Godless Mama is a liberal, atheist, anti-theist writer and parent
seeking to make the world a better place through the spread of
secularism and the exposing of the harms of religion. In addition to
GodlessMama.com, she contributes to a number of other political and
atheist pages and blogs.
Talking with theists about religion sometimes – and by sometimes I
mean almost always – feels like Groundhog Day, a painful and monotonous
slog that simply travels the same territory over and over and over. I
get weary of both hearing and repeating the same arguments so
frequently, so I decided to compile the most tired (not to mention the
most tiresome) themes that I encounter, so that going forward I can
simply point people here when they trot out these inevitable gems.
1. Explaining what god is or wants, then saying humans cannot understand god.
The conversation goes like this:
Theist: “God loves us and wants us to be saved. God is just and
merciful. God will provide. God always gives us what we need, not just
what we want.”
Atheist: “If god loves us, is merciful, provides, and always gives us what we need, why do children starve to death?”
Theist: “We are mere mortals and can’t expect to understand His ways. You can’t apply human standards to god.”
Uh . . . If we can’t apply human standards to god when it comes to
figuring out why he lets children starve, why can we apply human
standards to establish that he loves us, is just and merciful, and will
provide? By what means do you ascertain these attributes in the first
place if not by human standards? God is either knowable or he isn’t;
you either understand him or you don’t. If his reasons for allowing
innocent children to suffer and die are inscrutable, so too must be his
reasons for everything else, and to claim otherwise is to admit that you
in fact know nothing of god, but have opted to believe what is most
comforting to you – something that is manifestly apparent to atheists
already, but which most theists would not confess in so many words.
2. Claiming that god loves us all, then rationalizing human suffering.
Theists most often dismiss human suffering by victim-blaming –
declaring that our own free will causes us to make bad choices, which
cause us to suffer as a result. Once we get past the inherent privilege
of a claim that assumes everyone has an array of both good and bad
options from which to choose (or has a choice at all), we are still left
with the problem of suffering that is not the direct result of our own
actions. “Free will,” they repeat. “Some people use theirs to hurt
others.” Ah, okay – so god is willing to stand idly by and watch
innocents be tortured and murdered because he prioritizes the free will
of evil people to do harm over that of their victims? That’s not much of
a resume-builder for god, but for the sake of argument I’ll give you
that one too. What about illness and natural disasters then? Even the
most nefarious of minds cannot will a tumor or an earthquake or a
tsunami into being. That’s when, if we don’t hear “Oh, free will causes
climate change which causes those disasters,” we hear (again), “We are
mere mortals and can’t expect to understand god’s ways.”
In this world, deliberately inflicting pain and hardship on someone
we claim to love is called abuse. In religion, it’s called grace. When
we regard human suffering as not only inevitable but as an expression of
love by an omnipotent being, we trivialize the experience of those who
must endure it and stifle the otherwise natural human impulse to
alleviate it.
Read the rest here:
Ten Contradictions Theists Just Can’t Stop Making | Godless Mama
No comments:
Post a Comment