Question about atheists

darkraven said:.

Look, if someone actually believes in the existence of a (wicked) God, they aren't atheists. Period. Atheism is defined by the lack of belief in any gods—doesn't matter if you think they're benevolent, neutral, or straight-up evil.

Believing in a god is called theism, plain and simple. If we're talking about believing in some kind of malicious deity, that’s just a specific flavor of theism, not atheism.

End of story. Mic drop.

Look, if you say the Wicked Witch in Snow White is bad, it doesn't mean you actually believe she's out there somewhere breathing air.
Just because someone is debating a fictional concept doesn't suddenly make that thing real life.

Even though I'm a believer myself, I'm just talking strictly for the sake of the argument here.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, if you say the Wicked Witch in Snow White is bad, it doesn't mean you actually believe she's out there somewhere breathing air.
Just because someone is debating a fictional concept doesn't suddenly make that thing real life.

Even though I'm a believer myself, I'm just talking strictly for the sake of the argument here.

"Just talking hypothetically"? Give me a break. You're acting like a total amateur who doesn't even know how to hold a debate. What you just typed is basically the same thing Ego said way before you back in post #3 of this thread—and honestly, I was right there agreeing with him in the very next post.

darkraven said:.

Look, if someone actually believes in the existence of a (wicked) God, they aren't atheists. Period. Atheism is defined by the lack of belief in any gods—doesn't matter if you think they're benevolent, neutral, or straight-up evil.

Believing in a god is called theism, plain and simple. If we're talking about believing in some kind of malicious deity, that’s just a specific flavor of theism, not atheism.

End of story. Mic drop.

Not true. 😁

If someone checks the "Catholic" box on a census, then they are Catholic. It doesn't matter if they show up to Mass every Sunday, on Christmas and Easter, or just when they're getting married. It’s the same thing if they actually believe that Jesus is God, conceived by the Blessed Virgin, or if they view those stories as fairy tales. If they've taken the sacraments, even the priests would agree they're Catholic, whether they're a saint or a sinner.

The moment someone publicly identifies as an atheist, they are an atheist—regardless of whether they occasionally let out a "thank God" or a "damn it, Jesus." Essentially, an atheist is an atheist as long as they consider themselves one. The same logic applies to agnostics, pantheists, and all those other modern spiritual labels. You are what you say you are, and everyone else needs to respect that.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Look, people have already answered these questions for those who actually care to ask them. I can pretty much digest all those answers myself.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

It's basically just fantasizing about the traits of some unknown, superior entity, and then rejecting that entity simply because its imagined traits don't fit your little mental model.

Paul Anderson15 said:Not true. 😁

If someone checks the "Catholic" box on a census, then they are Catholic. It doesn't matter if they show up to Mass every Sunday, on Christmas and Easter, or just when they're getting married. It’s the same thing if they actually believe that Jesus is God, conceived by the Blessed Virgin, or if they view those stories as fairy tales. If they've taken the sacraments, even the priests would agree they're Catholic, whether they're a saint or a sinner.

The moment someone publicly identifies as an atheist, they are an atheist—regardless of whether they occasionally let out a "thank God" or a "damn it, Jesus." Essentially, an atheist is an atheist as long as they consider themselves one. The same logic applies to agnostics, pantheists, and all those other modern spiritual labels. You are what you say you are, and everyone else needs to respect that.

If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

Hypothetically speaking, if someone identified as an atheist on a census but simultaneously expressed belief in God, they wouldn't be taken seriously in practice. Therefore, the error lies with the individual making the false claim, rather than with the definition itself.

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

True, at least when we're talking about spirituality—anyone can identify however they like or believe whatever they choose. However, if you're looking to join specific religious denominations, there are usually certain rules you have to meet.

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

I know some people who call themselves atheists just because religious folks get on their nerves, yet they aren't even sure what they actually believe since they've never really sat down to think about it. Personally, I don't feel the need to police anyone else's labels; their faith, or lack thereof, is their own business.

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

You see plenty of people like that—they don't actually live by the values of the faith they claim, but they like the social status of being seen as believers. It honestly turns me off a bit, but then again, it's not my place to interfere.

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

If you say you aren't Catholic, then you aren't Catholic (even if the church records still list you as one unless you officially requested to be removed).

darkraven
Do you honestly think that’s normal? You don't find any of this totally absurd?

😵

To be honest, I find all these religious labels pretty ridiculous. They seem so absurd to me that I don't feel any need to define myself as anything specific. I tend to pick and choose practices from various traditions, hold my own evolving beliefs, and mostly rely on my own lived experience rather than someone else's interpretation of things. But then again, just as it seems absurd to me when someone calls themselves a believer, an agnostic, an atheist, or anything else, it’s probably just as absurd to them that I stay "undecided." I don't think these are things we really need to stress over too much.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

darkraven said:Quote: Alexander the Great

Gregory Carter67 As I was saying: Look, that shouldn't even be the baseline argument for or against the existence of God—it should be about the world and how natural laws actually function. But hey, if someone wants to pin their whole worldview on that one point, who am I to judge? Really. But if that’s their primary smoking gun for whether there’s a higher power or not, then we’re really getting into the weeds of expectations, mortality, and how we deal with the fact that everything eventually decays. It all boils down to how we accept—or refuse to accept—the good and the bad stuff life throws at us. Honestly, maybe the problem is just having the wrong set of expectations toward God and the universe to begin with. I mean, who decided that life has to be like hitting the Powerball jackpot every single day? Who decided we’re all entitled to live in a land of milk and honey? Life isn't a damn fairy tale, and expecting it to work that way is just asking for trouble.

Look, you have to realize that people in the West have been brainwashed from the cradle with this idea of a personal, intervening God—someone who’s supposedly all-powerful and perfectly good, at least according to those Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Honestly, if you don't keep that context front and center when you're debating these topics, you're going to lose the plot. It's especially true when you're talking to atheists; the second they hear the word "God," their brains immediately jump to Yahweh, the specific personal deity from the Christian tradition. You can't just talk about the concept in a vacuum without realizing that for most Americans, that word is already loaded with a massive amount of religious baggage.

You know, whenever these debates start heating up, you always seem to have these other ideas about God lurking in the background. I'm talking about those impersonal concepts—like pantheism—that just sort of hover there, waiting to crash the party. It’s like they’re always part of the subtext, even when nobody is explicitly bringing them up.

"If God wants to stop evil but just can't pull it off, then we’re looking at a guy who isn't all-powerful. Period."
If he’s got the power to do the right thing but chooses not to, then you’re looking at pure malice. Plain and simple. It’s one thing to be incapable—we've all been there, tripping over our own feet or failing because we just didn't have the tools. But when someone has the capacity, the resources, and the ability to act, yet they sit on their hands and watch everything go south? That’s not an accident. That's being malevolent. It’s intentional. I remember this one guy I used to work with back in Chicago; he had every resource needed to fix a massive error in our logistics, but he just watched us struggle because he thought it would make him look more indispensable later. He wasn't incompetent; he was just being a jerk. That's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
If He’s got the power to stop it and actually wants to, then where the hell does all this evil come from? It’s the age-old question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling while wondering if we're just part of some cosmic glitch. If everything is under control, why is the world such a mess? You can't have it both ways without running into a massive logical wall.
If he’s got neither the power to step in nor the desire to do anything about it, then what are we even doing here? If he can't help and won't help, then why call Him god?
Epicurus (allegedly)

The whole "problem of evil" thing only really makes sense if you’re looking at God through this lens of a personal, hands-on intervener. I mean, think about it. If He’s actually omnipotent—if He truly has all the power in the universe—then stopping evil should be a total breeze. It shouldn't be some massive struggle for an all-powerful being. And if He’s also omnibenevolent, if He’s truly all-good, then He... I just want... Stop the evil. Look, I’m just a mortal being here, but I actually possess something called empathy and compassion, and honestly, that should be more than enough to help someone out. When you're talking about an omnibenevolent being, human compassion shouldn't even register on the scale. You could take whatever tiny bit of good found in people and multiply it by infinity—because that's what "omni" means, right? It's basic math.

So, here we go again. It’s like we’re stuck in some kind of loop where evil just keeps showing up, uninvited and unapologetic. Honestly, it makes you wonder—why? It’s like people act as if God isn't even watching, or like the entire universe is just sitting there, totally indifferent to everything going down. It’s pretty heavy when you really sit with it.

Look, if there actually is a God out there, I just can't wrap my head around the type of guy He'd have to be. Imagine someone just standing on a street corner in Chicago, watching a violent assault go down right in front of them—someone getting absolutely brutalized—and they just... keep walking. They don't lift a finger. They don't even flinch. They just turn the corner and grab a coffee like nothing happened. If this being has the literal power to step in and stop that nightmare from happening, but chooses to just stand by and watch? I mean, come on. It’s hard to swallow. It brings me right back to what Epicurus was getting at when he posed that heavy question: "Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him god?"

And if you actually stumble upon passages in what’s supposedly His word where He’s personally ordering genocides or doing similar atrocities? Well, that just drives the whole point home even harder. It makes you wonder if this God everyone’s been talking about—the one we were told was all-powerful and perfect—was ever even real to begin with. I mean, he might just be a fictional character cooked up a long time ago.

Look, maybe this isn't the heavy hitter that wins the whole debate, but it’s a damn good point regardless. I mean, think about it—what kind of person with even a shred of a conscience would actually want to take orders from some total monster? Honestly, I wouldn't. *Ma non serviam!* I refuse to serve. ☕

So, does everything feel a little clearer now?

I mentioned before that there are other ways to approach this—arguments that don't just clash with the idea of an all-powerful, all-good God, but actually tear those specific attributes apart. Take the omnipotence paradox, for example. It’s that classic headache: "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Either way you slice it, the logic breaks. If He can't make the rock, He's limited; if He makes it and can't lift it, He's also limited. It's a total loop. Then you've got the free will argument, which basically argues that you can't have true free will if God is also omniscient. If He already knows everything you're ever going to do, are you actually making choices, or are you just following a script? It feels like a massive contradiction. Plus, there's the whole issue with the concept of Hell. Usually, when people talk about this specific version of God, they include Hell in the package deal, but honestly, the existence of such a place doesn't sit right with those divine attributes at all. So, I'm curious—would you find those kinds of arguments more compelling?

It’s not like atheists don't bring them up—I’ve seen them pop up on the forums plenty of times, especially over in the religion threads. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the whole "problem of evil" thing; it's just one of those classic debates. There are plenty of other atheist arguments out there that have absolutely nothing to do with this specific line of reasoning, but yeah, they aren't really what we're talking about here...

Unless, of course, you want to pivot the conversation toward them, just to shake off that tired stereotype that the problem of evil is the only card atheists have left to play.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

Gregory Carter67 said:Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

A brilliant (and quite eye-opening) book: "What We Believe, We Who Don't Believe in God"

I don't feel any kind of hostility toward God. I'm a pantheist. ☕

copperhound12 said:A brilliant (and quite eye-opening) book: "What We Believe, We Who Don't Believe in God"

I don't feel any kind of hostility toward God. I'm a pantheist. ☕

Hey, just a heads up, that link you posted is broken—you messed up the URL. You typed http://https://www.foxnews.com/ when it should have been https://www.foxnews.com/. Every time I click your version, I just get a 404 Not Found error.

https://www.foxnews.com/culture/article...-photo-20180124

So, I was scrolling through some of the comments on other news sites regarding this article and... man, it honestly makes me lose all faith in humanity. It's just endless idiots everywhere. I’m done reading those comment sections; I don't want to end up with a brain tumor from all that stupidity.

Gregory Carter67 said:Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

I honestly have no idea why you're even bringing up mistakes, but here’s a related thought. What’s your take on some distant future utopia—maybe right here on Earth, or maybe somewhere else entirely? Picture this: in a few thousand years, humanity becomes this hyper-advanced, space-faring civilization. We’re talking about colonizing and terraforming multiple planets across interconnected solar systems. All those worlds together would be our "utopia." Or maybe instead of planets, we build massive megastructures, stuff the size of entire worlds, all linked together. Medicine gets so advanced that diseases just cease to exist. Humanity hits this peak of consciousness and moral evolution where actual moral evil is a thing of the past. As a high-tech scientific powerhouse, we could probably manipulate natural forces too, minimizing or totally wiping out "natural" evils. We’d control the atmosphere and the weather perfectly... no more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, none of that crap. Even death might not be an issue; we could just upload our consciousness into digital substrates and essentially achieve The World to Come.

So, are you in or out? What would you actually do—you, who are so dead-set against removing evil because it supposedly kills freedom and all that—if you woke up in that era tomorrow? Would you go out and start some terrorist cell just to tear it all down because it's "evil" by your definition? Would you end it all? Or what?

Once they realize they can't actually prove God doesn't exist, the strategy shifts. They start painting God as some kind of monster just to try and convince believers that their whole faith is total bullshit. If you people would just admit there's zero logic behind it and accept that God isn't real, we wouldn't have to waste our time arguing over whether your deity is evil or not.

Look, if you believers were actually capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" angle;

- God made the Earth in seven days.
- Nope, and we’ve got the data to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Yeah, here it is.
- Okay, fine, you're right. The Earth is billions of years old and everything in the Bible is nonsense. You win, God isn't real, my bad.

darkraven said:Hey, just a heads up, that link you posted is broken—you messed up the URL. You typed http://https://www.foxnews.com/ when it should have been https://www.foxnews.com/. Every time I click your version, I just get a 404 Not Found error.

https://www.foxnews.com/culture/article...-photo-20180124

So, I was scrolling through some of the comments on other news sites regarding this article and... man, it honestly makes me lose all faith in humanity. It's just endless idiots everywhere. I’m done reading those comment sections; I don't want to end up with a brain tumor from all that stupidity.

Thanks.

I don't want to read that junk either. It's completely futile. A total waste of time. Everything just circles back to that old Marxist line: "Religion is the opium of the people."☕>

Gregory Carter67 said:Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

Honestly, though, evil doesn't really exist in a vacuum, just like good, love, hate, or a bunch of other "buzzwords" don't really exist outside of being fleeting feelings in our brains or these fuzzy social constructs that are hard to pin down since they're all so subjective...

People use the word "evil" in totally different ways—sometimes in a specific religious sense, sometimes describing actions that hurt society or individuals (like violence or theft), and often just to describe stuff that breaks social norms without actually hurting anyone...

I feel like when darkraven (and most atheists in these kinds of debates) talks about "evil," they’re really talking about human suffering and misery, whether it's one person hurting another or just random bad luck like diseases, natural disasters, or freak accidents, or even just minor annoyances... It's easy to lump all of that under the umbrella of "evil." Am I right in thinking you're stretching that shaky definition to include mistakes too? Is every single mistake considered evil, like if you accidentally pour too much milk in your coffee, or is it only certain ones... and if it's only some, which ones exactly?

I don't believe in God, and I honestly find it pretty weird how believers try to reconcile two things that just don't fit together: the idea that they were made by a being who is all-powerful and all-knowing, while also claiming they have free will...

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

I actually ran into a believer once who was preaching "logic first and foremost"...

Is your version of logic just deciding it pays to believe just in case, since you've got nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain?😁 Like some kind of cosmic insurance policy or something like that...

If evil exists—if we go by the believer's own definition—then God either can't get rid of it, which means He isn't all-powerful, or He just doesn't care about us, which means He isn't "infinitely good"...

But hey, maybe you actually think He isn't "infinitely good," just all-powerful...

If you believe He's all-powerful and that it's important to Him that every single person knows He exists, then why hasn't He just shown Himself? Why would He wait (according to the believers) 2000 years and let us live through all this doubt and be split up by a million different religions without anyone ever seeing or hearing Him? Why would His only trace be these ancient texts from centuries ago, constantly being edited and interpreted in a thousand different ways, and why would He bother delegating messages to prophets and apostles instead of just doing it Himself? I mean, wouldn't an all-powerful being be too smart to think that some half-assed attempt from 2000 years ago would actually work on people living in the 21st century? How much would it even cost an all-powerful being to just prove Himself to every one of us individually?...

Since an all-powerful being, by definition, wouldn't cost Him anything, we're left thinking that either He isn't all-powerful because He can't show Himself, or He just doesn't care if people know Him because He doesn't want to show Himself...

Either way, why would anyone bother believing in a "God" who is basically:
- not all-powerful
- not good
- doesn't want people to know He exists?

Honestly, what's the difference between a God like that and no God at all?...

Nathan Doyle said:I actually ran into a believer once who was preaching "logic first and foremost"...

Is your version of logic just deciding it pays to believe just in case, since you've got nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain?😁 Like some kind of cosmic insurance policy or something like that...

If evil exists—if we go by the believer's own definition—then God either can't get rid of it, which means He isn't all-powerful, or He just doesn't care about us, which means He isn't "infinitely good"...

But hey, maybe you actually think He isn't "infinitely good," just all-powerful...

If you believe He's all-powerful and that it's important to Him that every single person knows He exists, then why hasn't He just shown Himself? Why would He wait (according to the believers) 2000 years and let us live through all this doubt and be split up by a million different religions without anyone ever seeing or hearing Him? Why would His only trace be these ancient texts from centuries ago, constantly being edited and interpreted in a thousand different ways, and why would He bother delegating messages to prophets and apostles instead of just doing it Himself? I mean, wouldn't an all-powerful being be too smart to think that some half-assed attempt from 2000 years ago would actually work on people living in the 21st century? How much would it even cost an all-powerful being to just prove Himself to every one of us individually?...

Since an all-powerful being, by definition, wouldn't cost Him anything, we're left thinking that either He isn't all-powerful because He can't show Himself, or He just doesn't care if people know Him because He doesn't want to show Himself...

Either way, why would anyone bother believing in a "God" who is basically:
- not all-powerful
- not good
- doesn't want people to know He exists?

Honestly, what's the difference between a God like that and no God at all?...

I see this specific argument being recycled constantly on this forum and pretty much everywhere else online. The real issue is that it’s built on some pretty shaky, hidden premises—because just because someone is omnipotent and perfectly good, it doesn't logically follow that God "ought" to just snap His fingers and "delete all evil from the world." That’s more of a specific atheist viewpoint, really, but those perspectives don't set the universal standard for what "good" actually means or how things should work. Besides, within the framework of religious belief, everything is explained through the Fall and the eventual return to God, where He acts as the final judge at the end of the cycle. So, it’s not a matter of Him being unable to act or simply not caring—it's just that we have our own part to play in all of this, no matter how hard that might be for atheists to swallow.

wiredfalcon2 said:Once they realize they can't actually prove God doesn't exist, the strategy shifts. They start painting God as some kind of monster just to try and convince believers that their whole faith is total bullshit. If you people would just admit there's zero logic behind it and accept that God isn't real, we wouldn't have to waste our time arguing over whether your deity is evil or not.

Look, if you believers were actually capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" angle;

- God made the Earth in seven days.
- Nope, and we’ve got the data to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Yeah, here it is.
- Okay, fine, you're right. The Earth is billions of years old and everything in the Bible is nonsense. You win, God isn't real, my bad.

The thing is, atheists don't actually have a single serious argument—it’s all just circular reasoning and beating a dead horse.

then they pivot to painting God as evil, just hoping believers might realize their faith is total nonsense.

Besides, God isn't "evil"—because if He were, He wouldn't be God. I think the real issue here is that you don't quite grasp what the concept of God actually represents.

If you believers would just accept that there's no logic behind God's existence, we wouldn't have to waste our time debating His moral character.

It's not just logical; it's actually pretty intuitive.

Look, if you believers were capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" argument;

- God created the Earth in seven days.
- No, He didn't, and we have the evidence to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Sure, here it is.
- Okay, you win, the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible is just nonsense. You're right, God doesn't exist, silly me.

Man, sorry that we aren't at an elementary school level so we can actually hold a dialogue. Feel free to head off to some far-flung corners of the USA or similar places to argue with creationists; those Dawkins-style jabs don't fly here because most people don't even buy into them anyway. Not to mention, your little caricature of a "smart" debate doesn't actually prove God doesn't exist. But hey, let's just attribute that to that legendary atheist capacity for logic.

Honestly, I feel a bit bad for starting this thread now that I'm scrolling through and seeing what everyone is posting. I jumped in on a whim and left one post, but looking at this, it feels like there's really not much point in saying anything here.

Quote : Sul The Great

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

You've got it all wrong.

Quote : Sul The Great

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

The sheer volume of stupidity coming from theists is staggering. Unfortunately, this isn't an exception. There’s nothing controversial about the example you provided. People just say things. Let them believe. If you judge God based on His portrayal in the Bible, then sure, you’d call Him bad. But this whole "if they believe" thing is just a hypothetical used for the sake of the argument. It isn't a statement of fact, nor does it imply that people are secretly sneaking off to perform two Hail Marys when nobody is looking. Why would an atheist even bother thinking about God? Probably for the exact same reason you spend your time thinking about atheists.

Quote : Sul The Great

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

How can you believe in something without actually knowing it? It makes no sense. Maybe I also blindly believe my junk is 8 inches long when it clearly isn't. You either believe something, or you don't. Period.
An atheist can certainly be angry at God, but not in the way they would be with an actual, all-powerful being. It’s more about being angry at what that concept represents.
Let me explain this from my perspective as a militant atheist. It isn’t just about our lack of belief. The issue is that you theists act as if your way of life is the only valid one—and that every social norm, law, and regulation should be bent to fit your worldview. What most active atheists actually want is simple: the separation of Church and State. We want to ensure religious institutions can't dictate our laws, and we demand that believers and non-believers alike are treated with total equality under the law.

As long as concordats exist between the Holy See and the state, as long as the Church remains tax-exempt, and as long as men in robes stick their hands into other people's private business, there will always be people like me who find it revolting. This isn't about harboring antagonism toward God as an almighty, supreme being. You said it yourself: that wouldn't even make sense since we don't believe in Him. My issue is with the antagonism toward God as a man-made symbol—a construct that people consciously choose to slave themselves to.

Quote : Sul The Great

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

It takes zero effort to cast two-thousand-year-old texts like the Bible in a bad light. You don't even need to invent anything—it’s all already there. If anything else is required, it's just believers practicing selective interpretation. Cherry picking. It’s the oldest trick in the book. People grab the one data point that fits their narrative and ignore everything else that proves them wrong. It's dishonest and lazy.They weaponize religious texts to justify their own worldviews—worldviews that frequently involve stripping other groups of their basic rights. Look at the Middle East: they cling to Sharia law, which is nothing more than a literal interpretation of the Quran. It includes hanging apostates and stoning women just because they dared to show up in public without being wrapped in a rug. If people applied a literal interpretation of the Bible and enforced its laws accordingly, we’d be fast-tracked straight back to the Middle Ages, burning witches at the stake.

Here are some things the Bible explicitly forbids:

Pre-marital sex.
Tattoos.
To be unkempt.

Some that are permitted:

Slavery.
Rape.

Quote : Sul The Great

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

Logic comes first. Something doesn't exist until there is proof of its existence—not the other way around. Your twisted version of logic has zero connection to actual reasoning.

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

If God created the Big Bang, then who created God? We can loop this forever. Just because science hasn't answered every single question yet doesn't mean the answer is God, Odin, Zeus, or any other deity.

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

Once again, you are trying to prove a negative. That isn't how it works. The burden of proof for any claim rests entirely on the person making it. All science, logic, and reason are built on that principle. Otherwise, I can claim whatever nonsense I want without any foundation, and you'd have to prove me wrong. For example, I claim that every time I snap my fingers three times inside my wallet, ten thousand dollars appears. Or, if I say "abracadabra," I become invisible. Prove me a liar.

By that same standard, God does not exist 100% until proven otherwise. Not 99%, not 98.7%, but 100%.

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

I've already explained this.

Amy Bennett said:The thing is, atheists don't actually have a single serious argument—it’s all just circular reasoning and beating a dead horse.

then they pivot to painting God as evil, just hoping believers might realize their faith is total nonsense.

Besides, God isn't "evil"—because if He were, He wouldn't be God. I think the real issue here is that you don't quite grasp what the concept of God actually represents.

If you believers would just accept that there's no logic behind God's existence, we wouldn't have to waste our time debating His moral character.

It's not just logical; it's actually pretty intuitive.

Look, if you believers were capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" argument;

- God created the Earth in seven days.
- No, He didn't, and we have the evidence to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Sure, here it is.
- Okay, you win, the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible is just nonsense. You're right, God doesn't exist, silly me.

Man, sorry that we aren't at an elementary school level so we can actually hold a dialogue. Feel free to head off to some far-flung corners of the USA or similar places to argue with creationists; those Dawkins-style jabs don't fly here because most people don't even buy into them anyway. Not to mention, your little caricature of a "smart" debate doesn't actually prove God doesn't exist. But hey, let's just attribute that to that legendary atheist capacity for logic.

Honestly, I feel a bit bad for starting this thread now that I'm scrolling through and seeing what everyone is posting. I jumped in on a whim and left one post, but looking at this, it feels like there's really not much point in saying anything here.

As long as you think you do.

Amy Bennett said:The thing is, atheists don't actually have a single serious argument—it’s all just circular reasoning and beating a dead horse.

then they pivot to painting God as evil, just hoping believers might realize their faith is total nonsense.

Besides, God isn't "evil"—because if He were, He wouldn't be God. I think the real issue here is that you don't quite grasp what the concept of God actually represents.

If you believers would just accept that there's no logic behind God's existence, we wouldn't have to waste our time debating His moral character.

It's not just logical; it's actually pretty intuitive.

Look, if you believers were capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" argument;

- God created the Earth in seven days.
- No, He didn't, and we have the evidence to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Sure, here it is.
- Okay, you win, the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible is just nonsense. You're right, God doesn't exist, silly me.

Man, sorry that we aren't at an elementary school level so we can actually hold a dialogue. Feel free to head off to some far-flung corners of the USA or similar places to argue with creationists; those Dawkins-style jabs don't fly here because most people don't even buy into them anyway. Not to mention, your little caricature of a "smart" debate doesn't actually prove God doesn't exist. But hey, let's just attribute that to that legendary atheist capacity for logic.

Honestly, I feel a bit bad for starting this thread now that I'm scrolling through and seeing what everyone is posting. I jumped in on a whim and left one post, but looking at this, it feels like there's really not much point in saying anything here.

Huh? So God is good simply because God God? Brilliant argumentation.

Amy Bennett said:The thing is, atheists don't actually have a single serious argument—it’s all just circular reasoning and beating a dead horse.

then they pivot to painting God as evil, just hoping believers might realize their faith is total nonsense.

Besides, God isn't "evil"—because if He were, He wouldn't be God. I think the real issue here is that you don't quite grasp what the concept of God actually represents.

If you believers would just accept that there's no logic behind God's existence, we wouldn't have to waste our time debating His moral character.

It's not just logical; it's actually pretty intuitive.

Look, if you believers were capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" argument;

- God created the Earth in seven days.
- No, He didn't, and we have the evidence to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Sure, here it is.
- Okay, you win, the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible is just nonsense. You're right, God doesn't exist, silly me.

Man, sorry that we aren't at an elementary school level so we can actually hold a dialogue. Feel free to head off to some far-flung corners of the USA or similar places to argue with creationists; those Dawkins-style jabs don't fly here because most people don't even buy into them anyway. Not to mention, your little caricature of a "smart" debate doesn't actually prove God doesn't exist. But hey, let's just attribute that to that legendary atheist capacity for logic.

Honestly, I feel a bit bad for starting this thread now that I'm scrolling through and seeing what everyone is posting. I jumped in on a whim and left one post, but looking at this, it feels like there's really not much point in saying anything here.

I'm waiting for you to explain the logic behind that. If your "intuition" is just projecting things you don't understand onto a higher power, then sure, I agree.

Amy Bennett said:The thing is, atheists don't actually have a single serious argument—it’s all just circular reasoning and beating a dead horse.

then they pivot to painting God as evil, just hoping believers might realize their faith is total nonsense.

Besides, God isn't "evil"—because if He were, He wouldn't be God. I think the real issue here is that you don't quite grasp what the concept of God actually represents.

If you believers would just accept that there's no logic behind God's existence, we wouldn't have to waste our time debating His moral character.

It's not just logical; it's actually pretty intuitive.

Look, if you believers were capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" argument;

- God created the Earth in seven days.
- No, He didn't, and we have the evidence to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Sure, here it is.
- Okay, you win, the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible is just nonsense. You're right, God doesn't exist, silly me.

Man, sorry that we aren't at an elementary school level so we can actually hold a dialogue. Feel free to head off to some far-flung corners of the USA or similar places to argue with creationists; those Dawkins-style jabs don't fly here because most people don't even buy into them anyway. Not to mention, your little caricature of a "smart" debate doesn't actually prove God doesn't exist. But hey, let's just attribute that to that legendary atheist capacity for logic.

Honestly, I feel a bit bad for starting this thread now that I'm scrolling through and seeing what everyone is posting. I jumped in on a whim and left one post, but looking at this, it feels like there's really not much point in saying anything here.

Some might not be at that level, while others certainly are. First you whine that we lack arguments, then you back it up with a heavy dose of nonsense you can't even defend.