Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[arewethereyet]

Hey there,

When I first became interested in the questions of theology, God's existence, etc. I used to hold the atheist position in high regard, it looked like a very logical position to endorse when one isn't convinced of some particular account of God. I started to become highly suspicious of that when I discovered that all the big objections to theism simply fail miserably. 

A better way to show why these objections are really bad is to apply them to anything, to show that anything can't exist. So, let's rule out the existence of peanut butter;

Argument from the diversity of peanuts:

P1: There are many subspecies/types of peanuts. Each type has particular properties, a different taste, a different pod structure and variable seed sizes
P2: Peanut butter is so sweet that its sweetness should uniformly have the same miraculous taste for all mankind

C: peanut butter can't exist because it's incoherent

Argument from peanut evil :

P1: An ensnared fawn caught wildfire, the fawn is burned to death, it must have suffered heavily
P2: Something that tastes as sweet as peanut butter wouldn't let a fawn suffer, this food is too sweet to coexist with evil

C: peanut butter can't exist because of evil

Argument from peanut butter's hiddenness:

P1: Peanut butter isn't available in my local area.
P2: Peanut butter is so sweet that it wouldn't leave someone in my area who craves for it unsatisfied

C: peanut butter isn't that sweet after all

As you can see, these ridiculous arguments hardly differ from the objections we hear often aimed at undermining theism. Arguing from evil is by definition arguing from ignorance, when philosophers endorsing atheism became aware of that, they came up with an ad-hoc distinction between justified evil and unnecessary evil, which is, again, another fat fallacy of arguing from ignorance, because they can't prove that some instance of evil is unnecessary without begging the question. The issue of hiddenness is very similar because it presupposes that there can't be any good reason for God not directly revealing Himself to our senses. Finally, religious diversity is probably the most ridiculous of all three, simply because many conflicting accounts of the divine doesn't mean that they are all false, nor does it undermine any of God's properties.

All this simply means that atheology fails, whereas theology provides many compelling arguments/reasons to believe in God. Theism is the only acceptable worldview. QED.

---

  Asserting atheists are arguing from evil by definition is bigotry

And?

Kloro has been around here for a while. We know to take his stuff with a large grain of salt. There are people here not really on board with his Islamic faith either.

If you find us that distressing there are surely other places that would welcome of special brand of whatever-the-hell it is you think you offer.

[Ghetto Sheldon]

---

  Asserting atheists are arguing from evil by definition is bigotry

And?

Kloro has been around here for a while.  We know to take his stuff with a large grain of salt.   There are people here not really on board with his Islamic faith either.  

If you find us that distressing there are surely other places that would welcome of special brand of whatever-the-hell it is you think you offer.

^^ irrelevant & off topic

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Asserting atheists are arguing from evil by definition is bigotry

Nonsense. Atheists have used the Argument From Evil (both logical and evidential) for twenty two centuries. There is no bigotry involved in stating this fact.

Boru

[Ghetto Sheldon]

Asserting atheists are arguing from evil by definition is bigotry

Nonsense. Atheists have used the Argument From Evil (both logical and evidential) for twenty two centuries. There is no bigotry involved in stating this fact.

Boru

^^ unreasonable bickering

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nonsense. Atheists have used the Argument From Evil (both logical and evidential) for twenty two centuries. There is no bigotry involved in stating this fact.

Boru

^^ unreasonable bickering

That’s the second time you’ve called me ‘unreasonable’. Maybe we could be friends.

If, you know, you weren’t such a cunt.

Boru

[Ghetto Sheldon]

^^ unreasonable bickering

That’s the second time you’ve called me ‘unreasonable’. Maybe we could be friends.

If, you know, you weren’t such a cunt.

Boru

Credentialed assertions stand regardless of what I am personally.

[arewethereyet]

And?

Kloro has been around here for a while.  We know to take his stuff with a large grain of salt.   There are people here not really on board with his Islamic faith either.  

If you find us that distressing there are surely other places that would welcome of special brand of whatever-the-hell it is you think you offer.

^^ irrelevant & off topic

It is on topic. But since you are such a cunt, I don't really care what you think.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That’s the second time you’ve called me ‘unreasonable’. Maybe we could be friends.

If, you know, you weren’t such a cunt.

Boru

Credentialed assertions stand regardless of what I am personally.

Yeah, I don’t believe you have the credentials you claim.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

Credentialed assertions stand regardless of what I am personally.

Yeah, I don’t believe you have the credentials you claim.

Boru

You don't believe in infant dementia?

[vulcanlogician]

It is on topic.  But since you are such a cunt, I don't really care what you think.

I don't really see much think going on with Ghetto Sheldon. More just proclaiming things by fiat, with no justification or reasoning. I hope this is a situation where drugs are involved, and that this is not the actual normal state of this individual.