People think that belief in God gives them a moral compass and awareness that no matter how bad things get for them they have him by their side. These are vapid reasons for following God. The reasons for getting rid are overwhelming.  Smarter religionists claim that if you deny there is a God who is about helping us to be moral and shun unrighteousness you end up with no reason to take anything seriously as morally good or morally bad.  They say you end up removing the foundation of morality so if you act moral you won't really know why you do it or why you should.  They say atheists trash God over the problem of his allowing evil [in the form of injustice, cruelty and suffering] to happen when they cause a worse problem, leaving no reason to believe in evil in the first place.
Would one proof that God does not love matter if everything else was indicatory of God’s love? What if you have one proof of God’s evil and billions of his love?
Don't forget that evil starts off crafty and subtle and rolls in good things like a pig in mud.  That is your answer.  Do you want to be evil yourself as if one murder should be allowed to happen in the universe as long as it is not 100?  Murder is murder.  It is totally evil for the victim but you are not bothered and it is about the number.

The Christian argument that you need to believe in a God to believe in morality is interesting. But it is a refusal to admit the truth. If my belief in God gives me belief in morality, it follows that it is not God who is giving it but my belief about him. Yet Christians say they want to base morality on God and not on human belief or opinion! And if it is bad for us to decide what is moral, then it does not follow that God will help or belief in him will help. Saying your ideas about right and wrong are the same as God's is the height of arrogance and no wonder it leads to intolerance.
Even if there is a God and many of our ideas about him are spot-on they are still our ideas. If Mr Specific was Jack the Ripper and some book points the finger at him what use is that when there is too much of a chance that it is the person's own ideas? It is luck not knowledge or evidence that has got the right answer. If there is no God, then man is better than God for man invents this perfect all-loving being. Man cannot do that for man is not all-good but man will make it look like he has. If there is a God, there is still no way that man has his ideas about God because of God. The person who asks you to trust in God is asking too much. You cannot assume he has the real God or cares. No you can assume he is talking about the God who exists in his head.


Christians say that God is infinite in all perfections. He is perfect without putting it to any use. He doesn't even have to create unless he chooses to. He would still be perfect. That is rubbish. God might be perfect in his own way. But what about other kinds of goodness? Religion likes to claim that God is the ultimate source of all goodness. Imagine a mother and child could exist by chance and without being made by God. Surely her love for her child would deserve more praise than God's for it exists by chance and she continues it? She creates it. She creates it against the grain - there is no God to help her. Love produced without the assistance of God is the best love of all. Love against the grain is the most authentic love. Atheism no matter what flaws it has or how much it is abused or misused by atheists, does open the door to real goodness.


Believers seem to say God is a real being, a person and also that he is goodness itself. They say goodness is a person or persons if you believe in the Trinity - one God being three persons. This is as insane as saying the number 1 is a real person. Or that the idea of electricity (not electricity but the idea!) is a person. Believers treat God as a good person one minute and as goodness the next. The two treatments are actually mutually exclusive. When you adore goodness as an ideal and even if you call it God, you are adoring it not the person of God. To adore the person of God is to treat him as a person not as mere goodness. The atheist merely does all the time (or should) what the believer does some of the time - adore the ideal of goodness. But the atheist does not pretend it is God for it is not.

It is not good to say that God brings good out of evil. And if evil is good in the wrong place, it follows that God does not need to take any action. The good will happen. Evil is necessarily the opponent of good so if good comes, it comes in spite of it. There has to be a default. Whether there is a God or not has nothing to do with it. Thus the default is good.

The person suffering beyond our imagination need not be helped by the thought that there is a God. Indeed trying to feel that there is and failing will only make the suffering worse. If you think of happy days when you are depressed you only make yourself far more depressed. And you are telling yourself how lucky you are though you know you are not. The believer who tells you to pray and turn to God is not helping you.
People urging you to pray in order that you may have a relationship with God can be a torment if you suspect God is doing terrible things to you. You may feel that they care about honouring God and not you.
Trusting God when you are crippled with depression and emotional torment is painful for the same reason that a wife trusting her husband despite seeing the evidence that he is totally unscrupulous would be.
Religion says that, “Atheists can’t call anything evil.” But that argument is saying the atheists can call it evil to say there is evil. So, "Evil is real", is evil. So the argument does not make any sense. And the atheist is accused of saying, “It is evil to say there is evil” which is saying the atheist is so evil that he does not want to admit that evil exists. The believers argue that atheists are presuming there is a God when they condemn evil for evil and a God who condemns it necessarily go together. To say one is to mean the other. But we have shown the atheist is not presuming God by condemning evil. The atheist is recognising that evil is about us not God. The atheist is recognising evil for what it is.
When God implies hate and injustice against atheists that is absolute proof that believers are wrong to worship God for that worship is based on not on evil being seen as a problem but on evil being excused and condoned and implicitly praised.

Judging means really suggesting that the person is good or bad or in-between. With God, people just say he is good and leave the judging out. That is bias. A God who judges us should be judged himself. That means being prepared to call him evil and to condemn those who worship him. It is evil and unfair to take any other approach. This is more than a problem of evil - it is a contradiction. Religion calls evil a problem when it may be more than that and that is evil and is intended to invite and induce bias.


God believers say there is a problem of evil and it is serious.  They say that atheists only make the problem of evil worse for atheism removes any justification in calling anything evil at all.  But we have shown that faith in God is riddled with evil itself so that cannot be true.  And if it is atheists are the ones with the lightest problem of evil assuming atheists and believers both have one. The argument that evil assumes there is a God to be against it is an odd one. It is clear that to say that evil exists is not the same as virtually saying God exists. Atheism recognises evil correctly. Faith in God recognises it inadequately.  No wonder it is like a security guard shooting at a shadow.


No Copyright