A thought.....

[Mike M.]

I was thinking, recently, about how one of the things many Atheists say is part of their disbelief in god.  This statement was, "I cannot believe in such an evil, tyrannical god." (or any other form of this statement).  Once I thought about it, though, this statement should in no way be added to the long list of reasons not to believe in any god, the reason being that just because you don't like the idea of an evil god, doesn't mean one couldn't exist.

An analogy I came up with is someone saying, "Hitler?  Oh I don't believe in Hitler.  I couldn't possibly believe in someone so evil." (albeit being intrinsically evil isn't existent either, but that's a different discussion.)  I'm trying to get the point of across that just because you wouldn't WANT to believe in something/someone so evil, doesn't mean it would poof them out of existence.  Even if god did exist, you would have no grounds to say he doesn't based on his character.

[Quinn Mander]

Precisely.  Dawkins actually makes this point quite nicely in "The God Delusion."  The argument from the existence of evil can only weigh against the existence of a supremely benevolent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god (who also doesn't happen to think that Hurricanes, Earthquakes and genocide are good for character building).  I usually only deploy this argument against Christians who DO often posit precisely that kind of god (well, they usually DO try to argue that disasters are somehow good for the 'soul').  

An evil, or vengeful god (the god of the old testament would fit quite nicely) easily fits with the existence of atrocities (if one insists on believing in a god).  Or a god that isn't omnipotent, and is opposed by an evil god.  But, while this is true, since a positing a god is unnecessary in explaining 'evil' or disaster, I don't feel the need myself to cram one into a shape that will fit in with the facts of the universe.  It is simply a superfluous hypothesis.

[i_am_i]

I was thinking, recently, about how one of the things many Atheists say is part of their disbelief in god.  This statement was, "I cannot believe in such an evil, tyrannical god." (or any other form of this statement).  Once I thought about it, though, this statement should in no way be added to the long list of reasons not to believe in any god, the reason being that just because you don't like the idea of an evil god, doesn't mean one couldn't exist.

An analogy I came up with is someone saying, "Hitler?  Oh I don't believe in Hitler.  I couldn't possibly believe in someone so evil." (albeit being intrinsically evil isn't existent either, but that's a different discussion.)  I'm trying to get the point of across that just because you wouldn't WANT to believe in something/someone so evil, doesn't mean it would poof them out of existence.  Even if god did exist, you would have no grounds to say he doesn't based on his character.

This is where I part ways with a lot of atheists. All this philosophical reactionary rubbish about what God supposedly did and how bad and mean it was is beside the point.

It's all just made up, it's nothing more than a story, don't you see that? Hitler was real. God isn't. It's a story, it's all made up and God never did anything and neither did Peter Rabbit or Daffy Duck.

[JillSwift]

The whole "Can't believe in a meany god" thing may really just be a foreshortening of the real issue, that being the dichotomous "god is love/omni-benevolent" and the harsh reality we see around us and the concept of hell (a.k.a. the problem of evil, and the problem of hell). Once it's clear that these two ideas can not co-exist, doubt seeps in.

I think it's a common starting point, and it can be difficult to fully express.

After a while, anyone who has had the time to get over the emotional issues that often come with abandoning religion, and has given more thought to it all will likely come to the conclusion that there really is no evidence against god (per se) but also no evidence in favor, leaving god in the same realm as other imaginary beings.

[i_am_i]

After a while, anyone who has had the time to get over the emotional issues that often come with abandoning religion, and has given more thought to it all will likely come to the conclusion that there really is no evidence against god (per se) but also no evidence in favor, leaving god in the same realm as other imaginary beings.

This is where I must disagree, Jill. Where could God have come from if not from the human imagination? I look at what that imagination has been capable of conjuring up for thousands of years and to me that is sufficient evidence that what we're all talking about is nothing more than one more human fabrication. I see no problem there at all, I am absolutely convinced of it.

So what I'm saying is that the evidence against God is all around us, everything that humanity has created, both good and bad, is the evidence against God. We did it. Human beings did it.

Yes, this particular human creation has endured as probably the most powerful concept ever imagined. But it was imagined, and then it was made or allowed to evolve with the times and it's still here. Amazing. It really is amazing and it makes me feel a little sad about us primitive humans who still need so badly to believe.

[Asmodean]

This is where I part ways with a lot of atheists. All this philosophical reactionary rubbish about what God supposedly did and how bad and mean it was is beside the point.

It's all just made up, it's nothing more than a story, don't you see that? Hitler was real. God isn't. It's a story, it's all made up and God never did anything and neither did Peter Rabbit or Daffy Duck.

That right there. QFT.

[JillSwift]

This is where I must disagree, Jill. Where could God have come from if not from the human imagination? I look at what that imagination has been capable of conjuring up for thousands of years and to me that is sufficient evidence that what we're all talking about is nothing more than one more human fabrication. I see no problem there at all, I am absolutely convinced of it.

So what I'm saying is that the evidence against God is all around us, everything that humanity has created, both good and bad, is the evidence against God. We did it. Human beings did it.

Empirically, it is not possible to prove that something does not exist. If you could list or cite evidence against god, I'd love to see it. If you have any method of disproving anything outside the discipline of maths, in fact, I'd really love to hear it. So would the entire scientific community.

I argue in favor of gnostic atheism, yes. But it isn't an evidence based argument because it can not be. It's definitional in nature, saying that  all known definitions of god are self-contradicting or are meaningless, then there isn't anything to prove. (A hallmark of imaginary beings, yes.) But again, this is not empirical, and can be dashed by proffering a definition that can be tested.

So, as we both agree that there is no god, I have to disagree that this can in any objective and empirical way be proven.

[Tank]

I think Mike is right in his estimation. If God were to exist, I would think their behaviours and motivations would be outside our understanding. Our moral view would have no bearing on the actual existance on non-existance of one or many God(s).

[hismikeness]

I was thinking, recently, about how one of the things many Atheists say is part of their disbelief in god.  This statement was, "I cannot believe in such an evil, tyrannical god." (or any other form of this statement).  Once I thought about it, though, this statement should in no way be added to the long list of reasons not to believe in any god, the reason being that just because you don't like the idea of an evil god, doesn't mean one couldn't exist.

An analogy I came up with is someone saying, "Hitler?  Oh I don't believe in Hitler.  I couldn't possibly believe in someone so evil." (albeit being intrinsically evil isn't existent either, but that's a different discussion.)  I'm trying to get the point of across that just because you wouldn't WANT to believe in something/someone so evil, doesn't mean it would poof them out of existence.  Even if god did exist, you would have no grounds to say he doesn't based on his character.

Godwin's Law makes another appearance.  

Not believing in God because he's evil... is that why no one believes in Zeus or Hades? They did some evil shit too.

Hismikeness.

[Mike M.]

Thanks for the replies, there has been a lot of good discussion on this page.  I would have to say that I rather enjoy the philosophical reactions of atheists, as well as the scientific ones.  I already know god doesn't exist, but I have a good time trying to convince others that god doesn't, or to find new ways to support my stance.  I treat it as a kind of mind puzzle.

Also, I think that sometimes when people say "I don't believe in such an evil god," that they really mean, "If such an evil god DID exist, I wouldn't worship it."

[Quinn Mander]

It's all just made up, it's nothing more than a story, don't you see that?

Of course we do.  Perhaps I shouldn't speak for other people, but I hardly think there is an atheist that would disagree with you on this point.  I was a bit taken aback by this response.  It made me laugh.

Wait, sorry, I think I must be confused as to exactly what you're saying, i_am_i.  Are you saying it's a waste of time to pursue this line of reasoning because by the very act of pursuing it you are somehow giving ground to a theist and unintentionally allowing that god exists?  Or ar you saying that there are actual atheists out there running around in the world believing god does bad things (and therefore must exist), and so they willfully decide therefore NOT to believe in god.  Because, if the latter, that's a contradiction obvious even to a stupid person (speaking as one myself).  I don't know a single atheist this describes.  But, of course, my sample size is pretty small.

As to the former, I hardly ever use this line of reasoning, but my impression of those that do use this hypothetical argument is that it is intended to be ultimately in aid of demonstrating that the world-view of the believer contradicts observable reality, and is therefore in all liklihood, as you point out, entirely fictitious.  But Mike M. rightly pointed out that the argument doesn't really do the work it puports to do anyway, and so there are probably better ways of going about this.

[elliebean]

...Or ar you saying that there are actual atheists out there running around in the world believing god does bad things (and therefore must exist), and so they willfully decide therefore NOT to believe in god.  Because, if the latter, that's a contradiction obvious even to a stupid person (speaking as one myself).  I don't know a single atheist this describes....

I'm fairly confident in saying this is probably how it most often comes about that some christians describe themselves as 'former atheists'.

[Quinn Mander]

...Or ar you saying that there are actual atheists out there running around in the world believing god does bad things (and therefore must exist), and so they willfully decide therefore NOT to believe in god. Because, if the latter, that's a contradiction obvious even to a stupid person (speaking as one myself). I don't know a single atheist this describes....

I'm fairly confident in saying this is probably how it most often comes about that some christians describe themselves as 'former atheists'.

Ah.  Fair point.  But the impression I had, which might have been totally incorrect, was that i_am_i felt the majority of atheists fit this category in some way, and he was departing from them in that regard.

[i_am_i]

It's all just made up, it's nothing more than a story, don't you see that?

Of course we do.  Perhaps I shouldn't speak for other people, but I hardly think there is an atheist that would disagree with you on this point.  I was a bit taken aback by this response.  It made me laugh.

Wait, sorry, I think I must be confused as to exactly what you're saying, i_am_i.  Are you saying it's a waste of time to pursue this line of reasoning because by the very act of pursuing it you are somehow giving ground to a theist and unintentionally allowing that god exists?  Or ar you saying that there are actual atheists out there running around in the world believing god does bad things (and therefore must exist), and so they willfully decide therefore NOT to believe in god.  Because, if the latter, that's a contradiction obvious even to a stupid person (speaking as one myself).  I don't know a single atheist this describes.  But, of course, my sample size is pretty small.

As to the former, I hardly ever use this line of reasoning, but my impression of those that do use this hypothetical argument is that it is intended to be ultimately in aid of demonstrating that the world-view of the believer contradicts observable reality, and is therefore in all liklihood, as you point out, entirely fictitious.  But Mike M. rightly pointed out that the argument doesn't really do the work it puports to do anyway, and so there are probably better ways of going about this.

I suppose I get a bit heavy-handed at times, sorry. It's just that the nature of the main arguments I see against the existence of God seems to be to treat it as a some kind of serious proposition that needs to be ruled out by reason, rather than just saying that God is made up and leaving it at that. Do I make any sense?

In other words we are, in a way, giving a certain amount of credibility to the idea of a God when we treat it as something worthy of philosophical argument.

To be honest I never hear an atheist simply state that God is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. To me that's the whole point, that's the place we start from when we engage in these discussions, it's the whole enchilada!

Strip the thing right down to its most basic fundamental nature and then you're working from a position of greater strength, see what I mean?

[Quinn Mander]

I suppose I get a bit heavy-handed at times, sorry. It's just that the nature of the main arguments I see against the existence of God seems to be to treat it as a some kind of serious proposition that needs to be ruled out by reason, rather than just saying that God is made up and leaving it at that. Do I make any sense?

In other words we are, in a way, giving a certain amount of credibility to the idea of a God when we treat it as something worthy of philosophical argument.

To be honest I never hear an atheist simply state that God is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. To me that's the whole point, that's the place we start from when we engage in these discussions, it's the whole enchilada!

Strip the thing right down to its most basic fundamental nature and then you're working from a position of greater strength, see what I mean?

Totally, I'm with you now (no need to say sorry!).  And that does make sense to me, in many ways, except I'm not certain, if you did want to argue with a theist, that you would get far with them beyond that initial statement, because they simply wouldn't agree with you.  The only reason to care about that is if you are actually trying to convince them...but maybe I'm off the mark here.