this post was submitted on
253 points (73% like it)
399 up votes 146 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,128,319 readers

2,800 users here now


Help Atheist Organizations!

The Secular Student Alliance, Camp Quest, and Foundation Beyond Belief were all nominated for the Chase Community Giving program, which awards grants based on the votes of the public. Everyone gets 2 votes on Facebook, plus an additional one if they share a CCG page. The links for them are:

SSA | CQ | FBB

Voting runs from September 6-19


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 48 comments

[–]crazystrawman 11 points12 points ago

How does this make front page? I can only defend /r/atheism from accusations of circlejerking for so long. This has to be like the zillionth repost of this quote.

[–]steelerman82 2 points3 points ago

I checked the comments just to see if the repost bot had commented yet.

[–]Ghstfce 1 point2 points ago

You have to give /r/atheism credit though, they went like an entire week or so before reposting it. That takes a lot of self control compared to the usual 6 hour wait before reposting.

[–]AnticScarab3 1 point2 points ago

Just because I'm sick of hearing this...

God has no interest in preventing evil. He allows evil to exist so that humans are free to choose between good and evil. That way, he can reward those that do good, and punish those that do evil. Remember that your life on Earth is largely irrelevant. It's basically one big test to see if you deserve to get into heaven. Therefore, suffering on Earth is largely unimportant to God.

Naturally, as an atheist, I don't agree with any of that, but that's the Christian logic, and it actually holds up pretty well within their belief structure. Now can we stop reposting shitty arguments that have zero effect?

[–]radwolf 1 point2 points ago

From that viewpoint, then what's the point of even creating evil humans, or even Earth? What's the point of creating a species that does evil; why not just create an entirely pure and good species?

[–]glovesoff11 0 points1 point ago

Typical response will be that God did not create evil; humans did when they disobeyed God/sinned.

[–]kent_eh 1 point2 points ago

Yet, for some reason, this god created humans knowing that they were capable of doing evil/disobeying and in full knowledge of that, created eternal punishment for those same humans who he created as disobedient.

Arrgh, my head hurts even thinking like that.

[–]AnticScarab3 0 points1 point ago

I don't think Christians particularly care why god created humans. They believe that he did, and his motivations for doing so are kind of besides the point to them.

As for why he created humans capable of evil, who knows? Maybe he really really wanted people with free will, and evil is just one of the bi-products.

[–]velkyr 1 point2 points ago

Is it just me, or this exact same quote posted at LEAST once a day in this subreddit?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CoAmon 10 points11 points ago

In general I agree with you, but I don't think this argument is a weak as you are making it out to be.

Your specific willingness is dependent on substantial negative consequence to yourself, or your property. The inbuilt assumption of Omnipotence, as specified by the previous clause, is that no substantial consequence to God for preventing evil, and his unwillingness can be interpreted as malevolence.

Think of it this way; if you knew that taking a dollar out of your wallet and putting it on the ground would stop all famine, war, and general dickishness, and you were unwilling to do that, we would be well within reason to assume you were doing out of malevolence.

This isn't addressed to rftz, but anyone looking for an excellent resource on reasoned philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, I highly recommend checking out the Iron Chariots Wiki

[–]highlogic 1 point2 points ago

This argument is actual a lot weaker than rftz implied. It is the atheist equivalent to "Pascal's Wager".

It starts with a false presumption and then compounds the error. In order to judge a god you would need to posses at least one of the qualities of a god.

The problem is that, within the limits of our humanity, the only way for us to visualize ideas greater then ourselves is to use the concepts that we already know. This anthropomorphism is plainly obvious whenever you see someone make the "magical sky fairy" wise crack. A comment like this says nothing about the nature of "God"; it only states the perception of "God" to the commenter.

Our perceptions are bound by our individual experiences. We all have difficulty telling the difference between what is good and evil. How would we decide if a god was willing to prevent evil if we can't even agree on what is evil, let alone what is a god?

We can try to study what others before us have discovered but our knowledge will forever remain a subjective endeavor. Within the Christian theology the answers to Epicurus' questions are quite simple: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? God is willing and prevents all evil.

"Huh? But there is evil everywhere!" Without a godly perspective it is easy to confuse the "here and now" with the totality of time. Using Epicurus' logic would be like someone declaring themselves the referee of a football game, not knowing any of the rules, and then declaring the winner at half time!

Likewise, we lack the perspective to judge accurately. Thinking back in your life, how many tragic (i.e. evil) events are you now thankful for because they have shaped you into who you are today? I imagine most American atheists can appreciate this idea…

[–]SirKaid 3 points4 points ago

You make a strong argument, however I feel the need to present a rebuttal.

As human beings, we may not always agree on what acts are evil. However, there are acts which cannot be called anything else. Take, for example, a man who kidnaps his daughter and repeatedly rapes her over the course of 24 years, getting her pregnant several times. Anyone who calls such an act something other than evil is at best an idiot.

If God is omnipotent, then surely he can stop such an act from occurring. If God is omnibenevolent, then he would want such an act to not occur. However, as Elisabeth Fritzl would be able to tell you, nothing stopped her from suffering through her two and a half decades of rape, beating, and unlawful incarceration.

This must mean that one of the initial assumptions must be wrong. God is unable to stop this undoubtedly evil act, and is not omnipotent. God is unwilling and is therefore evil himself, since the cost of doing so for an omnipotent being is effectively zero. God is neither willing or able, and is therefore not worth worshipping in the first place. Or, God's morality is so alien to human morality that it is pointless to look to him for moral guidance.

The Fritzl case, along with countless other acts of evil happening every single day, make the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity logically impossible.

[–]highlogic 0 points1 point ago

The point you are missing is that you are still placing yourself as the "referee". While you and I can agree that the acts of Josef Fritzl were deplorable, neither of us can predict results of his actions.

Suppose Elisabeth's great great grandchild develops the cure for cancer. Could someone else have found the cure. Sure. But in this specific example, this is the way it has happened. Without these "evil" events it is possible the cure is never found.

"God" could have a valid reason for allowing "evil" that we will forever be unaware of because we are not omniscient.

[–]TTkun 1 point2 points ago

We can only judge based on our own morals. But based on what you said, god should be so beyond us, that we cannot give it any qualities. So take away all of the positives that the religious attribute to it as well.

Now, 'god' is simply a name we've attached to this unknown entity, of which none of our human qualities may describe. This is the result of your argument, and I'd be perfectly fine with it.

But so long as the religious choose to give attributions of it being all knowing and all powerful. Of infinite kindness and love. How can this middle ground of non attribution be met?

[–]fuzzyish 0 points1 point ago

Call it tough love.

[–]highlogic 0 points1 point ago

If we can only judge, based on our own morals, where do our morals come from? Without the claim of an "absolute morality", our "morals" are worthless.

You are right that such a god would be so beyond us that we cannot give it any qualities. The only way we could be able to have any idea of a god's qualities were if it limited itself, for our sake, in a fashion that we could start to comprehend…

[–]Fabulous_Prizes 1 point2 points ago

Well the good news is none of those children that starve to death daily were good for anything. I can sit here in my heathen mess eating too much food and know that god thinks my life is worth it while those millions are not. Good work god.

[–]Legault 0 points1 point ago

Exactly. While this has been shamelessly reposted to death, this remains a troubling religious paradox to this day. Same with the Euthyphro dilemma. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's not relevant.

[–]steelerman82 2 points3 points ago

yes, but you also don't claim to be a god that loves everyone completely.

[–]JimDixon 0 points1 point ago

It could use a question mark at the end.

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 0 points1 point ago

How do you guys interpret "Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"

Does this mean "if He is able and willing, then why is there evil?"

[–]utd87sin 0 points1 point ago

You got it.

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 0 points1 point ago

SMRT

[–]steelerman82 0 points1 point ago

I'm sure this has been pointed out, but your username isn't very discreet, despite it describing a condition that is. you aren't worried it would give you away if someone saw it?

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 0 points1 point ago

I'm more worried about it becoming obsolete once I do work out my Exit Strategy. Then I have to start my karma peddling all over.

On a serious note, no, I've decided that if my secret atheism is found out, it can only lead to the conclusion that I keep delaying. It will not be the timing that I choose, but at least the ball will start rolling.

In the meantime, I always close my browser when people come around during my atheist redditing.

[–]philotimon 0 points1 point ago

You forgot one possibility, Epicurus. God DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK!!! Do you look in the toilet to see what you've shit out and see what trouble may be happening amongst the billions of microbes in your shit? And try to resolve it? No. God shat us out in a weak moment of passionate love for his wife. He had such a spellbinding orgasm, that he took a shit simultaneously, and created the big bang. That's it. That's the fucking answer.

[–]dracomorph 1 point2 points ago

So, omnipotent but not benevolent. Already accounted for, bud.

[–]philotimon 0 points1 point ago

No, it has not. Learn English.

Able but not willing, is malevolent. Implies wanton hate, malice. What I'm saying is, more like indifferent.

[–]dracomorph 0 points1 point ago

Indifference to suffering on a massive scale, which you are capable of preventing, is malevolent. Evil doesn't have to be active.

[–]philotimon -1 points0 points ago

Compared to god, what is massive. If god exists, then we would be like microbes to him. Our average 70 year lives and death would be ephemeral. He would be watching us from a place without time. He would be able to see what we did in a past life, if such a thing exists, or how it will get better after death. If animals can suffer, mostly because of the presence of humans, we can suffer too.

Suffering is not always the effect of evil. Famine and drought are not evil, in the classical sense. All evil in the world is human-borne. So, in a way, we do this to ourselves.

Every tool we need to end suffering is provided to us by nature. Instead we bicker over race and religion. All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

[–]ShoryuRyu 0 points1 point ago

Epicurus wasn't an atheist. The more you know.

[–]alittler 0 points1 point ago

/will forever pronounce his name as 'Epicurious'

[–]blingerama 0 points1 point ago

i thought that it was Acticius who said that... learn something new everyday

[–]toSTONEiGO 0 points1 point ago

who the fuck would upvote this? ive seen this frontpaged 100 times.

edit: nevermind the obvious flaws in this argument. this distracts from better arguments like russels teapot and the secular history of religion.

[–]instant_reddart 1 point2 points ago

Like a swan from the duckling, I have made your comment... art

http://i.imgur.com/fSE9O.jpg

...Courtesy of the instant_reddart bot

[–]toSTONEiGO 1 point2 points ago

the fuck?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]99trumpets 1 point2 points ago

There is an entire field of theology devoted this (theodicy) and there must be more than a hundred "solutions", some of which actually do have a certain amount of internal logic. A lot of the major ones have to do with god allowing some amount of suffering/evil for the "greater good". There's one I kind of like in which every bit of suffering here on Earth is actually useful because it piles up on a scale in Heaven somewhere and does...something or other, I forget what, outweighs evil at the end of days or something. e.g. suffering is useful in a way that we do not know. There's another that posits that even for some of us to just see or hear about suffering makes us think about it and makes us better people further down the line. So, say a little innocent girl dies horrifically at the hands of a sadist; the rest of us hear about that and are appalled, and think about it, and maybe we live better lives as a result. Most of the "solutions" boil down to it's-for-the-greater-good ideas like this, and that we wee humans just don't have enough perspective to see the Big Picture that god is seeing.

Of course there's no way to disprove this; there's also no way to disprove any of the alternate hypotheses (god may very well be omniscient and benevolent, but not omnipotent, for example) and there's no way to disprove that the FSM isn't behind it all, either, and there's no way to disprove the idea that evil is caused by Zeus and Thor zinging random lightning bolts at each other and missing a lot because they're always too drunk to aim right. There's an infinite number of equally silly, equally internally consistent, theories of evil.

I have to also mention my favorite version, which is a really cool inverted version that posits that god is actually 100% malevolent, and that thus the real question is, why does god occasionally allow good things to happen to people?

[–]Dynamaxion 0 points1 point ago

"Is it good because God does it, or does God do it because it is good?"-Socrates

[–]THE_ave 0 points1 point ago

Oh I remember debating over this quote, love it. :)

[–]profoundlybored 0 points1 point ago

Free will blah blah blah god's plan rabble rabble rabble you can't understand yadda yadda yadda

[–]dumnezero 0 points1 point ago

answer this:

  • is there free will in heaven? if yes - there is evil...

  • is there free will in hell? if yes - you can avoid suffering; if no - there's no evil in hell...

[–]profoundlybored 0 points1 point ago

I can't answer that. I don't believe in heaven or hell.

[–]dumnezero 0 points1 point ago

pass it on to the christian apologist who raises the reply you noted

[–]profoundlybored 1 point2 points ago

Oh I do, each time I'm in a related discussion. Sadly, though, logic and reason don't seem to be in their repertoire.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]yoz-y 2 points3 points ago

That's why it is in the FAQ.

[–]Whelks -1 points0 points ago

That is awesome.

[–]Ckhori -1 points0 points ago

dude. sick.

[–]THEREFOREiEXIST -1 points0 points ago

I think his name is perfect for this.

Epicurus: Epic + Curus = Epic Cure = A sound cure for religion.