this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
160 points (97.1% liked)

Atheism

492 readers
2 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately disingenuous or just trying to do a “well, ackshully,” but that’s not responsive to the presented situation.

He wasn’t arguing that god doesn’t know the pre-embryo or whatever this lady thinks. I’ve talked to catholics who think that there’s a queue of babies in heaven waiting to be born.

What the guy is saying is that god obviously doesn’t care whether they die or not. The god-concept she’s advocating for kills kids left and right, 24/7. The kids in Egypt was good. That’s some Charlton Heston and Yul Brenner shit.

Of course, for sheer bloody-mindedness, you can’t beat the flood, where god killed everyone everywhere all at once. I’m sure he knew all their names. He just decided to smoke the whole planet because he was mildly disappointed in what some people were doing. Then there’s all the bits where infants are dashed to pieces against rocks. And the bit where an embryo is not a person but rather a piece of property of the father, where killing it isn’t murder but just a property crime.

So our assumption must logically be that god wants those poor babies dead. He set everything up for it, and he even kills slightly over half of the babies in the womb himself anyway. All of those non-implanted fertilized eggs? Bam! Dead baby, but I’m sure god knew it’s name.

So OP demonstrated that god’s plan is just to whack the kid. He whacks the kid well over half the time.

Plus god knowing the kid’s name ahead of time kinda fucks with the whole predestination vs free will, I think.

[–] ohwhatfollyisman 3 points 1 year ago

yep, absolutely, and this would have been a valid counterargument from the presenter. to attack the relevance of the 'plan' than the cruelty aspect.

this is exactly what my OC intended.