CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:14
Arguments:14
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheists are atheists because they dismiss the possibility that God is a jerk (10)

Debate Creator

Bohemian(3861) pic



Atheists are atheists because they dismiss the possibility that God is a jerk

The title above is what a friend of mine said to me...It was an interesting comment to say the least and it did get me thinking...

Add New Argument
3 points

If an atheist asks a theist for evidence of a God, he gets no evidence. What he generally gets is philosophy. Where the problem lies is that theists are unwilling to admit their philosophy is just philosophy. They insert it where it does not belong, where it has no validity, and this is why they're looked upon as being intellectually dishonest adults, with childlike minds, who simply refuse to accept the reality of human mortality..

they never even use the word philosophy when they're asked for evidence, they simply spew it out as if saying 'the evidence is all around you' actually proves what they posit. "i know in my heart there is a god' proves absolutely nothing because no one knows anything in his heart (which is simply a pump to circulate blood throughout one's body.) what they're really saying is that they find the idea of a personal god, emotionally appealing. well we as atheists already know that. but we have long since accepted that reality wont kneel before us to placate us in our self-centered fantasies. it doesn't care about our opinions or our feelings.

Bohemian(3861) Clarified
2 points

I understand what you're saying and I agree but, I don't know if you really get the purpose of this debate. I guess I should have made it a little more clear. What I'm essentially asking is: Why is a benevolent God seen as being more likely than a malevolent one, by both theists and atheists? You don't see very many theists who believe in a malevolent God. Why is that? Many arguments against the existence of God seem to take it as a given that if God exists he must be good, but what if God does exist and he is just a divine jerk? Do you see what I'm getting at?

1 point

'You don't see very many theists who believe in a malevolent God. Why is that?'

Actually lots of theists believe in a malevolent god. God is one great big appeal to emotion. He loves you, he will guide, and protect you, if you bend to his will. If you don't he'll torture you repeatedly forever. If you follow his rules and someone tries to impede or oppose you, they will see his malevolence.

In other words, gimme your milk money or my God will beat you up at recess.

You are free to choose, but if you don't choose the choice God has chosen for you, your store will be destroyed by arson. This is what I like to call 'Divine Extortion'.

I don't believe In Kali or Jesus because they're equally ridiculous. There is neither objective evidence, nor logic to support their existence.

If theists cant get a warm fuzzy from their faith, they'd see no point in constantly lying to themselves.

Logic takes those lies and exposes em. Thats why theists hate it, and why they compartmentalize so much.

2 points

I'm an Atheist because I saw no evidence for this God that everyone was telling me was real.

I kind of don't accept the "God is a dick" type arguments that some Atheists put out there. I feel that there's way too much philosophy behind that to just simplify it so crudely.

I don't really get it. Atheists are atheists because they refuse to believe in God without substantial evidence. If God was a jerk, and was worshiped, that wouldn't change an atheists position, I don't think. What's the term for those who believe in a malevolent God? I don't remember.

Bohemian(3861) Clarified
2 points

I don't really get it. Atheists are atheists because they refuse to believe in God without substantial evidence. If God was a jerk, and was worshiped, that wouldn't change an atheists position

For those who disbelieve because of the "Problem of Evil" it would. This is a common argument against God perhaps the most common, but the argument takes as one of it's premises that God is benevolent, but what if God isn't benevolent? Do you see what I'm saying? There are still other reasons to disbelieve, but for a good number that was their main reason if not the only reason. I guess it's more of a question about human nature than it is about the existence of God.

Why are people so willing to believe in a benevolent God but not a malevolent one, when logically there is no reason one is more likely to exist than the other? I just thought it was an interesting point that I don't hear very often.

1 point

Consider this:

What if God does exist, but he is a divine jerk. What if God lets....nay, causes terrible evil things happen to people only to be worshiped for it, as a way to amuse himself. What if God is the one sending all those tornadoes through trailer parks. What if he created a 6,000 year old universe with "light on the way" and already aged stars as a way to mess with humans. What if he actually does answer the prayers of movie stars so that they may win an emmy and intentionally ignores the starving children with aids, because to a divine being this is quite hilarious.

Dude!!! You're totally describing me!!! Does that mean I'm a God ;)

madrigal14(301) Clarified
1 point

I don't think even you can find this hilarious after a while. The deathbed pleas of starving innocents does get boring sooner or later.

1 point

Nope, because then that would mean they believe in God, for God to be a jerk, therefore no longer making them Atheists. And this would also assume the only reason anyone is an Atheist is because they believe it comes down to "God is a jerk or doesn't exist", which isn't the case for everyone.

1 point

The "evil" argument is only for the popular Christian god. Unfortunately there are not enough pagans and alternative religions around anymore to practice arguing against Zeus, Loki, etc. as well.

The evil arguement is only one of the many reasons for me though, so it wouldn't matter too much.

Actually I do get what Bohemian is trying to get at. This question is another argument for atheism called the "Evil-God" challenge. Many theists have attempted to refute the Problem of Evil argument through various theodicies such as the free will defence. The "Evil-God" challenge thus asks the theists to suppose that God is not wholly/perfectly good, but wholly/perfectly evil. The question the atheism would then ask is: Why is a good God more likely to exist than an Evil one? If the theist points to all the good in the world that exist (and hence formulate a sort of "Problem of Good" argument), then atheists can also reply with a sort of atheodicy like the free will defence (i.e. that rational moral agents have free will and choose to do good). But think about it, if such a free will defence is refuted and there is no reason for a theist to suggest that an Evil God does not exist, then the opposite is true where the good God cannot be proven to exist. It's sort of a mirror image of the Problem of Evil objection. In other words, I do not believe that the God is a jerk because of the "Problem of Good".