So the world got rocked again by radical Islamic terrorism when a religious nutjob recently decided to blow himself up at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. In the Philippines, a band of thugs called the Maute Group (Maute), who claims to have pledged allegiance to the terrorist group ISIS, has wreaked havoc in Marawi City. President Rodrigo Duterte had to declare Martial Law in Mindanao to contain the threat posed by pests like the Maute and the Abu Sayyaf. But this “radical Islam-inspired terror” kind of thing is not new. I have written a few articles against the intellectual and moral bankrupt ideology of these “evil losers” (to borrow what US President Donald Trump called them). What I find interesting is the quick condemnation of the belief in God or gods by liberals and atheists, suggesting the absurdity and danger of theistic faith which they claim leads to terrorist acts such as the ones we have been seeing. I am amazed how these liberals and atheists seem to believe that they have everything in the world’s affairs quite figured out.
A liberal atheist friend of mine recently posted his frustration on his Facebook wall against the folly of the belief in theistic deities and how it leads to terrorism. His argument goes that many terrorists commit heinous acts in the name of their deity or faith. He contends that subscription to the belief in an all-powerful and all-loving deity which many religious adherents embrace is irrational since violence, suffering, and pain could easily be prevented by a being that possesses unlimited omnipotence and benevolence. Thus, he points out, that praising such a deity even after many victims were spared is a mistake. If there is anyone worthy of condemnation, my friend says, it would be the deity because it allowed the terror to happen in the first place. For him, the deity would be the greatest terrorist in the equation for allowing such evil to happen considering that it has all the power to stop it.
So basically my friend’s argument was inspired from the classic Epicurean “Problem of Evil” argument.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
The only difference is that instead of assessing the existence of God, his argument points more towards the condemnation of God.
I am just wondering – assuming that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent deity does exists, why would such a god be tagged as the greatest terrorist if it was the believer’s choice to commit an act of terror? Is the atheist incapable of separating X from the belief in X or even the action of X-believer? In addition, doesn’t the atheist realize that his argument and conclusion are merely based on an assumption of the characteristics of the deity being discussed? Isn’t it rather funny to see atheists being so judgmental over an assumption? I find it rather hilarious to hear atheists go bat-shit crazy and condemn someone or something they assert not to exist.
Why would even the belief or faith in such a god be false if a believer chooses to commit evil? I suppose Global Warming is a hoax because Al Gore cheated on Tipper Gore. I suppose Apple is a lousy brand and its products are crap because Steve Jobs was a jerk. So wouldn’t it be absurd to believe that the abuse or misuse of a belief in a deity would necessarily discredit the belief or the deity itself? If a believer in God is a jerk, why should that necessarily lead to discrediting God (or religion) or even the subscription to such?
It’s amazing, really. Atheists seem quick to condemn religious adherents (or even God) as terrorists but are ready to defend abortionists. Liberals seem quick to defend illegal immigration yet they get ape-mad about sweat shops and low minimum wage in countries like China. In abortion’s case, they claim that the mother has the right to choose to abort the fetus in her womb yet they condemn religious extremists for killing infidels. I wonder why they are okay when it comes to killing a defenseless fetus but not when it comes to a religious nutjob for choosing to be a martyr taking out many kafirs from his martyrdom? Why give one a pass and not the other? For illegal immigration’s case, I wonder why they are okay defending illegal immigration using the justification of America’s cheap labor needs yet they condemn countries like China for their sweat shops and dirt cheap labor? These folks seem quite conflicted.
Liberals (and I suppose many atheist fundamentalists as well) can be quite a hoot when it comes to issues going on around us. The problem is that a lot of their arguments are mostly straw man-based that they love to knock down easily. I suppose there is irony in this article as I too am using the same straw man argument tactic liberals are accustomed to. But it doesn’t really matter – whoever said liberal logic deserves serious thought? As conservative pundit Ann Coulter once said:
“Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.”
(Image taken from patheos.com)
Calling a spade, a spade…
While there are certainly some people who will argue “all religion is evil because terrorists”, you’re really just destroying a strawman. The more usual form of the anti-religion argument is this:
– Religion is a powerful motivation for action, so organised religion can be politicized and manipulated by evil people for evil ends.
– Dumb people tend to be more susceptible to this kind of manipulation.
– Populations manipulated in this way tend to get dumber, leaving them more susceptible to such exploitation.
Another aspect is that mainstream religions such as Christianity and Buddhism contain some quite complex moral reasoning. People who don’t have the intellectual capacity to reason at this level will be unable to grasp the basics of those religions, and are likely to pervert them into something unpleasant.
Example: Catholicism in the Philippines basically tells people that as long as they go to confession and make lots of babies, God will give them stuff. It’s not much more sophisticated than belief in Santa Claus. Likewise with Islam. I bet most Filipinos who call themselves “Muslim” can’t even read, and/or have never read the Koran. 95% of the Koran is harmless stuff, with a few crazy pronouncements thrown in. But because people are gullible and listen to power-hungry priests (or whatever Muslims call them), they’re easily pushed into violence.
Add to that the fact that Filipinos are inclined to solve their problems with violence anyway, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.
The usual fucked up logic (NOT) of a believer. The Bible, The Quran, both full of murder, genocide, rape. There is no moral reasoning in these books when taken as a whole. But of course you throw that away with the “95%” bullshit. On balance have the mainstream religions been a positive thing for humanity. Never!
The term ‘Liberals’ is almost always misused. The people the author references as ‘Liberals’ are generally corporate leftists; there is a big difference. Leftists have a tendency to attack certain religions and praise other ones, even when the ones they praise are causing all the problems. They live under the religion of political correctness. They are full of shit.
I don’t generally look at the behaviors of supposed religious people, because most of them are hypocrites. I look at what religious texts say and judge the religion based on its writings.
Many right-wing types condemn abortion – but then want never-ending wars. So, they don’t want a woman to abort an unwanted fetus ( who will likely have a shit life if born; no one wants to discuss this, or who will pay for the baby) – but they love bombing the shit out of babies, fetuses, women and children. Look at the neocons in the U.S. who want to bully the world and kill civilians (and get excited about it), with endless wars – but bitch about abortion. They don’t give a fuck about babies or any life for that matter. If you go to the slums of the Philippines you will see endless poor people, who end up in a sweatshop, or as slaves, whores or starving and diseased, because they have shit lives. Should a fetus be aborted, or prostituted, trafficked and beaten when s/he is 11 years old? Pick your poison. The right wingers simply want to control womens’ bodies and they are full of shit.
Again, Leftists will never look at the individuals who are committing terrorist acts. They lack the balls to point out who they are because of political correctness. Their opinions change based on which direction the wind blows, because of their political ideology. The terrorist attacks going on now are almost solely being committed by one religion. Buddhists and Sikhs are not killing people. I am not a religious person – but would rather live next to a Sikh, than some prick atheist.
David: you don’t know your history. Religion has been an excuse for both violence and the advance of civilization … as has a whole bunch of other ideas. The biggest genocides of the 20th Century (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Communist China, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia) had nothing to do with religion, and in most of those cases were designed to stamp it out. The fact is, humans will always do what they’re gonna do and then find some justification for doing it.
Neither the New Testament nor the Koran are “full of murder, genocide, rape”. I assume you’ve never even read either of them. Most of the Koran is surprisingly enlightened (considering when it was written). The Ahadith, on the other hand … hmm, yeah, you might have a point.
Europe and the US exist as (comparatively) advanced societies partly because of the influences of Protestantism. The crucial events, in my opinion, hinged around the rise of the Netherlands as an imperial power and the associated rise of Calvinism, which eventually led to the destruction of the Inquisition and the Catholic Church across (most of) Europe. The ideas of Calvinism were morally advanced and set the stage for several centuries of progress.
Marius,
even today the name of Cauvin (better known as Calvin) is still mentioned in the Netherlands. Which is odd bec more and more the Netherlands is getting de-Christianised. A trend which is also on-going in USA (if I may believe certain media outlets).
Anyway, we (the Netherlands as a country) will keep on progressing and keep on installing/making more and more liberal laws.
The latest bill that is in the making is about ‘fulfilled life’ (Dutch: voltooid leven). It is an extension of the current euthanasia law. It (fulfilled life) means that if you think you are done in this life (nothing more to add to your own life, not being ill/sick , not having an incurable decease) that you can ask for a legal termination of your life in a dignified way. In contrast to the current euthanasia law, you have/had to have an incurable disease and must be ‘suffering’ (physical and/or mental pain).
Example:
a woman/man is 50 years old, married, top-job, 3 kids, travelled the world, did everything he/she wanted to do and not knowing anymore what to live for. Why wait for another 30 to 40 years when you can end it today?
So far the only political parties who are against this bill, are obviously the religious based political parties (CDA, SGP and CU). They only have one vision/view and that is that only god is allowed to decide about life and death. Well, lets see about that.
“It’s amazing, really. Atheists seem quick to condemn religious adherents (or even God) as terrorists but are ready to defend abortionists”
If you take a hard second look, you’d realize the essence of this liberalist phenomenon. It says a lot about how people’s view of life has been distorted. It gets even more dangerous once violence has been normalized- and especially when people aren’t able to distinguish between its gray areas.
So what could be the nature of “God” or the “No-God” ?
It’s a fact that there can be a personal intelligence and a nonpersonal one. We can make enough assumptions to get to it.
Evil exists in this world…we cannot understand why …
Religions call the spirit enticing men to do evil as : Satan; Belzebub;Devil; etc..
Why are there people who believe by blowing themselves up, and the Infidels, is a direct path to Paradise, and 72 virgins…we don’t know. Why there were Inquisitions in the Christian faith. We don’t know…Why thee are Pedhophile Priests…we don’t know.
So, it is easier to blame Satan and the Devils, to answer these questions.
Liberals are people who talk on both sides of their mouths…some never allow opposing thoughts and views to content with them…
Whatever your belief: liberal, conservative, fence sitter, political opportunists, etc…Enjoy the discourse and the debate !
On a global world wide scale atheists are a minority (in absolute numbers). So why and how do you feel threatened by a minority? The majority (in numbers) always outweigh minorities. So this piece of text is really a waste of time and effort.
Yes, I am an atheist and yes I am a liberal. So do I now feel attacked by this text? No, I dont feel that way at all. But its funny you give time and space to atheists. So what is bothering you about atheists?
You’re funny, Bob. ????
Who said I’m threatened with you guys? Can’t a person ridicule one’s arguments without feeling threatened? It is the arguments, Bob… not the person or even the label.
By the way… I already know you’re a liberal atheist. You’ve been here long enough. I have no problem with your atheism and liberalism, I just don’t agree with a lot of your reasons and arguments.
Thanks for wasting your time with my article, Bob. Don’t let it bother you too much. It was really just for fun and a little chop busting. ???? lol
Hector,
“I just don’t agree with a lot of your reasons and arguments.”
Can you pls give me a few examples? Not because I wanna discuss them. I just wanna know where I am wrong .
When I am wrong, at fault then I will admit that. I really have no problem in admitting my own mistakes (be it in mindset, in behavior or both). I am not that arrogant.
PM: pls dont address me with/by the name of Bob. We dont do that in my country. Its typical American to do that (I think). My birthname is Robert and everyone calls me Robert (or Rob, but never Bob). I may even think you are replying to somebody else. This is not a warning, but sharing a fact.
Ann Coulter is not a conservative. Bill Maher is not a liberal.
Must be the die-hards among Filipino atheists lately going loud with “down with religion,” “wipe it from the face of the earth.” They took the cue from this recent case of Muslim insurgency in Marawi. But mind you, this is likely more connected with the Filipino Islamic insurgency wanting to separate and form their own nation. That would make it more political than religious in nature.
From the beginning men used God to justify the unjustifiable.