Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[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.

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).

If any of those "weaker and less widely held" ones competently argues against -The- theory of evolution...then yeah.....that's exactly how science would be accomplished, for example.  Were you under the impression that this was -not- how science was done? TBT, there doesn't need to be any great multitude of competing theories, it would only require one. You've been asked to present an example of one such argument - that no christian believes in.  Either do so..take your own claim seriously....or drop the pretense entirely. 49 fucking pages long man, there's bound to be one in here....just go grab it, eh? We can poke holes in it together.

[Whateverist]

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).

I agree with the point about choosing the best cases to argue against, not the easiest.


But if a theological discussion must revolve around scriptures count me out. Sounds like a safe choice for you though.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I would disagree with premise one.  Scripture says early on, that this is not the case, and the suffering is the result of the fall and sin (separation from God).  Excessive is somewhat of a subjective and ambiguous term; but even granting this, I'm assuming that you are overly focusing on one particular attribute of God, apart from the others.  I don't think it is a contradiction in regards to God's attributes, that He allows suffering. 

I also do not think that you can enter into the Christian worldview just enough to critique and then back out before the answers.  Much of our suffering is self-inflicted (with the fall you might say all of it is). The suffering that you do see is temporary.  However, there is an answer to this, that the separation and suffering do not to become everlasting.   I don't think that your problem is with unnecessary suffering, just that you want it immediately.  Many choose unnecessary suffering over God.

[Esquilax]

What I said was:

A. Plants can perform photosynthesis with light from a source other than the sun, and

B. Plants can live for a day without light.

These are demonstrably true. The rest is your attempt to extrapolate into a red herring.

But: plants cannot live without the heat provided by the sun, in fact, no life can. This had been pointed out to you: what, you think just ignoring it makes it okay?

I mean, there's also that whole "no sun means no solar system, means planets just veering off into space," thing, and the fact that every available light source in the universe at that time would not have been sufficient to sustain plant life anyway (plants don't exactly do the bulk of their photosynthesizing, in the main, at night) but hey, why would I want to bring up the red herring of how your solution is completely impossible?

So, is every argument that disproves your claims a red herring? I just feel like we need to know: we probably don't want to waste our time on a baseless presuppositionalist.

[John V]

But: plants cannot live without the heat provided by the sun, in fact, no life can. This had been pointed out to you: what, you think just ignoring it makes it okay?

I said earlier: "We're not told what the source of the light was, but it was there. Assuming it was full spectrum, there was also heat."

I mean, there's also that whole "no sun means no solar system, means planets just veering off into space," thing, and the fact that every available light source in the universe at that time would not have been sufficient to sustain plant life anyway (plants don't exactly do the bulk of their photosynthesizing, in the main, at night) but hey, why would I want to bring up the red herring of how your solution is completely impossible?

God made light in v3, well before the plants were created. I've gotta think that the omnipotent, ominscient creator of the universe made sufficient light for the plants.

So, is every argument that disproves your claims a red herring?

No, every argument that expands my claims into something I didn't specifically argue is a red herring.

And note that the same thing has now gone on from your side. Someone made a remark about fish walking onto land. Others noted that some fish can sort of walk around. Now, the first commenter may have had a lot more in his mind than that one aspect of evolution. But, since he made that specific comment, he was open to specific refutation. I don't see you bitching about that, though...

[Esquilax]

I said earlier: "We're not told what the source of the light was, but it was there. Assuming it was full spectrum, there was also heat."

So we're just supposed to make assumptions not present in the text just to ensure that you're right? Your convenience is the ultimate arbiter here?

God made light in v3, well before the plants were created. I've gotta think that the omnipotent, ominscient creator of the universe made sufficient light for the plants.

No, yeah, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is so smart that he has the plants covered, but not smart enough to avoid numerous redundant steps along the way instead of just making the sun. Right.

No, every argument that expands my claims into something I didn't specifically argue is a red herring.

So we're only supposed to take your argument strictly on its own merits without ever considering additional facts that you evidently hadn't considered? Isn't that the same thing as just taking your argument on the basis that it's right, given that obviously you wouldn't consider facts that prove you wrong and then still hold your position?

And note that the same thing has now gone on from your side. Someone made a remark about fish walking onto land. Others noted that some fish can sort of walk around. Now, the first commenter may have had a lot more in his mind than that one aspect of evolution. But, since he made that specific comment, he was open to specific refutation. I don't see you bitching about that, though...

Probably because I missed it. I took Huggy to task for a similar kind of nonsense not two days ago in another thread though, so that's purely down to not seeing the comment, not inconsistency. Care to link it?

[The Grand Nudger]

If you must assume things not in the text, to reconcile said text, then clearly things didn't happen as described by the text.   There's nothing here for you.  This shit with plants is ridiculous, why are you doubling down on this..of all things?

[Losty]

Does it say "and God said let there be heat; and there was heat."? No? Then why do you get to make that assumption?

You said a plant can live without a sun, prove it.

[John V]

So we're just supposed to make assumptions not present in the text just to ensure that you're right? Your convenience is the ultimate arbiter here?

Yes, we can make reasonable assumptions. In this case:

- The creation of the entire universe is covered in about a page. It's reasonable to assume that the account is not exhaustive, but rather leaves out a lot of details.

- Light typically comes with heat

- According to the account the plants survived

So, yes, it's reasonable to conclude that there was sufficient heat for the plants.

No, yeah, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is so smart that he has the plants covered, but not smart enough to avoid numerous redundant steps along the way instead of just making the sun. Right.  

Argument from personal incredulity is noted.

So we're only supposed to take your argument strictly on its own merits without ever considering additional facts that you evidently hadn't considered?

Nope, you can do that within the original topic, as you did with heat, and I responded. It's when you go outside the original topic that you're making a red herring.

Probably because I missed it. I took Huggy to task for a similar kind of nonsense not two days ago in another thread though, so that's purely down to not seeing the comment, not inconsistency. Care to link it?

It's just a few pages back...more recent than my remark about heat which you also missed.

[Cato]

Argument from personal incredulity is noted.

Fuck me, that made my day.