Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[robvalue]

Well, many theists clearly believe in 'might makes right", at least in god's case.

God is so powerful, he can do what he likes and we can't stop him.

If he existed and was anything like as described, that would be very true. However, it's not god that's doing all the prickish things that some theists (and some atheists) do, it's people. People are claiming divine authority because God would want this kind of thing done if he got off his ass and did something.

Well, he's not getting off his ass. So everyone should take ownership of their actions and opinions. If people try and be shitty to other people, we can stop them. Because they are not God. Clearly, we can impede them, and god's attempts, just by having man made rules based on non-religious common decency.

[IATIA]

God is so powerful, he can do what he likes and we can't stop him.

IIRC, did not god display a weakness toward iron?

Found it:

Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

[robvalue]

Oh yes. Iron is his kryptonite! No wonder he doesn't come near us, think how scary uranium must be to him!

I suppose I meant if he existed as people describe him, rather than as the bible describes him. Because the character in the bible falls laughably short of all powerful.

[Minimalist]

What is he being "sentenced" for?

You guys bring this shit on yourselves.  You make all these bullshit claims about your all-powerful sky-daddy and then, when called out on it, have to admit that he's a poor misunderstood "god" who can't be blamed for all the lousy shit that happens on his watch.

I'll let you off the hook. Your god is as phony as a $3 bill.  Shit happens because shit happens.  No gods involved because there are no gods....and there never have been.

[Thumpalumpacus]

More to the point, it isn't moral to execute a "criminal" for crimes you forced him to commit both by creating his criminal nature, and forcing him to take part in your "plan", both of which the Christian god is guilty.

Can a god who tells fathers how to properly sell their daughters into sexual slaver V) be morally excellent? Will you surf the internet for a dictionary that defines moral excellence in a way that allows you to answer that question in the affirmative?  Perhaps the Bible dictionary?

Maybe my error is that I'm interpreting the Bible literally. Can we glean some profound spiritual lesson from this passage if we interpret it metaphorically?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Property shouldn't be allowed to post so eloquently.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, basically, god always means well..lol.

Makes him quite a fuck up, doesn't it?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What is he being "sentenced" for?

You guys bring this shit on yourselves.  You make all these bullshit claims about your all-powerful sky-daddy and then, when called out on it, have to admit that he's a poor misunderstood "god" who can't be blamed for all the lousy shit that happens on his watch.

I'll let you off the hook. Your god is as phony as a $3 bill.  Shit happens because shit happens.  No gods involved because there are no gods....and there never have been.

Brutal truth.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I do understand the difficulty in the problem of evil and specifically of suffering that we cannot explain.  It is especially difficult if we or someone we love is the one suffering.  The issue I believe with this argument is that it focus's on and put's above everything else, only one or a few of the qualities of God.  

It is setting up a false dichotomy.  It wants to say that benevolence must do X to the exclusion of everything else.  That benevolence  would not allow suffering in any circumstance if it could be prevented.  I don't believe this to be true, and don't believe that the definition of benevolence requires this.  An honest judge may sentence someone, and cause suffering, but this does not mean that he is not benevolent or caring.  However, caring for the person does not mean that the judge needs to exclude other responsibilities.

Except that the "judge" in this scenario allegedly created everything in the entire Universe with full foreknowledge of which parts were guaranteed to involve wickedness, suffering, and death on any scale, and is thus personally responsible for the actions of every criminal and warlord who's ever lived, and allegedly destroys whole civilizations and even global populations himself (making him worse than any human could ever be). The only one who's guilty of anything in that situation is actually the judge himself.


Either he's so evil that he used his omniscience and omnipotence to lay out a plan that expressly involves the pointless suffering and death of multitudinous innocents (most of whom are children), or he's so incompetent that he can't create a Universe without his very creations mucking up all his plans by somehow creating evil and suffering in a system that was designed to exclude those things.


So which is it? Is your Gaud evil or stupid?


(spoiler alert: he's both)

[Rhondazvous]

I do understand the difficulty in the problem of evil and specifically of suffering that we cannot explain.  It is especially difficult if we or someone we love is the one suffering.  The issue I believe with this argument is that it focus's on and put's above everything else, only one or a few of the qualities of God.  

It is setting up a false dichotomy.  It wants to say that benevolence must do X to the exclusion of everything else.  That benevolence  would not allow suffering in any circumstance if it could be prevented.  I don't believe this to be true, and don't believe that the definition of benevolence requires this.  An honest judge may sentence someone, and cause suffering, but this does not mean that he is not benevolent or caring.  However, caring for the person does not mean that the judge needs to exclude other responsibilities.

The problem with your argument is that we’re talking here about a god who set the original man up. Keeping from him the knowledge of good and evil. Putting that knowledge in the fruit of a tree then telling the man not to eat the fruit. Adam had no way to know that disobeying god was wrong. Yet god punished him. Then when god saw that the people were getting along working together to build the Tower of Babel, he became so intimidated by what they might accomplish that he confused their language, causing strife and misunderstanding where there had been none. He allows innocent babies and children to suffer needlessly. In the Bible, he actually becomes angry when the Israelites had mercy on the people he told them to kill.

You have now given yourself the task of convincing us that these are the actions of an honest judge.

Good luck.

[Hmmm?]

I'll let you off the hook. Your god is as phony as a $3 bill.  Shit happens because shit happens.  No gods involved because there are no gods....and there never have been.

I had my hands on one of these awhile back, worth a lot more than three dollars.  I really love the emblem depicting an eagle fighting a heron (obvious underdog) with the motto "exitus in dubio est" ...the outcome is uncertain

I still think we're all ill-informed