Why Atheism?

[skyking]

i know what it meant for me, my personal discovery.

[Joods]

Before you start foaming at the mouth and spitting poison at me

See.... when people start their posts like this... it's an immediate turn off. Sad. 

like some Benzedrine puff adder (Sybil Fawlty) just let me say I'm not challenging you, judging you or criticizing you with no reasonable explanation

Really? that whole first bit screams criticism and judgyness. 

I just want to try and understand you.

Do you really? 

 Of course I make my assumptions but I don't assume them correct. Having said that . . . . Why atheism? 

Why not atheism? We're all born atheists until we get indoctrinated by someone. So - let me put the question to you. Why religion? 

 
From my admittedly brief observation of atheists online I can see them roaring into town in a beat up SUV with atheist bumper stickers pasted all over the vehicle, hanging out of the windows, hollering, guns shooting into the air, looking for the local church and courthouse to make absolutely certain that never the twain shall meet.

But you aren't judging, right? 

  

Hair triggered to set off at the slightest provocation in case any of the locals, amateur atheists, or [I shudder to think] a theist should hazard a word. I know not all of you are like this, but a remarkably large percentage of you are.

Got any real statistics to back up this claim of yours? If so, produce the proof, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass. 

 

To those and to the more subtle ones, why express your atheism in such a different way than the more subtle atheists in "real life."

You rant about hating the mythology. The pretense that the alleged deities are real, but it is more likely than not that you teach your young children Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny are real. In their prime stage of development. 

You rant that these mythologies shouldn't be allowed to enforce public opinion, especially in a political sense, but that's the nature of the game. 

Why atheism?

Really trying hard to find parts of this post where you weren't being judgy or criticizing and only trying to understand atheists, but honestly - your whole post stinks of bullshit. No wonder you aren't well received here. I suppose you won't be lasting long around these parts.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why should I prove what science has already proven?

To demonstrate that I was wrong about you. That you have a mind of your own and just don't believe what you are told to believe.

As a child, I was given a small 30 power telescope. The night sky in eastern Washington was relatively clear, and I began to differentiate the stars and planets. My eyes were good enough then, I could see 7 or 8 of Jupiter's moons. I could see with my own eyes the craters and features on the moon, and the planets were right where I expected them to be, night after night. Stars twinkled; planets do not.
Using books and star charts, I observed distant planets, relatively hard to find with that meager telescope. But they were there, as described. 
The bible got none of that right, not even close. It didn't stand a chance with me after that.

For me it was fossils. When I was ten, we returned to Texas for a month's vacation from Iran. We all (extended family included) went to  Dino Valley in Glen Rose to picnic. While wading in the Paluxy river, I found myself near a set of theropod footprints. And later found a piece of sandstone with the perfect impression of a small fish-tail. You could see every ray in the fin.

After that, the 6000-yr-old story we heard in church meant to me that these "wise" men weren't really paying attention. That started my drift.

[Kim]

This remarkable thing - this being alive:  it can't be wasted trying to live up to someone else's notions of what it may or may not be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[MrGodgeneCarrier]

Post #1:  "Why Atheism?"

A Former And Future VOIDian Presently Experiencing A Brief Existence:

According to a reply which a "MrAllarGoners" is unable to add to a long inactive and now archival thread [a], the word "god's" found in Post

#7 of that old thread definitely merits a response of some kind, and the one prepared by AllarGoners [b] would almost certainly pass
muster at PTO, not only because felons sentenced to death could find the response greatly reassuring but also because the response [c]
says nothing whatsoever about punishments or about the rights accorded to prisoners and their families or about "whether or not anyone
should be in prison." Anyway, may the following version of MrAllarGoners' reply [d] questioning the objective existence of a God help
somehow to ease the mind of an inmate somewhere, one awaiting execution and therefore somewhat concerned about a possible meeting
with a Majestic, Almighty, And Very Judgmental Maker.

[a] "Trying To Think Like a Doomed Realist On Death Row" ( www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-720837.html )

[b] "TOO MUCH TO KNOW"
[=]
[c] "NO MIND THAT KNOWS ALL"
[=]
[d] "NO GOD AT ALL"

AllarGoners:

GOD?

How can there possibly be a God when, EVERY SINGLE SECOND, a seemingly infinite number of new things to know is added to an already
overwhelming number of things to know, when what there is to know about all objects and events throughout a vast and ever-changing
universe has been increasing immeasurably with every passing moment FOR OVER THIRTEEN BILLION YEARS?

In other words, is there not, in effect, an infinite number of things for an Omniscient Being to know? [a] And when there is so very much
to know [b], HOW COULD THERE EVER EXIST AN ENTITY THAT IS OMNISCIENT?

For in order to be truly omniscient, an Altogether Transcendent Percipient would continually have to be either keenly or easily cognizant
of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that an All-knowing And All-powerful And Omnipresent Creator-God could rightly be
expected to know.

If, out of a virtually infinite number of things that an Eternal And All-seeing God should know, there were to be but one fact not
known, then the Imperfect And Rather Pathetic Divinity in question would not be omniscient.

Of course, if any Self-existent And Sovereign Deity were to be less than omniscient in any way whatsoever--that is to say, NOT
OMNISCIENT--then that Deity's surprising and even shocking lack of universal knowledge would surely amount to much more
than a failure to be fully aware of one fact and one fact only.

Far from not knowing just one fact, an Unrivaled And Lofty Godhead not possessing all knowledge to perfection would most certainly be
ignorant about a great many matters.

And if a Remarkably Immaterial And Everlasting God were to be ignorant beyond measure, beyond belief, about a great many
somethings--PRACTICALLY AN INFINITE NUMBER--then that Most High God could be kept busy answering "I DON'T KNOW" to
one question after another for well-nigh an eternity.

Considering, therefore, not just THE SHEER VOLUME OF ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW AND TO REMEMBER about every particle and planet
and about every creature and occurence in an enormous macrocosm but also the fact that ANY GOD ACTUALLY EXISTING WOULD
VERY LIKELY BE VERY MUCH IN THE DARK ABOUT NEARLY EVERYTHING, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, how can any realistic and
rigorously honest individual seriously believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, an EXCEEDINGLY UNINFORMED Supreme
Being, and how could any Supreme Being that is so OUTRAGEOUSLY UNKNOWING ever be acceptable or of interest as an object
of worship to anyone at all but especially to devout and deeply reverent monotheists?

Given, then, the towering improbability--nay, THE UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY--of there somewhere being in existence an Immortal And
Phenomenal Mind not only capable of knowing everything but also opting to do so, surely NO SUCH HIGHER INTELLIGENCE (God)
EXISTS ANYWHERE AT ALL [c] except, of course, as multifarious figments, as murky and ill-defined mental fabrications, each one
dimly embedded in gray matter encased within the skull of a very zealous or merely sincere or scarcely lukewarm person of faith, a
religious believer with a somewhat overactive imagination and consequently, a wholly unfounded but firm belief that among a
profusion of adolescent fairy tales forever being told about this and that personal, popular, or sectarian notion of a Stupendous And
Ubiquitous Supreme Soul of some sort are sundry tales and assertions about one supposed Deity in particular that are correct, that are
largely true and not at all as far removed from reality as is the hugely fictitious story about Goldilocks and the three bears or as is
Homer's stirring account of Ulysses' epic journey home to Ithaca from Troy or as are the many wildly inaccurate and often contemptible
tweets and utterances of a certain American President.

[a]

Some questions for a PANSOPHICAL DIVINE BEING:

Today is Monday, December 21, 2020.

Yesterday, HOW MANY PEOPLE added salt to cooked eggs on a plate?

And HOW MANY GRAINS OF SALT were added to eggs on a plate yesterday?

And of that total number of grains of salt, HOW MANY WERE ACTUALLY CONSUMED, AND HOW MANY ENDED UP BEING WASHED
DOWN A DRAIN OR OTHERWISE DISCARDED?

And WHAT WAS THE COMBINED WEIGHT of the grains of salt added to plates of eggs yesterday?

And THE SURFACE AREA OF THE VERY LARGEST GRAIN(S) OF SALT WAS IDENTICAL TO THE SURFACE AREA OF HOW MANY
INDIVIDUAL PARTICLES OF SAND ON MARS, a distant world which is, in all likelihood, only one of innumerable planets on which
there is sand in this boundless universe?

(By the way, WHERE EXACTLY ON THE SURFACE OF WINDSWEPT MARS IS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE SAME PARTICLES OF
SAND RIGHT THIS MINUTE?)

But ENOUGH ABOUT YESTERDAY.

WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE GRAINS OF SALT ADDED TO PLATES OF COOKED EGGS ON THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY AND ON EACH OF
THE OTHER FULL DAYS DURING THE LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS?

[b]

For example, take this windblown and wildly bobbing maple leaf here. How far was the tip of this leaf from the tip of every other
leaf on earth five seconds ago? And fifty-five seconds ago?

Also, how far, just now, is the tip of your nose from where the tip of Albert Einstein's nose was exactly seventy years ago this very second
and from where the tip of Genghis Khan's nose was exactly eight hundred years ago? (Moreover, what was Genghis Khan's oldest
living grandchild either thinking or dreaming exactly eight hundred years ago this very second?)

[c]

IN A NUTSHELL:

TOO MUCH TO KNOW = NO MIND THAT KNOWS ALL = NO GOD

(definitely not One that knows everything, which, however, still leaves open an infinitesimally tiny possibility that a God does exist, that
the whole of a truly awe-inspiring creation is sustained by an equally awe-inspiring but very much mentally challenged Creator, One
that does not even begin to know absolutely everything and could therefore, be stumped by question after question for ages on end)

BRAIN TEASER:

TOO MUCH TO KNOW = Any God* that exists could not possibly know EVERYTHING but, being God,* could not possibly know LESS THAN
EVERYTHING.

*as commonly conceived

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Show ContentSpoiler:

Post #1:  "Why Atheism?"

A Former And Future VOIDian Presently Experiencing A Brief Existence:

According to a reply which a "MrAllarGoners" is unable to add to a long inactive and now archival thread [a], the word "god's" found in Post

#7 of that old thread definitely merits a response of some kind, and the one prepared by AllarGoners [b] would almost certainly pass
muster at PTO, not only because felons sentenced to death could find the response greatly reassuring but also because the response [c]
says nothing whatsoever about punishments or about the rights accorded to prisoners and their families or about "whether or not anyone
should be in prison." Anyway, may the following version of MrAllarGoners' reply [d] questioning the objective existence of a God help
somehow to ease the mind of an inmate somewhere, one awaiting execution and therefore somewhat concerned about a possible meeting
with a Majestic, Almighty, And Very Judgmental Maker.

[a] "Trying To Think Like a Doomed Realist On Death Row" ( www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-720837.html )

[b] "TOO MUCH TO KNOW"
[=]
[c] "NO MIND THAT KNOWS ALL"
[=]
[d] "NO GOD AT ALL"

AllarGoners:

GOD?

How can there possibly be a God when, EVERY SINGLE SECOND, a seemingly infinite number of new things to know is added to an already
overwhelming number of things to know, when what there is to know about all objects and events throughout a vast and ever-changing
universe has been increasing immeasurably with every passing moment FOR OVER THIRTEEN BILLION YEARS?

In other words, is there not, in effect, an infinite number of things for an Omniscient Being to know? [a] And when there is so very much
to know [b], HOW COULD THERE EVER EXIST AN ENTITY THAT IS OMNISCIENT?

For in order to be truly omniscient, an Altogether Transcendent Percipient would continually have to be either keenly or easily cognizant
of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that an All-knowing And All-powerful And Omnipresent Creator-God could rightly be
expected to know.

If, out of a virtually infinite number of things that an Eternal And All-seeing God should know, there were to be but one fact not
known, then the Imperfect And Rather Pathetic Divinity in question would not be omniscient.

Of course, if any Self-existent And Sovereign Deity were to be less than omniscient in any way whatsoever--that is to say, NOT
OMNISCIENT--then that Deity's surprising and even shocking lack of universal knowledge would surely amount to much more
than a failure to be fully aware of one fact and one fact only.

Far from not knowing just one fact, an Unrivaled And Lofty Godhead not possessing all knowledge to perfection would most certainly be
ignorant about a great many matters.

And if a Remarkably Immaterial And Everlasting God were to be ignorant beyond measure, beyond belief, about a great many
somethings--PRACTICALLY AN INFINITE NUMBER--then that Most High God could be kept busy answering "I DON'T KNOW" to
one question after another for well-nigh an eternity.

Considering, therefore, not just THE SHEER VOLUME OF ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW AND TO REMEMBER about every particle and planet
and about every creature and occurence in an enormous macrocosm but also the fact that ANY GOD ACTUALLY EXISTING WOULD
VERY LIKELY BE VERY MUCH IN THE DARK ABOUT NEARLY EVERYTHING, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, how can any realistic and
rigorously honest individual seriously believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, an EXCEEDINGLY UNINFORMED Supreme
Being, and how could any Supreme Being that is so OUTRAGEOUSLY UNKNOWING ever be acceptable or of interest as an object
of worship to anyone at all but especially to devout and deeply reverent monotheists?

Given, then, the towering improbability--nay, THE UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY--of there somewhere being in existence an Immortal And
Phenomenal Mind not only capable of knowing everything but also opting to do so, surely NO SUCH HIGHER INTELLIGENCE (God)
EXISTS ANYWHERE AT ALL [c] except, of course, as multifarious figments, as murky and ill-defined mental fabrications, each one
dimly embedded in gray matter encased within the skull of a very zealous or merely sincere or scarcely lukewarm person of faith, a
religious believer with a somewhat overactive imagination and consequently, a wholly unfounded but firm belief that among a
profusion of adolescent fairy tales forever being told about this and that personal, popular, or sectarian notion of a Stupendous And
Ubiquitous Supreme Soul of some sort are sundry tales and assertions about one supposed Deity in particular that are correct, that are
largely true and not at all as far removed from reality as is the hugely fictitious story about Goldilocks and the three bears or as is
Homer's stirring account of Ulysses' epic journey home to Ithaca from Troy or as are the many wildly inaccurate and often contemptible
tweets and utterances of a certain American President.

[a]

Some questions for a PANSOPHICAL DIVINE BEING:

Today is Monday, December 21, 2020.

Yesterday, HOW MANY PEOPLE added salt to cooked eggs on a plate?

And HOW MANY GRAINS OF SALT were added to eggs on a plate yesterday?

And of that total number of grains of salt, HOW MANY WERE ACTUALLY CONSUMED, AND HOW MANY ENDED UP BEING WASHED
DOWN A DRAIN OR OTHERWISE DISCARDED?

And WHAT WAS THE COMBINED WEIGHT of the grains of salt added to plates of eggs yesterday?

And THE SURFACE AREA OF THE VERY LARGEST GRAIN(S) OF SALT WAS IDENTICAL TO THE SURFACE AREA OF HOW MANY
INDIVIDUAL PARTICLES OF SAND ON MARS, a distant world which is, in all likelihood, only one of innumerable planets on which
there is sand in this boundless universe?

(By the way, WHERE EXACTLY ON THE SURFACE OF WINDSWEPT MARS IS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE SAME PARTICLES OF
SAND RIGHT THIS MINUTE?)

But ENOUGH ABOUT YESTERDAY.

WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE GRAINS OF SALT ADDED TO PLATES OF COOKED EGGS ON THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY AND ON EACH OF
THE OTHER FULL DAYS DURING THE LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS?

[b]

For example, take this windblown and wildly bobbing maple leaf here. How far was the tip of this leaf from the tip of every other
leaf on earth five seconds ago? And fifty-five seconds ago?

Also, how far, just now, is the tip of your nose from where the tip of Albert Einstein's nose was exactly seventy years ago this very second
and from where the tip of Genghis Khan's nose was exactly eight hundred years ago? (Moreover, what was Genghis Khan's oldest
living grandchild either thinking or dreaming exactly eight hundred years ago this very second?)

[c]

IN A NUTSHELL:

TOO MUCH TO KNOW = NO MIND THAT KNOWS ALL = NO GOD

(definitely not One that knows everything, which, however, still leaves open an infinitesimally tiny possibility that a God does exist, that
the whole of a truly awe-inspiring creation is sustained by an equally awe-inspiring but very much mentally challenged Creator, One
that does not even begin to know absolutely everything and could therefore, be stumped by question after question for ages on end)

BRAIN TEASER:

TOO MUCH TO KNOW = Any God* that exists could not possibly know EVERYTHING but, being God,* could not possibly know LESS THAN
EVERYTHING.

*as commonly conceived

[Minimalist]

I predict a short shelf-life for this one.

[Bucky Ball]

ts;dr

too small, didn't read

[Dom]

I skimmed it, and it makes sense but is nothing new to think about.

[Inkubus]

Also, how far, just now, is the tip of your nose from where the tip of Albert Einstein's nose was exactly seventy years ago this very second
and from where the tip of Genghis Khan's nose was exactly eight hundred years ago? (Moreover, what was Genghis Khan's oldest
living grandchild either thinking or dreaming exactly eight hundred years ago this very second?)

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bannalot. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[jerry mcmasters]

I skimmed it, and it makes sense but is nothing new to think about.

I also skimmed, seems to be a variation on incredulity.  It's inconceivable to know all the things that can be known, therefore no god.  Seems like the counter-argument would just be "Yeahbut...he does anyway."  (at least I think the post is arguing against the existence of a god, I could be wrong!)

[Dom]

I skimmed it, and it makes sense but is nothing new to think about.

I also skimmed, seems to be a variation on incredulity.  It's inconceivable to know all the things that can be known, therefore no god.  Seems like the counter-argument would just be "Yeahbut...he does anyway."  (at least I think the post is arguing against the existence of a god, I could be wrong!)

That's what I got out of it too. God can't be omniscient - hence - no god. I suppose at least not an omniscient one.

[mordant]

Really stem-winding post

I think this argument, which boils down to "there can't be an all-knowing being when there is so much to know" can be countered by theists by describing it as a failure of imagination, if not an argument from incredulity. It is the same failure that theists engage in when they say that they can't imagine natural selection producing the complex life forms we presently observe. That they can't imagine it isn't our problem; it's theirs.

I am both willing and able to imagine that a being could be so vast and powerful that it could, e.g., know without effort how many grains of salt were consumed on eggs on a particular day, together with how much was actually digested vs wasted, what its exact weight was, and much more.

The problem is that the Abrahamic god, which is supposed to be capable of such feats and also of intervening in human affairs in coherent and fair ways, doesn't do so. I see no evidence of such a completely clueful being who is compassionate, empathetic, and protective. I don't even see evidence for a being that is a judgmental asshat and squashes people like insects on its own whims.

If a god is all knowing, and all powerful, and permits the slightest injustice, then it is both indifferent to human suffering, and evil. To me that's a far more powerful argument than just pooh-poohing some attribute or other of god. It isn't so much that divine attributes are impossible or even improbable (though they are really both of those things, too); they are inconsistent with one another and with lived experience.

100% of what I have seen is consistent with life being a series of things happening, neither more nor less.

I will give you props, though, for unpacking what omniscience would actually consist of, because I think people don't really consider that. It is a pretty big assertion, and admittedly hard for us little pieces of thinking meat to imagine, but omnipotence would presumably enable omniscience, at least in principle -- so I just don't see it as a clever argument for the non-existence of god.

Besides, you can neither prove nor disprove a negative -- or for that matter, a thing that is beyond substantiation since it doesn't even exist in our reality, but in some asserted spiritual realm. Religion is generally constructed to be unsubstantiatable, because it can't work any other way. Which, itself, is another pretty good argument against it being anything other than complete tosh.

[jerry mcmasters]

I skimmed it, and it makes sense but is nothing new to think about.

I also skimmed, seems to be a variation on incredulity.  It's inconceivable to know all the things that can be known, therefore no god.  Seems like the counter-argument would just be "Yeahbut...he does anyway."  (at least I think the post is arguing against the existence of a god, I could be wrong!)

That's what I got out of it too. God can't be omniscient - hence - no god. I suppose at least not an omniscient one.

For me a simple formula is: God knows everything that will happen in the future + God is all powerful and can change the future = wtf = no God.

[jerry mcmasters]

Really stem-winding post

I think this argument, which boils down to "there can't be an all-knowing being when there is so much to know" can be countered by theists by describing it as a failure of imagination, if not an argument from incredulity. It is the same failure that theists engage in when they say that they can't imagine natural selection producing the complex life forms we presently observe. That they can't imagine it isn't our problem; it's theirs.

I am both willing and able to imagine that a being could be so vast and powerful that it could, e.g., know without effort how many grains of salt were consumed on eggs on a particular day, together with how much was actually digested vs wasted, what its exact weight was, and much more.

The problem is that the Abrahamic god, which is supposed to be capable of such feats and also of intervening in human affairs in coherent and fair ways, doesn't do so. I see no evidence of such a completely clueful being who is compassionate, empathetic, and protective. I don't even see evidence for a being that is a judgmental asshat and squashes people like insects on its own whims.

If a god is all knowing, and all powerful, and permits the slightest injustice, then it is both indifferent to human suffering, and evil. To me that's a far more powerful argument than just pooh-poohing some attribute or other of god. It isn't so much that divine attributes are impossible or even improbable (though they are really both of those things, too); they are inconsistent with one another and with lived experience.

100% of what I have seen is consistent with life being a series of things happening, neither more nor less.

I will give you props, though, for unpacking what omniscience would actually consist of, because I think people don't really consider that. It is a pretty big assertion, and admittedly hard for us little pieces of thinking meat to imagine, but omnipotence would presumably enable omniscience, at least in principle -- so I just don't see it as a clever argument for the non-existence of god.

Besides, you can neither prove nor disprove a negative -- or for that matter, a thing that is beyond substantiation since it doesn't even exist in our reality, but in some asserted spiritual realm. Religion is generally constructed to be unsubstantiatable, because it can't work any other way. Which, itself, is another pretty good argument against it being anything other than complete tosh.

And of course the counter-argument would be a failure of imagination on your part- from your perspective how can you understand what is good for humans, the actions and inactions of God are exactly what is needed for us, any imagined injustices are just needed "bads" in a necessary overall "good."  It's all cleverly designed to never allow the "no god" option.

[mordant]

Really stem-winding post

I think this argument, which boils down to "there can't be an all-knowing being when there is so much to know" can be countered by theists by describing it as a failure of imagination, if not an argument from incredulity. It is the same failure that theists engage in when they say that they can't imagine natural selection producing the complex life forms we presently observe. That they can't imagine it isn't our problem; it's theirs.

I am both willing and able to imagine that a being could be so vast and powerful that it could, e.g., know without effort how many grains of salt were consumed on eggs on a particular day, together with how much was actually digested vs wasted, what its exact weight was, and much more.

The problem is that the Abrahamic god, which is supposed to be capable of such feats and also of intervening in human affairs in coherent and fair ways, doesn't do so. I see no evidence of such a completely clueful being who is compassionate, empathetic, and protective. I don't even see evidence for a being that is a judgmental asshat and squashes people like insects on its own whims.

If a god is all knowing, and all powerful, and permits the slightest injustice, then it is both indifferent to human suffering, and evil. To me that's a far more powerful argument than just pooh-poohing some attribute or other of god. It isn't so much that divine attributes are impossible or even improbable (though they are really both of those things, too); they are inconsistent with one another and with lived experience.

100% of what I have seen is consistent with life being a series of things happening, neither more nor less.

I will give you props, though, for unpacking what omniscience would actually consist of, because I think people don't really consider that. It is a pretty big assertion, and admittedly hard for us little pieces of thinking meat to imagine, but omnipotence would presumably enable omniscience, at least in principle -- so I just don't see it as a clever argument for the non-existence of god.

Besides, you can neither prove nor disprove a negative -- or for that matter, a thing that is beyond substantiation since it doesn't even exist in our reality, but in some asserted spiritual realm. Religion is generally constructed to be unsubstantiatable, because it can't work any other way. Which, itself, is another pretty good argument against it being anything other than complete tosh.

And of course the counter-argument would be a failure of imagination on your part- from your perspective how can you understand what is good for humans, the actions and inactions of God are exactly what is needed for us, any imagined injustices are just needed "bads" in a necessary overall "good."  It's all cleverly designed to never allow the "no god" option.

Yes indeed; they love to sell you on god partly because he is said to come bearing justice, peace, protection and love. Then when your life with god is full of injustice, conflict, peril, danger and hatred, somehow it's all YOUR fault somehow. You're thinking about it wrong, doing it wrong, believing wrong. I walked away from that nonsense many moons ago, and those who still want it are welcome to it.

[Paleophyte]

Looks like drive-by copy-N-spam but I'm naturally underwhelmed by people who feel that they need to use caps to drive home their point because their audience is clearly too dull to get it otherwise.

Clear argument from incredulity and ignorance. As an atheist it's entirely possible to postulate, as a thought experiment, the existence of a universe much larger than the one that we inhabit. Within this really big universe there are some technologically advanced beings who have discovered our wee little cosmos and built a damned impressive computer to observe it on the Planck scale. From our POV that computer would be omniscient. An omniscience achieved by mortals without mucking about with supernatural twaddle. It's merely a matter of scale and resources.

[adey67]

Tldr, I detect the stench scent of a religious proselytiser.

[SYZ]

I think we have some sort of drive-by spammer here by the looks of his other rantings...

http://prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7815279
(Scroll to top of thread)

[abaris]

For me it was fossils. When I was ten, we returned to Texas for a month's vacation from Iran. We all (extended family included) went to  Dino Valley in Glen Rose to picnic. While wading in the Paluxy river, I found myself near a set of theropod footprints. And later found a piece of sandstone with the perfect impression of a small fish-tail. You could see every ray in the fin.

For me also. We've got quite a collection at the museum of natural history and my parents took me there. My father used to explain that dinosaurs roamed the planet millions of years ago. We also took trips to a certain region where the shores of the primeval ocean was and I used to collect stones with fossilized shells in them.

[Bucky Ball]

Post #1:  "Why Atheism?"

A Former And Future VOIDian Presently Experiencing A Brief Existence:

According to a reply which a "MrAllarGoners" is unable to add to a long inactive and now archival thread [a], the word "god's" found in Post

#7 of that old thread definitely merits a response of some kind, and the one prepared by AllarGoners [b] would almost certainly pass
muster at PTO, not only because felons sentenced to death could find the response greatly reassuring but also because the response [c]
says nothing whatsoever about punishments or about the rights accorded to prisoners and their families or about "whether or not anyone
should be in prison." Anyway, may the following version of MrAllarGoners' reply [d] questioning the objective existence of a God help
somehow to ease the mind of an inmate somewhere, one awaiting execution and therefore somewhat concerned about a possible meeting
with a Majestic, Almighty, And Very Judgmental Maker.

[a] "Trying To Think Like a Doomed Realist On Death Row" ( www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-720837.html )

[b] "TOO MUCH TO KNOW"
[=]
[c] "NO MIND THAT KNOWS ALL"
[=]
[d] "NO GOD AT ALL"

AllarGoners:

GOD?

How can there possibly be a God when, EVERY SINGLE SECOND, a seemingly infinite number of new things to know is added to an already
overwhelming number of things to know, when what there is to know about all objects and events throughout a vast and ever-changing
universe has been increasing immeasurably with every passing moment FOR OVER THIRTEEN BILLION YEARS?

In other words, is there not, in effect, an infinite number of things for an Omniscient Being to know? [a] And when there is so very much
to know [b], HOW COULD THERE EVER EXIST AN ENTITY THAT IS OMNISCIENT?

For in order to be truly omniscient, an Altogether Transcendent Percipient would continually have to be either keenly or easily cognizant
of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that an All-knowing And All-powerful And Omnipresent Creator-God could rightly be
expected to know.

If, out of a virtually infinite number of things that an Eternal And All-seeing God should know, there were to be but one fact not
known, then the Imperfect And Rather Pathetic Divinity in question would not be omniscient.

Of course, if any Self-existent And Sovereign Deity were to be less than omniscient in any way whatsoever--that is to say, NOT
OMNISCIENT--then that Deity's surprising and even shocking lack of universal knowledge would surely amount to much more
than a failure to be fully aware of one fact and one fact only.

Far from not knowing just one fact, an Unrivaled And Lofty Godhead not possessing all knowledge to perfection would most certainly be
ignorant about a great many matters.

And if a Remarkably Immaterial And Everlasting God were to be ignorant beyond measure, beyond belief, about a great many
somethings--PRACTICALLY AN INFINITE NUMBER--then that Most High God could be kept busy answering "I DON'T KNOW" to
one question after another for well-nigh an eternity.

Considering, therefore, not just THE SHEER VOLUME OF ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW AND TO REMEMBER about every particle and planet
and about every creature and occurence in an enormous macrocosm but also the fact that ANY GOD ACTUALLY EXISTING WOULD
VERY LIKELY BE VERY MUCH IN THE DARK ABOUT NEARLY EVERYTHING, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, how can any realistic and
rigorously honest individual seriously believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, an EXCEEDINGLY UNINFORMED Supreme
Being, and how could any Supreme Being that is so OUTRAGEOUSLY UNKNOWING ever be acceptable or of interest as an object
of worship to anyone at all but especially to devout and deeply reverent monotheists?

Given, then, the towering improbability--nay, THE UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY--of there somewhere being in existence an Immortal And
Phenomenal Mind not only capable of knowing everything but also opting to do so, surely NO SUCH HIGHER INTELLIGENCE (God)
EXISTS ANYWHERE AT ALL [c] except, of course, as multifarious figments, as murky and ill-defined mental fabrications, each one
dimly embedded in gray matter encased within the skull of a very zealous or merely sincere or scarcely lukewarm person of faith, a
religious believer with a somewhat overactive imagination and consequently, a wholly unfounded but firm belief that among a
profusion of adolescent fairy tales forever being told about this and that personal, popular, or sectarian notion of a Stupendous And
Ubiquitous Supreme Soul of some sort are sundry tales and assertions about one supposed Deity in particular that are correct, that are
largely true and not at all as far removed from reality as is the hugely fictitious story about Goldilocks and the three bears or as is
Homer's stirring account of Ulysses' epic journey home to Ithaca from Troy or as are the many wildly inaccurate and often contemptible
tweets and utterances of a certain American President.

[a]

Some questions for a PANSOPHICAL DIVINE BEING:

Today is Monday, December 21, 2020.

Yesterday, HOW MANY PEOPLE added salt to cooked eggs on a plate?

And HOW MANY GRAINS OF SALT were added to eggs on a plate yesterday?

And of that total number of grains of salt, HOW MANY WERE ACTUALLY CONSUMED, AND HOW MANY ENDED UP BEING WASHED
DOWN A DRAIN OR OTHERWISE DISCARDED?

And WHAT WAS THE COMBINED WEIGHT of the grains of salt added to plates of eggs yesterday?

And THE SURFACE AREA OF THE VERY LARGEST GRAIN(S) OF SALT WAS IDENTICAL TO THE SURFACE AREA OF HOW MANY
INDIVIDUAL PARTICLES OF SAND ON MARS, a distant world which is, in all likelihood, only one of innumerable planets on which
there is sand in this boundless universe?

(By the way, WHERE EXACTLY ON THE SURFACE OF WINDSWEPT MARS IS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE SAME PARTICLES OF
SAND RIGHT THIS MINUTE?)

But ENOUGH ABOUT YESTERDAY.

WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE GRAINS OF SALT ADDED TO PLATES OF COOKED EGGS ON THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY AND ON EACH OF
THE OTHER FULL DAYS DURING THE LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS?

[b]

For example, take this windblown and wildly bobbing maple leaf here. How far was the tip of this leaf from the tip of every other
leaf on earth five seconds ago? And fifty-five seconds ago?

Also, how far, just now, is the tip of your nose from where the tip of Albert Einstein's nose was exactly seventy years ago this very second
and from where the tip of Genghis Khan's nose was exactly eight hundred years ago? (Moreover, what was Genghis Khan's oldest
living grandchild either thinking or dreaming exactly eight hundred years ago this very second?)

[c]

IN A NUTSHELL:

TOO MUCH TO KNOW = NO MIND THAT KNOWS ALL = NO GOD

(definitely not One that knows everything, which, however, still leaves open an infinitesimally tiny possibility that a God does exist, that
the whole of a truly awe-inspiring creation is sustained by an equally awe-inspiring but very much mentally challenged Creator, One
that does not even begin to know absolutely everything and could therefore, be stumped by question after question for ages on end)

BRAIN TEASER:

TOO MUCH TO KNOW = Any God* that exists could not possibly know EVERYTHING but, being God,* could not possibly know LESS THAN
EVERYTHING.

*as commonly conceived

Nope. 
Too bad for you. 
You must first establish that the subject of your rant must (and does) follow your logic, (which you have not named). 
Fail. 
Don't feel bad. 
Typical amateur effort.
We've seen very similar stuff, multiple times.

[jerry mcmasters]

Mr Godgenecarrier's opening post is so confusing we would need to take a poll just to figure out if he's on our side or not.

[abaris]

Mr Godgenecarrier's opening post is so confusing we would need to take a poll just to figure out if he's on our side or not.

I'm not really that interested. I've made it my policy not to read pages of copy pasta drivel. Hereon it's even in smallprint, which is an absolute no go for me.

[skyking]

yes, 'tis rude to not convert thine holy rants to the same font. Some would say "Poor Form"