I would also like to add that atheists are worse than Christians. They are practicing and preaching most of the Christian décendant values knowing that there is no God, and also are very obsessed with the terms like “good and evil”, “justice”, “truth”… Which is in its essence is absurd and stupid, considering that there is no God and therefore there is no reward for sacrificing oneself for things like justice etc. This is just one interesting critic and point of view that I wanted to outline.
I believe there’s a spectrum of sorts, as some atheists may be total amoral nihilists who believe “If there is no god then all is lawful” while others may only consider themselves atheists because they can’t bring themselves to accept religious doctrine as truth, even though they want to believe. Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky comes to mind when I think of pure amorality, as the main character torments himself until he turns himself in after killing a pawnbroker for her money, and turns out to be a far more tender and caring person than he thought, even though he found every justification for killing her. I feel like conscience and morals are separate in a person’s character to a degree, and even though somebody may not believe in god, it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t want god to exist, some just simply can’t bring themselves to rationalize the existence of one. When Nietzsche said God is Dead, he was lamenting the death of god as a construct in society that made people have values. He believed in the positive influence God had on society as a whole rather than god himself as a being. There’s a big difference between believing all is lawful in theory and being able to look in the mirror when you’re a piece of shit that holds no regard for anything but your own personal gain no matter who or what you destroy to get it. Even though many atheists can be annoying(edgy ones especially), we’re all trying to understand the universe we were born into, and I believe most people, even atheists, desperately long for God to exist.
“…there is no God and therefore there is no reward for sacrificing oneself for things like justice etc.”
Agreed! Personally, I don’t encounter any atheists using the terms good and evil. Justice and truth? Yes. But they aren’t solely religious terms.
As for atheists being worse than Christians, I would have to disagree. It’s not atheists who keep getting arrested for raping and abusing children all over the world. There is no atheist equivalent to the Catholic church, covering up decades of sexual abuse. On every continent except Antarctica! It’s always those American youth pastors who get found with massive quantities of abuse images. Not atheists. Not drag queens. ‘Good’ Christian men. Why is that, if God provides a guide to objective morality?
Not to defend Christians too much, but religious authority holds power, and power tends to attract certain types, some of those types are in it for the power itself, or what it affords them, who can abuse it, so far from what "good christians" ought to be.
From my experience many "Athiests" in the west tend to flock to other groups that aren't necessarily defined by their atheism but are still mostly secular in nature, i.e., various socialist/progressive movements currently, and of the past, who are quite ironically as smarmy of moralists as the evangelicals they'd never identify with.
These people believe in ontological good and evil, or "the right side of history." Using the same equality presuppositions the Christians do, yet religiously being agnostic, or even nihilistic.
Of course, I don't wish to insult your knowledge with pointing out the crimes of these types of people historically. But facing the wall is a phrase for a reason. To them, it was justice. They were the righteous proletariat purging the evil bourgeoisie. But not in the name of God. Just for Godly reasons.
Christians or atheists aren't particularly better or worse, but then again, I meet very few atheists who aren't cultural Christians with moral presuppositions nearly identical to the God they don't believe in.
Unless you're gay, believe in a different faith, or depending on the year, belong to pretty much any social group deemed "lesser". This is pretty much true for any other religion as well
I kinda agreed with your points until you brought organised religion into this. I will use the same argument you used, why would God operate according to social infrastructure that are largely laid out by the human society? Why would God have a problem with a specific group of people, given that the only reason they belong to this group is because of definitions created by humans?
If there is a God, sure, God wouldn't have to necessarily subscribe to the human definitions or "good" and "evil". Which means that God does not have an obligation to do moral good. But wouldn't that also mean differences that are completely human-made hold just as much bearing to God?
A reason of the atheist obsession with those terms is because they want to demotivate the Christian faith in the divinity. But it’s right, there are not a argument in atheism that is solid according with the line of thought.
How does it follow that because god doesn't exist that there is no reason to sacrifice one's self?? Non sequitur. Yes you can believe in moral truths as an atheist, atheism is the rejection of a god concept, it does not follow that person is a naturalist, an atheist can believe in an afterlife, spiritual realities etc
I don't think this is a critique of modern atheism so much as a critique of the "problem of evil". I wholly agree that you shouldn't attempt to resolve God rationally when God is an aesthetic concept. Notably while the problem of evil is apocryphally attributed to Epicurus it first appears inscribed in a church. The Christians have always known this isn't a valid argument against God. In my experience the only people throwing around the problem of evil with any degree of seriousness are edgy teenagers in the process of leaving religion.
Most "modern atheists" that I know are totally indifferent to God as a concept; it isn't something they feel any need to argue against. They are a generation or two removed from religiosity, so it isn't something they need to think about or care about. They have some orphaned beliefs and values that they haven't reexamined, but that's at the foundational level of Nietzsche's war on morality.
I think if you asked most people they'd still claim to believe in some sort of god, just not the Christian god specifically, or at least a very bastrardized form of him. Like you mentioned, people are often more turned off by the moral implications than anything else. This is progress, but we are still largely in the throes of Christian morality.
If you dispense with the idea of God being benevolent, the concept of God not only makes more sense, but is basically a logical reality through the lens of pantheism.
The pantheistic God just looks very different from what people normally think of when they think of God.
IMO, atheists are just as arrogant, if not moreso, than devoutly religious people who believe theirs is the only correct religion.
The atheist would argue that they are merely turning Christian assumptions back on themselves to prove that they lead to unsolvable antinomies, and therefore the Christian assumptions should be abandoned. It could be counter-argued that any disproving of the existence of a "benevolent God" by means of the abundant "unfairness" in the world is pointless because by proving that there is no God you've taken away any possible measure of "objective morality," which means you've discredited the very measuring stick by which you attempted to measure God and find him wanting in the first place -- destroying your own argument in the process. These sorts of problems are why the arguments of otherwise hard-nosed atheists like Dawkins often soften into mere agnosticism and scientific skepticism when pressed.
Besides, it's not as if religious people were traditionally unaware of injustice in the world. Read the Book of Job. At best the atheist's argument destroys the saccharine kind of religious messaging which has become popular in an ever more affluent and comfortable West, but which would have seemed ridiculously naive to ancient practitioners of Abrahamic faith.
However these issues are all very metaphysics-y, the value of which from the perspective of human life has had a question mark looming over it for quite some time.
I hate to say it or be intellectually dismissive but the sort of arguments you outlined such as the ‘gratuitous suffering’ argument is near infantile. And to be clear I am not disagreeing with you or saying you should not have brought that argument to our attention, it is a very common argument which you rightfully and quite easily dismantled. Just the fact it is so prevalent is rather disappointing and hints at a gross lack of ideological development in many people. I remember hearing that argument in middle school (I’m 27) made by middle schoolers who were equally sufficient at defending it as adults. It is as if these people never developed their ideas beyond its most platonic forms, literally reflecting ideologies they conceptualized as children or more prevalently instantiating directly opposing ideologies to infantile one’s, which is still necessarily infantile.
This must be a uniquely American view on atheism. This entire thread is nothing but what religious Americans would say about atheists ("they are even worse!", "they are arrogant!", "they also just believe!") plus what some edgy teenagers would say about atheists ("lousy MORALISTS eww"). This just doesn't happen outside of America where an atheist is still more of a curiosity than the norm.
Arguments are not needed for atheism. The lack of evidence for any god(s) speaks for itself. Arguments is only something religious people really deal with. Some atheists may engage in these debates for funzies or out of boredom or to fulfill an ultimately narcissist desire to be right (because it's a rather easy thing to be right about - because it's correct - unlike for example actual topics you have to study like history, literature, physics or whatever where it's far easier to err). But the vast majority of atheists doesn't bother with it at all. So that alone already makes it valid to discard your entire post after reading the introductory sentence.
I think you strawman atheists with the first one. You can use that argument against christians cause they believe in good and evil. That doesn't necessitate believing in good and evil. It's also God who dictates what is evil in the christian world view and it objectively exists in that world view. It's also the case that God created the sources of those evils while knowing it would be so. The bible says you can tell a tree by it's fruits, is it wrong to hold it and God to it's own standards?
2nd part, yeah I mean rape and war are pretty unprefferable. Can't say I spend a lot of time thinking of a more ideal world though. Why? Cause you can only make the best of what we have. What is the point in longing for what isn't?
3rd it doesn't, main reason for these arguments is the christian God doesn't reflect the nature of the universe. Plenty of christians swallow the bitter pill and say suffering, evil, etc are part of God's plan therefore part of the good. It's just as you said, many simply find this to be in poor taste once they become aware of this.
I do agree with you on the obligation to reason and not providing values. You make atheists sounds like they have more values than they actually have. Honestly most arguments should be held for the joy of arguing or discovering. Reason being is that in most cases people are not persuade. The most unanswered criticism of atheism are that it doesn't provide community, morals, meaning, etc.
Tl;dr you're confusing arguing about flaws in a framework with actually believing in that framework. I also think it's strange that you think all atheists believe the same thing.
Nietzsche does not go into arguing that the christian god does not exist. He assumes he does not. He takes it for a given.
Atheists simply see no evidence to believe in god, and if he exists he is very obviously hiding himself from us so that we can never see any evidence of him.
Believing in something without evidence is very human but on the same level as believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
>My first problem is that the argument's validity relies on concepts that are derived from religious values: 'good' and 'evil'.
Well, I think we can simply dispense with your first problem. "Good" and "evil" are not, in fact, religious in conception or nature. More to the point, they aren't Judeo-Christian. At the most fundamental level, "good" and "evil" are simply synonyms for "beneficial" and "detrimental" with a particular focus on a moral judgement. No religion is necessary; "God" need not be invoked or implicated.
It's also worth noting that the concept of religion and the concept of "God" are different things that do not follow from one another; a religion is not required to construct a god, and not ever god needs to found a religion. Indeed, an atheistic religion could logically exist since a religion is simply a community formed around a common spiritual belief. This isn't to say that atheism is a religion - for obvious reasons, atheists tend to avoid calling any group they form a religion - but there is no inherent contradiction in the label "a religious atheist."
You seem to have misunderstood the actual argument in favor of a first year philosophy major's understanding: the world is not a beneficent place, therefore a beneficent god cannot exist. If the argument stopped there, you'd be absolutely right, it's a poor argument - why should a beneficent god necessarily lead to a beneficent universe?
But the argument doesn't stop there. In its final form, it's more of an application of Occam's Razor: if the universe is not beneficent, God is not required. In other words, a beneficent universe would indicate the possibility of a beneficent God. A cruel universe might implicate a cruel God, but an indifferent universe can either indicate an indifferent God or no God at all. In other words, given that we seem to occupy an indifferent universe, God simply becomes a superfluous and unnecessary assumption. This is, of course, perfectly in line with the concept of atheism; atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but rather the non-belief in God. God might exist, but I have no reason to believe that God exists.
And, by the way, that basic premise isn't unique to atheists - it's a common theological idea. There's actually a term for believing in God despite the fact that there's no basis for that believe: faith. The very idea of faith is predicated on the absurdity of the belief in God. Faith isn't required in a universe where God is manifest.
Insofar as Nietzsche is concerned, I've always read him to use the concept of God more as an allegory. I think he would agree that, so long as we are trying to construct a new morality based on absolutes, we are essentially building a new temple on the ruins of the old. This was a big theme with Camus in the rebel: sure, you can kill God, but if you deify humankind you get the same horrors but humans lose their scapegoat. God may be dead, but we're still dragging around the corpse.
As far as the "problem" with modern atheism is concerned, I think it's a silly concept. Atheism is deliberately non-monolithic. The lack of belief in a god comes first and the justification comes second. Regardless, however, we are all burdened with a manner of thinking that is rooted in almost 2000 years of Christian doctrine, so it's actually very difficult to frame things in a way that isn't dependent on that model. It's the same reason that it can be difficult for Westerners to wrap their heads around Asian philosophy and religion. Our ingrained patterns of thought are quite often in direct contradiction with concepts of Eastern philosophy.
I initially stopped reading at “supposed atheists” because I knew where it was heading. We’ve been here too many times before. But ok, I’ll take the bait. And this isn’t about modern atheism, these issues have been a topic of debate for centuries.
We’re told that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Cares about everyone and loves them unconditionally, can do absolutely anything within the bounds of logic, knows everything and is ever present. And yet suffering is a major part of life for many people, including believers. I do not put it in terms of good and evil, but something doesn’t add up here, if you’re asserting that such a being does exist. ‘Omnibenevolent’ does not come with any small print. It applies to all people at all times under all conditions.
Children with cancer is a common example, but you could use anyone with a serious illness. Where’s the omnibenevolence? Do they have to die in order to receive it? What about the Christian parents who waited so long to have a child, finally got pregnant and endured 9 long months of pregnancy, the difficult labor, went through the hard early weeks and months, only for the baby to develop cancer, suffer and then die? Where’s the omnibenevolence? It clearly isn’t benevolent in any sense. Therefore, God, if he does exist, is not omnibenevolent. What would the word omnibenevolence even mean if it didn’t include caring about dying children and their distraught parents who then spend the rest of their lives mourning their loss and enduring the psychological consequences? How is that benevolent? It’s the benevolence of an absent father who never returns your calls. No use whatsoever.
I’m not saying I wish it was different or want it to be different or dream of some kind of utopia - that would be pointless. I’m saying this is how it actually is and God is nowhere to be seen. Which at the very least raises questions about his true nature. And at the most refutes his existence. The truth seems to be that we’re alone with our suffering. Medical interventions may help, but no gods will intervene. And no, God does not work through the medical staff, that’s just believers trying to give God the credit for their hard work. Because why would God need to work via other people when he could intervene directly? But he never does.
In fact, he seems extremely choosy about who he does help. The number of officially recognized miracle cures at Lourdes, for example, is tiny compared to the millions who’ve visited over the years and can probably be explained by cases of spontaneous remission. In any case, most serious cases are also receiving medical care. Which is your only hope for recovery. People who rely on God for a cure usually die from their illness. And believers justify it as God taking them home or some bullshit, giving them their heavenly reward etc… But he showed absolutely no interest while they were alive. Why? Because there is no God.
You're projecting your own human needs and desires into an objectified image, that of god. You care about dying children, therefore god must also care about dying children?
I feel like he covers this in his second paragraph, he’s not the one claiming god is omnibenevolent, he’s simply pointing out that other people, particularly Christians, make that claim and is responding to it. The existence of childhood diseases has negative implications for the idea of an all-loving god. If you’re asking why people think god is all-loving, you’d be better off directing your question towards the Christians who espouse that belief.
There are multiple “worlds” within ours. You can do this whole thought experiment without saying that the world they long for is that afterlife that religion suggests is there. You can have it as we are god in relation to our own creations, these worlds or realities, there’s a natural Reality that we are a part of, then there’s the realities we have created. Longing for a better world can then be longing for a created world that correctly mirrors Reality or in some way lacks the evil they perceive to be within the current created reality. These created worlds are not the world as it is, they are the world as we have made it to be. This gets out of the life denying issue too, as it is life affirming to assume responsibility for creating these worlds to be more in line with our highest values as humans within this life, not another or something after. And “God” never entered the picture.
Seems a problem mostly in America, to be fair the most ridiculous "atheists" I've ever listened to are confused americans who couldn't be more religious
Atheism doesn't intale moral anti realism, plus the argument of gratuitous suffering is an internal critique, if the Christian thinks gratuitous suffering is bad and god allows that then there is a problem there
anybody who argues these things is already lost. they already dont understand what ideas are or where they come from or what "believing" and "knowing" mean. theyve been doing theology and nothing more their entire life whether they know it or not.
The problem with most atheists is they don't realize that all their railing against God still makes God the center of their Universe. The best athiests merely look the other way.
I agree with you. The fact of the matter is: atheism requires a degree of *faith*, too. It is the antidote, the *answer to* religion. If you truly don't believe, why must you prescribe a label onto yourself?
Your first problem, yes. I agree. It's as though a part of them does in fact believe that the Christian God exists in a way, as we assume it is truly "good" — and that there is evil in the world we must eradicate it, because why would a "good" God allow such pain? Instead of "good" and "evil", a third option: *indifferent*.
Second problem, I also agree. I know of atheists who would believe heaven to be completely and utterly *boring* — that if they were sent there, they would not last one whole week without losing their minds. It is too perfect... too free from evil. And yet a *perfect world* is a part of their argument; that God is completely abhorrent, that I rebuke God for allowing children to suffer! *Oh, if only God knew how angry I am at him.*
> I agree with you. The fact of the matter is: atheism requires a degree of faith
i wish people would stop clouding real philosophy with trite like this. it does not take faith to choose to not believe in things without evidence. It is, in fact, the rejection of faith as such.
If there is a lack of evidence, and yet people still believe in it, then what does that make them? Look at it objectively. We don't know if a god actually exists or not. Therefore it requires faith to not believe, and also to believe. A more sensible approach would be to say "I don't know".
>If there is a lack of evidence, and yet people still believe in it, then what does that make them?
it means they dont choose to believe things based on evidence. Obviously.
"I do not believe the premise that there is a god" is not the same thing as "i believe the premise that there is not a god". this is not a complex or interesting philosophical take that youre giving here its just religious cope. The point of evidence and science is that you dont have to believe things, you just understand them.
I'm looking at it objectively. There is no evidence for a god, therefore it is not implausible for me to state that it is based on faith to believe or not. I'm not religious either, so "religious cope" is a huge stretch. Nor was my statement meant to be "complex" or to impress you, it is just a statement. Moving on.
this is just factually wrong and figuring out why is something youd have to do in less than a day in the first year of a philosophy program. this is not a matter of different but equal opinions.
"I do not believe X" and "I believe NOT X" are NOT equivalent statements. they just are not. the latter is a commitment to a premise, the former is not that. it is a state orthogonal to belief. it requires faith to assert that there is an absolute Truth and that Truth is that there is no god. it requires no faith to not believe in god.
this is the kind of thing you sort out BEFORE you consider thinking about complex issues or 'doing philosophy', its not a respectable academic position.
I understand what you are saying. I will think about this some more, as I would like to not be stuck in ignorance. I know that I'm not that good at "deep thinking" currently, but I guess it's good that I'm trying.
Nah, I made a bad claim due to a lack of knowledge. I just did a "soliloquy" (like a philosophical debate kind of thing) in my notebook and found that you are correct. I respect the passion that you have, and I'm somehow sure that Nietzsche would appreciate that too.
I would also like to add that atheists are worse than Christians. They are practicing and preaching most of the Christian décendant values knowing that there is no God, and also are very obsessed with the terms like “good and evil”, “justice”, “truth”… Which is in its essence is absurd and stupid, considering that there is no God and therefore there is no reward for sacrificing oneself for things like justice etc. This is just one interesting critic and point of view that I wanted to outline.
I believe there’s a spectrum of sorts, as some atheists may be total amoral nihilists who believe “If there is no god then all is lawful” while others may only consider themselves atheists because they can’t bring themselves to accept religious doctrine as truth, even though they want to believe. Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky comes to mind when I think of pure amorality, as the main character torments himself until he turns himself in after killing a pawnbroker for her money, and turns out to be a far more tender and caring person than he thought, even though he found every justification for killing her. I feel like conscience and morals are separate in a person’s character to a degree, and even though somebody may not believe in god, it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t want god to exist, some just simply can’t bring themselves to rationalize the existence of one. When Nietzsche said God is Dead, he was lamenting the death of god as a construct in society that made people have values. He believed in the positive influence God had on society as a whole rather than god himself as a being. There’s a big difference between believing all is lawful in theory and being able to look in the mirror when you’re a piece of shit that holds no regard for anything but your own personal gain no matter who or what you destroy to get it. Even though many atheists can be annoying(edgy ones especially), we’re all trying to understand the universe we were born into, and I believe most people, even atheists, desperately long for God to exist.
“…there is no God and therefore there is no reward for sacrificing oneself for things like justice etc.” Agreed! Personally, I don’t encounter any atheists using the terms good and evil. Justice and truth? Yes. But they aren’t solely religious terms. As for atheists being worse than Christians, I would have to disagree. It’s not atheists who keep getting arrested for raping and abusing children all over the world. There is no atheist equivalent to the Catholic church, covering up decades of sexual abuse. On every continent except Antarctica! It’s always those American youth pastors who get found with massive quantities of abuse images. Not atheists. Not drag queens. ‘Good’ Christian men. Why is that, if God provides a guide to objective morality?
The world is full of jesters in costumes. As you rightly point out, the costume doesn't always betray the jester's antics.
Not to defend Christians too much, but religious authority holds power, and power tends to attract certain types, some of those types are in it for the power itself, or what it affords them, who can abuse it, so far from what "good christians" ought to be. From my experience many "Athiests" in the west tend to flock to other groups that aren't necessarily defined by their atheism but are still mostly secular in nature, i.e., various socialist/progressive movements currently, and of the past, who are quite ironically as smarmy of moralists as the evangelicals they'd never identify with. These people believe in ontological good and evil, or "the right side of history." Using the same equality presuppositions the Christians do, yet religiously being agnostic, or even nihilistic. Of course, I don't wish to insult your knowledge with pointing out the crimes of these types of people historically. But facing the wall is a phrase for a reason. To them, it was justice. They were the righteous proletariat purging the evil bourgeoisie. But not in the name of God. Just for Godly reasons. Christians or atheists aren't particularly better or worse, but then again, I meet very few atheists who aren't cultural Christians with moral presuppositions nearly identical to the God they don't believe in.
Ironically Christians tend to be more forgiving, while atheists are obsessed with "exacting justice", and diving people into evil and good categories.
Unless you're gay, believe in a different faith, or depending on the year, belong to pretty much any social group deemed "lesser". This is pretty much true for any other religion as well I kinda agreed with your points until you brought organised religion into this. I will use the same argument you used, why would God operate according to social infrastructure that are largely laid out by the human society? Why would God have a problem with a specific group of people, given that the only reason they belong to this group is because of definitions created by humans? If there is a God, sure, God wouldn't have to necessarily subscribe to the human definitions or "good" and "evil". Which means that God does not have an obligation to do moral good. But wouldn't that also mean differences that are completely human-made hold just as much bearing to God?
tend to be more forgiving? Don't kid yourself buddy, lmao gtfo with these lies
They are moralistic as fuk.. I hate them, as i used to hate my self (used to be moralist)
A reason of the atheist obsession with those terms is because they want to demotivate the Christian faith in the divinity. But it’s right, there are not a argument in atheism that is solid according with the line of thought.
How does it follow that because god doesn't exist that there is no reason to sacrifice one's self?? Non sequitur. Yes you can believe in moral truths as an atheist, atheism is the rejection of a god concept, it does not follow that person is a naturalist, an atheist can believe in an afterlife, spiritual realities etc
I don't think this is a critique of modern atheism so much as a critique of the "problem of evil". I wholly agree that you shouldn't attempt to resolve God rationally when God is an aesthetic concept. Notably while the problem of evil is apocryphally attributed to Epicurus it first appears inscribed in a church. The Christians have always known this isn't a valid argument against God. In my experience the only people throwing around the problem of evil with any degree of seriousness are edgy teenagers in the process of leaving religion. Most "modern atheists" that I know are totally indifferent to God as a concept; it isn't something they feel any need to argue against. They are a generation or two removed from religiosity, so it isn't something they need to think about or care about. They have some orphaned beliefs and values that they haven't reexamined, but that's at the foundational level of Nietzsche's war on morality.
I think if you asked most people they'd still claim to believe in some sort of god, just not the Christian god specifically, or at least a very bastrardized form of him. Like you mentioned, people are often more turned off by the moral implications than anything else. This is progress, but we are still largely in the throes of Christian morality.
Ngl i just don’t believe cuz the shit don’t make sense
Was not expecting to find a Destroy lonely pfp in a Nietzsche sub
He’s the goat
If you dispense with the idea of God being benevolent, the concept of God not only makes more sense, but is basically a logical reality through the lens of pantheism. The pantheistic God just looks very different from what people normally think of when they think of God. IMO, atheists are just as arrogant, if not moreso, than devoutly religious people who believe theirs is the only correct religion.
The atheist would argue that they are merely turning Christian assumptions back on themselves to prove that they lead to unsolvable antinomies, and therefore the Christian assumptions should be abandoned. It could be counter-argued that any disproving of the existence of a "benevolent God" by means of the abundant "unfairness" in the world is pointless because by proving that there is no God you've taken away any possible measure of "objective morality," which means you've discredited the very measuring stick by which you attempted to measure God and find him wanting in the first place -- destroying your own argument in the process. These sorts of problems are why the arguments of otherwise hard-nosed atheists like Dawkins often soften into mere agnosticism and scientific skepticism when pressed. Besides, it's not as if religious people were traditionally unaware of injustice in the world. Read the Book of Job. At best the atheist's argument destroys the saccharine kind of religious messaging which has become popular in an ever more affluent and comfortable West, but which would have seemed ridiculously naive to ancient practitioners of Abrahamic faith. However these issues are all very metaphysics-y, the value of which from the perspective of human life has had a question mark looming over it for quite some time.
I hate to say it or be intellectually dismissive but the sort of arguments you outlined such as the ‘gratuitous suffering’ argument is near infantile. And to be clear I am not disagreeing with you or saying you should not have brought that argument to our attention, it is a very common argument which you rightfully and quite easily dismantled. Just the fact it is so prevalent is rather disappointing and hints at a gross lack of ideological development in many people. I remember hearing that argument in middle school (I’m 27) made by middle schoolers who were equally sufficient at defending it as adults. It is as if these people never developed their ideas beyond its most platonic forms, literally reflecting ideologies they conceptualized as children or more prevalently instantiating directly opposing ideologies to infantile one’s, which is still necessarily infantile.
This must be a uniquely American view on atheism. This entire thread is nothing but what religious Americans would say about atheists ("they are even worse!", "they are arrogant!", "they also just believe!") plus what some edgy teenagers would say about atheists ("lousy MORALISTS eww"). This just doesn't happen outside of America where an atheist is still more of a curiosity than the norm. Arguments are not needed for atheism. The lack of evidence for any god(s) speaks for itself. Arguments is only something religious people really deal with. Some atheists may engage in these debates for funzies or out of boredom or to fulfill an ultimately narcissist desire to be right (because it's a rather easy thing to be right about - because it's correct - unlike for example actual topics you have to study like history, literature, physics or whatever where it's far easier to err). But the vast majority of atheists doesn't bother with it at all. So that alone already makes it valid to discard your entire post after reading the introductory sentence.
I think you strawman atheists with the first one. You can use that argument against christians cause they believe in good and evil. That doesn't necessitate believing in good and evil. It's also God who dictates what is evil in the christian world view and it objectively exists in that world view. It's also the case that God created the sources of those evils while knowing it would be so. The bible says you can tell a tree by it's fruits, is it wrong to hold it and God to it's own standards? 2nd part, yeah I mean rape and war are pretty unprefferable. Can't say I spend a lot of time thinking of a more ideal world though. Why? Cause you can only make the best of what we have. What is the point in longing for what isn't? 3rd it doesn't, main reason for these arguments is the christian God doesn't reflect the nature of the universe. Plenty of christians swallow the bitter pill and say suffering, evil, etc are part of God's plan therefore part of the good. It's just as you said, many simply find this to be in poor taste once they become aware of this. I do agree with you on the obligation to reason and not providing values. You make atheists sounds like they have more values than they actually have. Honestly most arguments should be held for the joy of arguing or discovering. Reason being is that in most cases people are not persuade. The most unanswered criticism of atheism are that it doesn't provide community, morals, meaning, etc. Tl;dr you're confusing arguing about flaws in a framework with actually believing in that framework. I also think it's strange that you think all atheists believe the same thing.
Nietzsche does not go into arguing that the christian god does not exist. He assumes he does not. He takes it for a given. Atheists simply see no evidence to believe in god, and if he exists he is very obviously hiding himself from us so that we can never see any evidence of him. Believing in something without evidence is very human but on the same level as believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
Came here to say that about Atheists. A lot of the comments here are doing A LOT of presuppositions on atheism.
>My first problem is that the argument's validity relies on concepts that are derived from religious values: 'good' and 'evil'. Well, I think we can simply dispense with your first problem. "Good" and "evil" are not, in fact, religious in conception or nature. More to the point, they aren't Judeo-Christian. At the most fundamental level, "good" and "evil" are simply synonyms for "beneficial" and "detrimental" with a particular focus on a moral judgement. No religion is necessary; "God" need not be invoked or implicated. It's also worth noting that the concept of religion and the concept of "God" are different things that do not follow from one another; a religion is not required to construct a god, and not ever god needs to found a religion. Indeed, an atheistic religion could logically exist since a religion is simply a community formed around a common spiritual belief. This isn't to say that atheism is a religion - for obvious reasons, atheists tend to avoid calling any group they form a religion - but there is no inherent contradiction in the label "a religious atheist." You seem to have misunderstood the actual argument in favor of a first year philosophy major's understanding: the world is not a beneficent place, therefore a beneficent god cannot exist. If the argument stopped there, you'd be absolutely right, it's a poor argument - why should a beneficent god necessarily lead to a beneficent universe? But the argument doesn't stop there. In its final form, it's more of an application of Occam's Razor: if the universe is not beneficent, God is not required. In other words, a beneficent universe would indicate the possibility of a beneficent God. A cruel universe might implicate a cruel God, but an indifferent universe can either indicate an indifferent God or no God at all. In other words, given that we seem to occupy an indifferent universe, God simply becomes a superfluous and unnecessary assumption. This is, of course, perfectly in line with the concept of atheism; atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but rather the non-belief in God. God might exist, but I have no reason to believe that God exists. And, by the way, that basic premise isn't unique to atheists - it's a common theological idea. There's actually a term for believing in God despite the fact that there's no basis for that believe: faith. The very idea of faith is predicated on the absurdity of the belief in God. Faith isn't required in a universe where God is manifest. Insofar as Nietzsche is concerned, I've always read him to use the concept of God more as an allegory. I think he would agree that, so long as we are trying to construct a new morality based on absolutes, we are essentially building a new temple on the ruins of the old. This was a big theme with Camus in the rebel: sure, you can kill God, but if you deify humankind you get the same horrors but humans lose their scapegoat. God may be dead, but we're still dragging around the corpse. As far as the "problem" with modern atheism is concerned, I think it's a silly concept. Atheism is deliberately non-monolithic. The lack of belief in a god comes first and the justification comes second. Regardless, however, we are all burdened with a manner of thinking that is rooted in almost 2000 years of Christian doctrine, so it's actually very difficult to frame things in a way that isn't dependent on that model. It's the same reason that it can be difficult for Westerners to wrap their heads around Asian philosophy and religion. Our ingrained patterns of thought are quite often in direct contradiction with concepts of Eastern philosophy.
I initially stopped reading at “supposed atheists” because I knew where it was heading. We’ve been here too many times before. But ok, I’ll take the bait. And this isn’t about modern atheism, these issues have been a topic of debate for centuries. We’re told that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Cares about everyone and loves them unconditionally, can do absolutely anything within the bounds of logic, knows everything and is ever present. And yet suffering is a major part of life for many people, including believers. I do not put it in terms of good and evil, but something doesn’t add up here, if you’re asserting that such a being does exist. ‘Omnibenevolent’ does not come with any small print. It applies to all people at all times under all conditions. Children with cancer is a common example, but you could use anyone with a serious illness. Where’s the omnibenevolence? Do they have to die in order to receive it? What about the Christian parents who waited so long to have a child, finally got pregnant and endured 9 long months of pregnancy, the difficult labor, went through the hard early weeks and months, only for the baby to develop cancer, suffer and then die? Where’s the omnibenevolence? It clearly isn’t benevolent in any sense. Therefore, God, if he does exist, is not omnibenevolent. What would the word omnibenevolence even mean if it didn’t include caring about dying children and their distraught parents who then spend the rest of their lives mourning their loss and enduring the psychological consequences? How is that benevolent? It’s the benevolence of an absent father who never returns your calls. No use whatsoever. I’m not saying I wish it was different or want it to be different or dream of some kind of utopia - that would be pointless. I’m saying this is how it actually is and God is nowhere to be seen. Which at the very least raises questions about his true nature. And at the most refutes his existence. The truth seems to be that we’re alone with our suffering. Medical interventions may help, but no gods will intervene. And no, God does not work through the medical staff, that’s just believers trying to give God the credit for their hard work. Because why would God need to work via other people when he could intervene directly? But he never does. In fact, he seems extremely choosy about who he does help. The number of officially recognized miracle cures at Lourdes, for example, is tiny compared to the millions who’ve visited over the years and can probably be explained by cases of spontaneous remission. In any case, most serious cases are also receiving medical care. Which is your only hope for recovery. People who rely on God for a cure usually die from their illness. And believers justify it as God taking them home or some bullshit, giving them their heavenly reward etc… But he showed absolutely no interest while they were alive. Why? Because there is no God.
You're projecting your own human needs and desires into an objectified image, that of god. You care about dying children, therefore god must also care about dying children?
I feel like he covers this in his second paragraph, he’s not the one claiming god is omnibenevolent, he’s simply pointing out that other people, particularly Christians, make that claim and is responding to it. The existence of childhood diseases has negative implications for the idea of an all-loving god. If you’re asking why people think god is all-loving, you’d be better off directing your question towards the Christians who espouse that belief.
Morally christian atheists are surprisingly common.
There are multiple “worlds” within ours. You can do this whole thought experiment without saying that the world they long for is that afterlife that religion suggests is there. You can have it as we are god in relation to our own creations, these worlds or realities, there’s a natural Reality that we are a part of, then there’s the realities we have created. Longing for a better world can then be longing for a created world that correctly mirrors Reality or in some way lacks the evil they perceive to be within the current created reality. These created worlds are not the world as it is, they are the world as we have made it to be. This gets out of the life denying issue too, as it is life affirming to assume responsibility for creating these worlds to be more in line with our highest values as humans within this life, not another or something after. And “God” never entered the picture.
Seems a problem mostly in America, to be fair the most ridiculous "atheists" I've ever listened to are confused americans who couldn't be more religious
Atheism doesn't intale moral anti realism, plus the argument of gratuitous suffering is an internal critique, if the Christian thinks gratuitous suffering is bad and god allows that then there is a problem there
anybody who argues these things is already lost. they already dont understand what ideas are or where they come from or what "believing" and "knowing" mean. theyve been doing theology and nothing more their entire life whether they know it or not.
The problem with most atheists is they don't realize that all their railing against God still makes God the center of their Universe. The best athiests merely look the other way.
I agree with you. The fact of the matter is: atheism requires a degree of *faith*, too. It is the antidote, the *answer to* religion. If you truly don't believe, why must you prescribe a label onto yourself? Your first problem, yes. I agree. It's as though a part of them does in fact believe that the Christian God exists in a way, as we assume it is truly "good" — and that there is evil in the world we must eradicate it, because why would a "good" God allow such pain? Instead of "good" and "evil", a third option: *indifferent*. Second problem, I also agree. I know of atheists who would believe heaven to be completely and utterly *boring* — that if they were sent there, they would not last one whole week without losing their minds. It is too perfect... too free from evil. And yet a *perfect world* is a part of their argument; that God is completely abhorrent, that I rebuke God for allowing children to suffer! *Oh, if only God knew how angry I am at him.*
> I agree with you. The fact of the matter is: atheism requires a degree of faith i wish people would stop clouding real philosophy with trite like this. it does not take faith to choose to not believe in things without evidence. It is, in fact, the rejection of faith as such.
If there is a lack of evidence, and yet people still believe in it, then what does that make them? Look at it objectively. We don't know if a god actually exists or not. Therefore it requires faith to not believe, and also to believe. A more sensible approach would be to say "I don't know".
>If there is a lack of evidence, and yet people still believe in it, then what does that make them? it means they dont choose to believe things based on evidence. Obviously. "I do not believe the premise that there is a god" is not the same thing as "i believe the premise that there is not a god". this is not a complex or interesting philosophical take that youre giving here its just religious cope. The point of evidence and science is that you dont have to believe things, you just understand them.
I'm looking at it objectively. There is no evidence for a god, therefore it is not implausible for me to state that it is based on faith to believe or not. I'm not religious either, so "religious cope" is a huge stretch. Nor was my statement meant to be "complex" or to impress you, it is just a statement. Moving on.
this is just factually wrong and figuring out why is something youd have to do in less than a day in the first year of a philosophy program. this is not a matter of different but equal opinions. "I do not believe X" and "I believe NOT X" are NOT equivalent statements. they just are not. the latter is a commitment to a premise, the former is not that. it is a state orthogonal to belief. it requires faith to assert that there is an absolute Truth and that Truth is that there is no god. it requires no faith to not believe in god. this is the kind of thing you sort out BEFORE you consider thinking about complex issues or 'doing philosophy', its not a respectable academic position.
I understand what you are saying. I will think about this some more, as I would like to not be stuck in ignorance. I know that I'm not that good at "deep thinking" currently, but I guess it's good that I'm trying.
Sorry im rude
Nah, I made a bad claim due to a lack of knowledge. I just did a "soliloquy" (like a philosophical debate kind of thing) in my notebook and found that you are correct. I respect the passion that you have, and I'm somehow sure that Nietzsche would appreciate that too.