Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Simon Moon]

Again, I am only in the position to respond to theists claims that a god exists.

My only assertion is that demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic have not been presented. And that is all that I need to defend.

Until you assert that you have demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic for your god, I have no need to substantiate anything. 

If you want to open another thread and present your evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support your god claim, I will be more than glad to substantiate my assertion that it does not meet that criteria.

You don't quite seem to grasp basic logic, skepticism, what constitutes good evidence, where the burden of proof lies, and probably more. 

For now, I am out of here for the night.

That may be all you need to defend, but you're certainly not doing a good job of defending it.

You have not presented any thing I need to refute. I have yet had to defend my assertion that it does not live up to the criteria.

You haven't substantiated the claim or provide any specifics, which is needed for a successful defense. Have people attempted to provide you demonstrable evidence in the past and you've found problems with their demonstrations? What did they try to demonstrate and how did it fail? This is needed for a successful defense of your claim as well.

Seriously, how dense are you?

What do you think I have not defended? You have yet to provide anything that you believe constitutes demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic for the god you are claiming exists. As soon as you do, I will defend my assertion that it does not live up to the criteria I have been mentioning. 

Yes. Everything that I have heard from theists does not pass the criteria. 

The list of the arguments theists have used is too long to mention here. 

In addition, further questions arise from your request for me to present my evidence- before you have even seen my evidence, how can you claim to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't meet your criteria? You haven't even seen the evidence yet! Unless you have a faith-based commitment to atheism that lets you know of its failure before seeing it...

I can make that assertion because I have heard and debated every argument from theists. 

Unless you have some new, never before thought of argument or evidence, I am 100% confident that your arguments are just as flawed as everything presented for 1000's of years. 

So you have failed to substantiate your claim, and your atheism seems faith-based. Maybe you can take care of that when you wake up tomorrow.

How do you know I can't substantiate my claim?

How is basing my disbelief on the existence of a god on the lack of evidence, reasoned argument, and valid/sound logic a faith based position?

Is your disbelief in bigfoot, alien abductions, Loch Ness monster, crystal healing, etc, etc a faith based position?

And I haven't even gotten to your unsubstantiated assertion that I don't seem to grasp basic logic, skepticism, etc. What's the evidence for that?

Almost every post of yours on this forum. 

Your case looks very weak, as it would fail to convince even to a dispassionate skeptic.

How do you know how weak my case is? You haven't presented an argument for the existence of your god yet for me to respond to.

You continue to fail to see where the burden of proof lies. Not surprised, but it is frustrating. [/quote]

[robvalue]

...because god is subject to arbitrary rules, and isn't actually all powerful?

He's just doing his best with limited powers and resources?

It would make the apologetic's job a lot easier if they admitted that. Because flip-flopping between all powerful and "has to do it this way because of random constraints I just thought up" is very painful to watch.

[Mystic]

...because god is subject to arbitrary rules, and isn't actually all powerful?

He's just doing his best with limited powers and resources?

It would make your job a lot easier if you admitted that. Because flip-flopping between all powerful and "has to do it this way because of random constraints I just thought up" is very difficult to watch.

I think if God can create another God, he would of. He can't however, and to say he can, would belittle his own reality, his unity, he is ultimate highness.  The nature of creation is not random, but created with respect to the truth of his face, which remains and doesn't disappear, and is from him and by which we return to him.

[TubbyTubby]

I think if God can create another God, he would of. He can't however..

So where did the rest of the tens of thousands of irritating gods come from?

[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.

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.

Premise one is true of logical necessity. The attributes of God - omnipotent, omnibenevolent - by definition could not permit the existence of excessive and unnecessary suffering. Also, what difference does it make to say that a person's suffering is finite and doesn't last forever? How does that matter? You also seem to be suggesting something like the "free will defense" in shifting the focus towards The Garden of Eden myth (you know that's just a story, right?). That doesn't work. Imagine that a person saw their child pick up a hammer to bash the skull of another child. Should the parent prevent his child’s action, though it will eliminate his child’s free will in that instant? Rather, we should think that preventing the first child’s free will, in order to save the second, would not only be morally permissible but obligatory. Who would let the parent off the hook if he said that he did nothing to prevent the incident because he didn't wish to violate his child's freedom? Why does the moral imperative change in the case that the parent is God and we the are children?

[Mystic]

I think if God can create another God, he would of. He can't however..

So where did the rest of the tens of thousands of irritating gods come from?

Are they truly worthy of worship any of them though? If we remember the Absolute Highest Life, doesn't everything else pale in comparison?

[JesusHChrist]

Isn't the Absolute Highest Life, akin to the Most, Really-est Stinky Cheese?

There will always be a stinkier cheese. Absolutely stinkier...

[John V]

The attributes of God - omnipotent, omnibenevolent

God flooded the world. It's pretty clear he's not omnibenevolent.

That's not to say that he's not all good. If a man is convicted of murder, it would be benevolent of the judge to sentence him to eat a piece of chocolate cake, but we wouldn't consider that good.

[Whateverist]

...because god is subject to arbitrary rules, and isn't actually all powerful?

He's just doing his best with limited powers and resources?

It would make your job a lot easier if you admitted that. Because flip-flopping between all powerful and "has to do it this way because of random constraints I just thought up" is very difficult to watch.

I think if God can create another God, he would of. He can't however, and to say he can, would belittle his own reality, his unity, he is ultimate highness.  The nature of creation is not random, but created with respect to the truth of his face, which remains and doesn't disappear, and is from him and by which we return to him.

Blasphemer!  To suggest he can't is to to greatly be-large your own reality.  If god can only accomplish what you say he can, he can't be all meta- omni- anything.

[Mystic]

I think if God can create another God, he would of. He can't however, and to say he can, would belittle his own reality, his unity, he is ultimate highness.  The nature of creation is not random, but created with respect to the truth of his face, which remains and doesn't disappear, and is from him and by which we return to him.

Blasphemer!  To suggest he can't is to to greatly be-large your own reality.  If god can only accomplish what you say he can, he can't be all meta- omni- anything.

What is your proof for your statements? What is your reasoning? They seem to me like slogans or conjecture.