Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Pat Mustard]

Global Warming?  Not man made, and obviously not true.   Nothing but an Obama conspiracy.  Most scientists are wrong.  Man can't effect the climate!  Only God can.

AGW denialism in christian circles springs from domnion theology, actually. The idea springs from Gen. 1:28 in the KJV:

And God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

So the idea is that, as god gave humans the world to own and control in toto, there is no way that he would have made the world in such a fashion that humans could actually turn around and destroy it (or to be more accurate, change the climate so radically that it becomes unlivable for most lifeforms including humanity). So because god said "I made the world for you, everything in it is yours" then the world cannot go through global warming. QED

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I don't think that's a fair evaluation of the Christian position.

Effectively, they think that God made the world for the perfect version of humanity (Adam), and only once we had "fallen" did "corruption" enter the world, destroying the previous paradise. In the Christian version, we are to blame for the way we have handled the stewardship of the planet... it is, ironically, a surprisingly secular position, despite its belief that "sin-magic" is the root cause.

Of course, this goes against all we have learned of the brutal nature of the evolution of life on earth... multiple mass extinctions that wiped out as much as 90% of the species on the planet, "snowball earth", and the clear genetic evidence that we did not spring from a single pair of individuals. So, there's that.

[abaris]

Effectively, they think that God made the world for the perfect version of humanity (Adam), and only once we had "fallen" did "corruption" enter the world, destroying the previous paradise. In the Christian version, we are to blame for the way we have handled the stewardship of the planet... it is, ironically, a surprisingly secular position, despite its belief that "sin-magic" is the root cause.

And they never question that. Now I'm making a blanket statement, because I know a lot of christians, who actually don't subscribe to that bullshit. But for the sake of argument, since we're obviously talking about the more fundamentalist bunch.

Adam, a perfect simpleton, not knowing the distinction between good and evil, is punished for something he couldn't wrap his mind around in the first place. Eve, made out of spareribs of Adam, in order to make women a second class being.

Doesn't that strike them as perfectly man made? And I mean that in the male, paternalistic sense. Obviously not, which leads me to a rather spiteful assumption. They (male) like what they're reading and see no problem with that.

[Angrboda]

You're asking the wrong questions, Delicate.  Perhaps, instead of looking for justifications for atheism, you need to look for justifications for religion.  See, that's very important here because I'm not so much a hard-line atheist as much as I simply haven't found any religion or deity that continues to sound believable after some basic questioning.

So, if you'd like to ask some specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.  And if you'd like to explain your beliefs, I'd be happy to ask some questions about them.

I have looked at justifications for religion and found them credible. Many if not most of the critiques leveled against them from internet atheists look terrible on closer scrutiny and this can be demonstrated, time and time again. [...]

Then why don't you demonstrate these justifications if they're truly credible.

[IATIA]

I have looked at justifications for religion and found them credible. Many if not most of the critiques leveled against them from internet atheists look terrible on closer scrutiny and this can be demonstrated, time and time again. [...]

Then why don't you demonstrate these justifications if they're truly credible.

Because of the inability to actually find one.

[Rhondazvous]

Original sin is a completely sick concept even if the ridiculous story could ever be true.

god sat around timelessly for eons then one day decides to create this vast cosmos and on one little tiny itsy bitsy teensy weensy speck of it, create intelligent life condemned to hell for all eternity if they do not worship their creator.

Now, is that really ridiculous?  

Oh but dear, you know the story doesn't go like that. We have to keep our critique true to what the book actually says without superimposing reality onto a perfectly good tale.

According to the Bible, there was no cosmos. There was the Heavens, where god lives and the Earth where man lives. And rather than being small, the Earth was a huge job with the sun and moon right here in the Earth's atmosphere so they wouldn't get lonely.

When you look at it that way, it's not so ridiculous. It's not be true, but it's not ridiculous.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah of course it's not ridiculous hehe

In fact if he received a formal complaint I think God would agree Rhonda.

[Minimalist]

Original sin is a completely sick concept even if the ridiculous story could ever be true.

Yes but the shitheads desperately need it because the whole fucking story is built on that absurd house of cards.

[RoadRunner79]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Evil need not be only an absence of of good; indeed, that is more properly assessed as morally neutral.

Evil is active malevolence.