and excessive in the world.
3. God does not exist.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must follow. The logical deduction of God's attributes guarantees the first premise, and the only justifiable inference one is entitled to make - given the information we possess - obliges one to grant premise two. Therefore, the nonexistence of such a deity is established.

If an omnibenevolent and perfect God exists, there should be no suffering at all. The ultimate good should be achieved by just good without any necessity for evil. If God is perfect, that is.

I don't think it would necessarily rule out ALL forms of suffering (although the logical problem of evil might require that), but it certainly would negate much of what one reads in the news everyday.