Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a low income housing scam.

[vorlon13]

Oh. I just thought the Mormon thing could apply equally to all... with details changed for the appropriate cults they represent, of course.

We have ~190 years worth of pretty good documentation on most of the crapola Mormonism is based upon, something we don't have for religions going back millenia. 

Having said that however, people being people afterall, Mormonism can be a petri dish or simulacrum of what other older faiths experienced as they evolved into what we see today.

The Mormons are quite useful in this regard, they 'believe' (for the few in the hierarchy that might be sincerely Mormon) God (Adam, Micheal, Moroni, Jesus, whomever is in charge of earth this week) commanded them to be a record keeping people and they've done so well at it they've inadvertently falsified their faith literally countless times.

A tip to those anticipating starting their own religion someday;  you might want to either not keep records of all your connivance and charlatanism, or if you feel you must keep detailed records, try harder to keep them secret.

[Thumpalumpacus]

An interesting scenario is the evil neuroscientist. He hates Bob, so he enlists Fred (who also hates Bob) to kill Bob, and Fred agrees. But to be sure, the scientist drugs Fred and implants a chip in his brain. If Fred changes his mind at the last minute, the neuroscientist presses a button causing Fred to kill Bob.

So, the neuroscientist has definitie foreknowledge that Fred will kill Bob. However, most people think that Fred is guilty if he "chooses" to kill (even though he really had no choice), but not guilty if the button was pressed.

Regarding Christianity, the button was pressed; human nature, which you assert that your god created, is the button.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So.. you do not think that you are responsible for your actions under a Christian worldview?   I would disagree.  

Also, this seems to be more of an emotional issue for you, rather than rational.  Should I be posting pictures of cuddly kittens.
If you just want to throw a melodramatic temper tantrum... I'm not really interested.

What about my argument is emotional and not rational? I wasn't even particularly profane like I usually am. My wizard senses tell me that you're trying to avoid the responsibility of supporting your assertions by dismissing me as angry (even though there's not necessarily evidence of that).


Answer the question instead of dodging it with another question, please. Is your Gaud evil or stupid? Does he plan suffering and death because he's evil, or does he fail to stop it because he's incompetent?


As for responsibility, that depends entirely on the specifiic "Christian worldview" in question. Most sects assert that Gaud is completely and perfectly omniscient, which precludes the possibility of free will because the only one with any agency in that scenario is Gaud. If Gaud already knows everything that will happen, then history is written and all choices are already irrevocably made. By creating us with full advance knowledge of our actions, Gaud sets us on a path that we are powerless to change or control, making him responsible for everything we do and everything that happens to us.


Basically, if I create a robot with full foreknowledge that it will work fine right out of the box, but that soon it's programming will break down and cause it to kill a busload of children, I don't get to blame the robot for the busload of dead kids just because I didn't technically program it to do that. I still knew it was going to do that, and yet I still created the robot and did nothing to prevent this glitch from arising in its programming. That makes me responsible for the robot's murderous actions. The only way I'm not responsible is if I didn't know the glitch would arise, but then I wouldn't be omniscient, would I?

In a court of law, the knowing refusal to stop a crime will result in a charge of complicity in said crime.

If I know ahead of time that Joe Blow from Bogadoh, Idaho intends to shoot up a theater full of people and I say nothing to the police before or after the fact, upon discovery I may be legally charged with complicity.

If I let my infant son crawl across a freeway (knowing, of course, that his chances are nil), I may rightfully be charged with negligent homicide.

The obvious inference is that God has one Hell of a lawyer.

[GoHalos1993]

Actually it's rather interesting that you say this. Mostly because they did a study as to whom and what groups of people when it comes to religion know more about religion. And on top of that list was atheists. Now that was back in 2013 when I heard that stat, but I still think it's rather interesting.

[Minimalist]

You are correct, godz...except for the date.  It was 2010.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...-religious

Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious

And they explain why.....which religitards will never want to hear.

Why are Atheists and Agnostics better informed? The Los Angeles Times quotes one of the researchers who has a theory:

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

Also interesting is that Black Protestants and Latino Catholics scored at the bottom of the survey.

[Pat Mustard]

Is a baptism considered legitimate if it's performed on an infant? 

It is for catholics, even if the infant's parents don't want the child baptised.

Does one even have to be baptized to get to Heaven or does one gain entrance through grace alone?

It depends on how much of a Fr. Trendy the clerical "expert" you are currently talking to is. In Ireland up until very recently, unbaptised dead babies weren't allowed burial in cemetaries, because catholicism.

Is simply accepting the Holy Spirit considered baptism? Or is actual immersion required?

Catholicism demands some form of either dipping the head in water or pouring it on.

Strictly speaking, baptism in water isn't strictly necessary according to scripture, but because John the baptist is such a big part of scripture, and Jesus was supposedly baptised by John to fulfill some prophecy made up after the fact, most of the major christian denominations have some form of baptism. Actually here's a nice little chart of differences between denominations.

[Redbeard The Pink]

This is a baseless assertion that does not logically follow. Computers do not carry out their own thoughts or actions, and yet they are real things that exist.

Yep - point being that I can destroy my laptop if I want and I'm not considered evil.

That has nothing to do with whether your laptop is real, or whether your laptop is a laptop. What point are you making?

[IATIA]

Is a baptism considered legitimate if it's performed on an infant?

Yes, but the catholics have a second ritual, 'confirmation', at the "age of reason" where they acknowledge their commitment to catholicism.

[abaris]

Also interesting is that Black Protestants and Latino Catholics scored at the bottom of the survey.

Usually the least educated. Not because of their own fault, but because of an abysmal public school system.