Atheism Vs. Anti-Theism

[GothmogII]

Simply put: I DO NOT want to believe in God, even if he was real.

O....K....

As for the Atheist poster, Evil is a artificial product of morality; and doesn't imply malevolence, just neutrality.

And the 'open letter' just sounds like someone being an ass.

I think he/she meant it in a trust/belief kind of way rather than simply stating the elephant doesn't exist even if it's standing right in front of you. Like: 'I believe in the government' doesn't mean you worship, or attribute any sort of divine status to them, just that you believe in their capabilities. Context :3

 

[Moloch-De]

Simply put: I DO NOT want to believe in God, even if he was real.

O....K....

As for the Atheist poster, Evil is a artificial product of morality; and doesn't imply malevolence, just neutrality.

And the 'open letter' just sounds like someone being an ass.

Evil might be a vague thing to define but i guess there are a few commons which even people with very twisted Morals would agree on (Morals itself are common to atheists and belivers alike i assume).
So if these two assumptions apply it would prove the thesis:
1. There are elements considert to be evil. See example 1
2.You can't be neutral and innocent at all times. See example 2

Example1: In Africa they have a huge aids problem and there was the superstition that if you had sex with a virgin you would get cured from this dadly desease (most are not able to buy medicine). No virgin would want to have sex with a deseased person and there is no certanty that the woman you get is a vignin so desperat men made sure of that and raped very small girls. If these girls survived they would definitly be infected.

Even considered everything evil would be some kind of just punishmend from above I wouldn't know what sins "babys as young as only a few months" could have commited to deserve such. Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25806

Example2: Acceptence of an evil that you would be able to stop makes you part of it and i bet without doublechecking the bible would agree with that in some way. I'm going to exagerate a little since this one is a little bit difficult:
You are at a train station and some nice looking fellow asks you to hold a bag for him. being a kind person or a christian who is supposed to help anyway you agree. The nice person steps over to an elderly woman and haresses her to the point where he starts beating her with his two free fists.
While he starts to kick her whils shes gone down you know that you have your handy on your person and you could call for help while blood starts wets the floor...
Another possible scenatio is that you are actually stronger than the guy beating on the lady or that you discover a loaded gun in the bag, both facts allowing you to interfere yourself without risking your own health. (nonviolence is something i can accept but persons who are currageus enugh to truely go that way would help anyway).
Now what would you consider the person who would wait patiently until her body isn't moving anymore and than hands the bag back, probibly wishing the guy a good ride since politeness gves extra points into the "go to heaven jar"?

Edit: the poster is awsome but the comic does indeed put a assholes conclusion to some reasonable arguments

 

[Uncompetative]

...Epicurus...

Sorry, fellow Atheist, but I feel that Epicurus is wrong on this question. Putting my theological hat on for the sake of argument - as I do not believe in any form of God - the question of evil, or as I would prefer to refer to it "human suffering" not being prevented by a loving God is easy to answer.

free will

Once we stopped being 'his' pets in The Garden of Eden we were able to freely live without divine intervention and do bad things...

I always find it strange that religious people think that God is interventionist. About the only loophole he gives himself here is the creation of an exemplar for humanity, to show us 'The Way', who has become known as Jesus (although I personally doubt he existed). The cool thing about this idea from a theological bystander's viewpoint is that Jesus can be a man, like us and merely leave an imprint on history, an evangelical quasi-parable narrative, to persuade those that followed that there was a way back to a Moral Good even if we had lost innocence.

To my mind all the walking on water stuff, Lazarus and the Resurrection are unnecessary embroidery of a simple story of God giving us a chance by taking fallible human form and without miracles or intervention of angels showing us the way.

That said, I still don't feel the need to believe in any of it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Well, let's take a look at those examples then:

Example 1 : A bad person
Example 2 : A bad person

Now, if we've been given the choice, and there is 'The Devil' provoking us, how exactly does God stop this without enforcing his judgement on us?

There's also the idea that what happens to us on Earth is irrelevant compared to how we are taken into Heaven.

But there's an awful emotional quality to that, so let's try swapping those examples to Science.

If you switch on your computer, it will either receive enough electricity to power it, or not enough; in which case it doesn't turn on.
Someday though, a glitch may get into your system which fries your motherboard. Does that mean that your power supply needs checking everytime you switch it on?

Similarly, if you know there's an electrical storm coming, but you've got 2% more to download, are you responsible for the powersurge that destroys your motherboard?

Choice is Human. Imagination is Human. Shame is Human.

You can stay neutral and impartial by just not being at that point. If the Religious people are right, then both bad people will be punished and both good people will be blessed.

Basic Morality/Physics/Mathematics questions don't, and can't, apply to something that is Infinite. That's almost stated in most textbooks.

 

[Moloch-De]

free will

But if God was such a fan of free will why should we belive in him? As for the Bible liturally it talks of an intervention crazy god so the literary beliving crowd has to face Epicurus. The ones who belive only the message of the bible e.g. turn the other cheek than would face the problem of a church telling them how to interpret the bible. That is not free will!
It also is not free will if you have to choose doing right or go to hell.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

free will

But if God was such a fan of free will why should we belive in him?

Why not?

As for the Bible liturally it talks of an intervention crazy god so the literary beliving crowd has to face Epicurus. The ones who belive only the message of the bible e.g. turn the other cheek than would face the problem of a church telling them how to interpret the bible. That is not free will!

Ah, but consider the lily. The Bible is God's word 'interpreted' by Man.

It also is not free will if you have to choose doing right or go to hell.

Most Christians will say that the only thing you can do to get into heaven is believe. That's a different thing to doing.

 

[dadeisvenm]

Atheism is not a belief, it is a statement much like Christianity is a declaration.
A (no)+theo (God)= No God. A declaration.

This seems entirely wrong to me. Are you really suggesting that Christianity is not a belief?

I would say as a non-militant, non anti-theist, Atheist that my world view cannot be proven or disproven so it is a belief.
I believe what I believe out of a preference to live in what I regard to be Reality (i.e. no Santa Claus, etc.).

Christianity is broadly similar and is also a belief, although it differs slightly as it generally requires faith.

Unless you have not re-examined your belief system since your cultural indoctrination (where some, mean people would call you a Sheep).

Belief - A vague idea in which some confidence is placed.

Any true Christian would declare (not believe) in Christ. The same can be said for the declaration Atheist... true Atheist. As you pointed out the problem lays with the "declaring" there is no God. Like I said before A Theo; stating there is no God would declare that one is omniscient which is impossible since no one can prove God does not exist. Are you sure your not Agnostic? And Christianity is not based on reality? Forensic Science can prove Christianity is firmly planted in reality.

And for the umpteenth time Santa Claus is real... or was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

I whole heartedly believe in a pluralistic mindset. Its why I'm Christian.

Jobz, I don't think you understand certain dynamics. Religiously, it is highly discouraged for unequally yolked; people with different belief systems, to date or marry. In error most try to convert through sex and dating which does not work. So your better off either understanding, in this case, Christianity COMPLETELY via study or ONLY hanging in Atheist circles... that are comfortable for you.

Atheism is not a belief, it is a statement much like Christianity is a declaration. A (
no)+theo (God)= No God. A declaration.

If I were Atheist I'd be empatheticlly neutral. So being Christian, I'm surprised you raised the question. Christianity is not meant to be obstructive. Some Christian think just as fervently as Anti-theist but they are like butting rams. Does more harm then good for little gain. If you want to understand "belief systems" you have to be pluralistic and well informed and (most important) UNDERSTANDING. The girl you dined next to though your belief was disgusting because it IS HER belief period. Deal. Water of a ducks back.

What I gather from reading this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that people with different beliefs shouldn't associate with each other. Which to me is absolutely ridiculous. I have friends who follow all different religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, even a few Wiccans) so I know it's possible for people to be open minded, I've seen it. I also know couples with differing faiths who manage to stay together (One of my best friend's father is Anglican, while his mother is an atheist, and they've been together for over twenty years.)

Also, I know quite a bit about Christianity. Religion (In theory, not practice) has always been fascinating to me, and I've studied them independently because I'm a knowledge addict. In my experiences I have more knowledge about Christianity in particular than most Christians do, which is quite sad.

As for your point about Atheism and Christianity being statements and declarations, not beliefs. That just confuses me...I don't have any idea what you mean.

No. People SHOULD associate with each other. I have friends who are Atheist, Muslim, Agnostic, you name it, but I do share my Christian POV. The Christian perspective frowns apon two people; one Christian and a non-Christian being together courting or marital. Its Biblical. Deal. Don't like it? Thats your opinion but it won't change doctrine.

Example...

It would be insane for a Coitophobic (a person who has a fear of sexual intercourse) to marry a Nimphomaniac. Graphic but I hope you get the idea. There are guidelines for those already in those marital relationships, but it generally encouraged to be avoided. You want someone to love you for you as you are NOW not to change you and be with you under false pretenses. Right? So why the opposition?

 

[Jobz]

No. People SHOULD associate with each other. I have friends who are Atheist, Muslim, Agnostic, you name it, but I do share my Christian POV. The Christian perspective frowns apon two people; one Christian and a non-Christian being together courting or marital. Its Biblical. Deal. Don't like it? Thats your opinion but it won't change doctrine.

Example...

It would be insane for a Coitophobic (a person who has a fear of sexual intercourse) to marry a Nimphomaniac. Graphic but I hope you get the idea. There are guidelines for those already in those marital relationships, but it generally encouraged to be avoided. You want someone to love you for you as you are NOW not to change you and be with you under false pretenses. Right? So why the opposition?

OK...So you're saying that people shouldn't marry outside of their own religious groups? Well simply put I disagree with you. Doctrine or not I know people who've done it and are quite happy with it.

 

[Uncompetative]

free will

But if God was such a fan of free will why should we belive in him? As for the Bible liturally it talks of an intervention crazy god so the literary beliving crowd has to face Epicurus. The ones who belive only the message of the bible e.g. turn the other cheek than would face the problem of a church telling them how to interpret the bible. That is not free will!
It also is not free will if you have to choose doing right or go to hell.

Ah. I never said this hypothetical God was a fan of free will (for the sake of argument). In fact, if you take the story of The Garden of Eden as fact, or at least a parable/metaphor for humanity's relationship to the divine, then it is obviously that innocence only lasted as long as we made no attempt to gain knowledge - particularly, self-knowledge.

Now. Remember all the stuff about Adam and Eve's expulsion and feeling shame at their nakedness. This is the birth of Consciousness.

It may well be that higher animals are conscious (Dolphins, Elephants, Gorillas, Bears etc.) and their ostensible lack of cognition and language syntax doesn't thrust them out of a doubtful "grey area", but as far as the authors of the Bible were concerned they were dumb. They didn't appreciate that we were just a little bit more mentally evolved than them and this complexity led to bona fide Consciousness. Now, the reason I bring up other species is that I don't believe in souls. I merely think we are complicated.

Therefore, the expulsion from Eden, the Apple if you will, is just a narrative device to mark the 'tipping point' at which our species lost the innocence of being animals who eat only to survive, to self-conscious entities who presume they have identities, infer that the Universe around them contains Gods or a God and pretty soon get a compulsion to dress for dinner even if their personal morality allows them to then skip out on the cheque.

ADDENDUM

Sorry, but a whole bunch of posts arrived in the time it took me to write this. Just to avoid confusion I deliberately said Santa not Saint Nicholas as I wanted to refer to the character many small children are led to believe in, that delivers presents down chimneys and rides the sky in a sled pulled by reindeer from the historical personage who actually existed. This was intended as a quick way to refer to my own loss of faith, but it now seems that I will have to come out with my personal biography to make sense of things...

I was born in December and my Mother didn't know what to call me so the nurse at the hospital suggested that due to the season I could be called Nicholas after the Saint. Thankfully, my birthday isn't on the 25th so I did not miss out on presents. I come from Canterbury, so it was culturally inevitable that I would be brought up a Christian. I prayed to God at night and believed in Santa Claus and reindeers.

Then I found out the truth. By seven I had re-examined my indoctrination and decided that I couldn't strive to live in reality with reason supported by logic and believe in Rudolf. Very soon the chain of logical inference demolished the notion of Santa Claus and, by extension, Jesus and God. The Pascal thing of you might as well believe and be wrong didn't work on me as I knew about Vikings and Odin, what if I died and they wouldn't let me cross the rainbow bridge into Valhalla - although, I hadn't done any reading of philosophy so I didn't know this idea came from Pascal. About the only philosopher I knew about was Descartes and I'm still not sure that "I think therefore I am" stands up to scrutiny.

I was an Agnostic for a short while, but largely out of a resentment for my indoctrination I eventually decided that it was a lot simpler to just say I was an Atheist even though I know that to be logically untenable philosophically. However, it was my life and I wanted to live it without any form of God in it (even if one did exist) and even if that meant that I was being illogical on some obscure level. It was a preference, a belief.

Although, I was never baptized, I attended religious assemblies at school (which made my skin crawl, but I tolerated that rather than look odd sitting outside with the sole Jehovah's Witness - I decided to have a very low profile at school which generally worked out), I even found myself in the school choir at one point miming in the local church (yeah, not too proud of that incident, but then no one noticed as we weren't all at it).

I pondered the Meaning of Life and resolved the Question (I won't go into it here, I have written about it in other forum threads...) and in time decided that the hypocrisy of celebrating Christmas was not for me, so one year I told everyone I was opting out of it and I have not received or given a present since - although, I still remember people's birthdays.

Now, as to this "intervention crazy God" as described in the Bible (especially the Old Testament). I think that book is largely bunk. I was just suggesting, for arguments sake, that it was entirely tenable for a divine entity to create the laws of physics, let the universe be created one or many times until in one of its incarnations life arose through evolution - an odd mechanism that appears to overcome entropy and create greater adaptive complexity over time... eyes and minds that try to comprehend despite the fact that if the universe were much different we wouldn't be able to pose these philosophical questions as we wouldn't have eyes and minds. This evolution led to at least one species with an emergent consciousness: us - and the Garden of Eden story could be seen as a metaphor for this self-knowledge leading to a loss of innocence and an adoption of shame and guilt, as well as a capacity for unnecessary acts against others - e.g. Mountain Lions would never kill as many as the Third Reich and not in such an impersonal way. Yet, the compensation for this expulsion from Eden is that we have the capacity to learn and communicate what wisdom and knowledge we collect in our lifetimes.

(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_anthropic_principle )

 

[Moloch-De]

There's also the idea that what happens to us on Earth is irrelevant compared to how we are taken into Heaven.

...

If the Religious people are right, then both bad people will be punished and both good people will be blessed.

That implies if i would be destind to go to Hell, for example i commited an amount of sins so that i am dammed to hell i should be out there killing you and as many people, possibly babys so they will all end up in heaven without the option that teir free will ruins that with atheist ideas? The cold war would have brougt so many people into heaven and so few who pushed the buttons ino hell, what a shame they havnt blown the earth to bits.


On the other hand i would be in hell not just with my fellow atheists but i could join with the majority of worlds poppulation. Forget these boring chaps, ethernaty of pain can't be that bad if i have Gandi, Platon and Gallilei to talk to. Would be nice to know that all Musicians that i like will join in time or waiting there already. Whats a little suffering compared to good company?


Ok i like the complicaded viewpoint a whole lot better than the dogmatic approch but what i can not understand is what part of beliving benefits anybody in any way, maybe there is an expalaination and i didn't know

 

[Janus Vesta]

...Epicurus...

Sorry, fellow Atheist, but I feel that Epicurus is wrong on this question. Putting my theological hat on for the sake of argument - as I do not believe in any form of God - the question of evil, or as I would prefer to refer to it "human suffering" not being prevented by a loving God is easy to answer.

free will

Once we stopped being 'his' pets in The Garden of Eden we were able to freely live without divine intervention and do bad things...

I always find it strange that religious people think that God is interventionist. About the only loophole he gives himself here is the creation of an exemplar for humanity, to show us 'The Way', who has become known as Jesus (although I personally doubt he existed). The cool thing about this idea from a theological bystander's viewpoint is that Jesus can be a man, like us and merely leave an imprint on history, an evangelical quasi-parable narrative, to persuade those that followed that there was a way back to a Moral Good even if we had lost innocence.

To my mind all the walking on water stuff, Lazarus and the Resurrection are unnecessary embroidery of a simple story of God giving us a chance by taking fallible human form and without miracles or intervention of angels showing us the way.

That said, I still don't feel the need to believe in any of it.

But using free will as an excuse simply make him malevolent. Which is covered by the second question. I fail to see how free will affects say, an accident. A benevolent God would stop the accidentor at he very least protect those involved. As an accident has nothing to do with free will it should be within God's bounds to help/save any of those caught in said accident. If he is unwilling to help that makes him a malevolent god. This applies to disabilities aswell.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Simply put: I DO NOT want to believe in God, even if he was real.

O....K....

As for the Atheist poster, Evil is a artificial product of morality; and doesn't imply malevolence, just neutrality.

And the 'open letter' just sounds like someone being an ass.

I think he/she meant it in a trust/belief kind of way rather than simply stating the elephant doesn't exist even if it's standing right in front of you. Like: 'I believe in the government' doesn't mean you worship, or attribute any sort of divine status to them, just that you believe in their capabilities. Context :3

Thanks for explaining what I meant. Didn't do a good enough job of it myself it seems. Though I thought it made sense seen in connection with what came before. I did say simply put.

But you got it right.

I did indeed mean to say that I don't want to believe/worship God even if he did exist. As I tried to explain, if his existence was proven and beyond doubt, I would still disregard Him as my Lord.

Perhaps I should have written: I do not want to worship God, even if he was real.
It's a bit less bold and hopefully more clear.

 

[Uncompetative]

ethernaty of pain can't be that bad if i have Gandi, Platon and Gallilei to talk to. Would be nice to know that all Musicians that i like will join in time or waiting there already. Whats a little suffering compared to good company?)

I suggest you check out the First Circle of Hell in Dante's Divine Comedy, also known as Limbo, in which 'all virtuous pagans' reside. "They are not punished in an active sense, but rather grieve only their separation from God".

(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy )

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

There's also the idea that what happens to us on Earth is irrelevant compared to how we are taken into Heaven.

...

If the Religious people are right, then both bad people will be punished and both good people will be blessed.

That implies if i would be destind to go to Hell, for example i commited an amount of sins so that i am dammed to hell i should be out there killing you and as many people, possibly babys so they will all end up in heaven without the option that teir free will ruins that with atheist ideas?

What makes you think that Earth isn't full of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory already? You kill that many people and you'll go to Hell, even if it's only Spiritual.

 

[Limasol]

I thought limbo was chucked out of Christianity long ago for being one of the positions they realised they absolutely couldn't rationalise away.

As for the religious groups not associating thing. The fear of sex person marrying a sex addict is not an analogous situation. Those are conditions caused by a diagnosable illness in the brain, while belief in a higher power is simply and irrational decision someone makes. While i would love to say religious people are all mentally ill, i wont go that low.

 

[Aptspire]

I agree. Being an Atheist can be hard, especially in the US
also, she herself asked for a controversial subject. if she can't deal with various beliefs, then she shouldn't ASK for controversy in the first place.
go to a court in NY or California. if she still brings her God there, they'll declare her delusional

 

[Moloch-De]

What makes you think that Earth isn't full of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory already? You kill that many people and you'll go to Hell, even if it's only Spiritual.

I assume i go there anyway for not beliving in god or for having sex before marriage or something like that...
But i don't belive the manmade hell on earth has anything spiritual about it because in that case i wonder why all the wrong people end up in it...The rapist who gets his satisfaction by causng littel children pain is certainly not the victim , that is contrary to the christian belive.

@ Dante's Divine Comedy: I intended a joke but if i realy had to choose between the company the heaven offers and the ones that can wait in limbo for all ethernity i would go to the limbo crowd. I don't see many people worthwhile go to heaven, classic musik and 19th century litteratur would be a little bit rare in limbo but if we could find some energy source we would be able to manufacture some computers there, after all time is not limited Heaven might be nice but nobody say it isn't boring...

 

[Uncompetative]

...Epicurus...

Sorry, fellow Atheist, but I feel that Epicurus is wrong on this question. Putting my theological hat on for the sake of argument - as I do not believe in any form of God - the question of evil, or as I would prefer to refer to it "human suffering" not being prevented by a loving God is easy to answer.

free will

Once we stopped being 'his' pets in The Garden of Eden we were able to freely live without divine intervention and do bad things...

I always find it strange that religious people think that God is interventionist. About the only loophole he gives himself here is the creation of an exemplar for humanity, to show us 'The Way', who has become known as Jesus (although I personally doubt he existed). The cool thing about this idea from a theological bystander's viewpoint is that Jesus can be a man, like us and merely leave an imprint on history, an evangelical quasi-parable narrative, to persuade those that followed that there was a way back to a Moral Good even if we had lost innocence.

To my mind all the walking on water stuff, Lazarus and the Resurrection are unnecessary embroidery of a simple story of God giving us a chance by taking fallible human form and without miracles or intervention of angels showing us the way.

That said, I still don't feel the need to believe in any of it.

But using free will as an excuse simply make him malevolent. Which is covered by the second question. I fail to see how free will affects say, an accident. A benevolent God would stop the accidentor at he very least protect those involved. As an accident has nothing to do with free will it should be within God's bounds to help/save any of those caught in said accident. If he is unwilling to help that makes him a malevolent god. This applies to disabilities as well.

Sorry, about the slow reply.

The thing is you can't reasonably expect to "have your cake and eat it" (or rather: "eat your cake, yet still have it") in this regard...

If you desire to have free will you cannot have an interventionist God. If you want your prayers answered and accidents prevented you need to accept that you are a pet of a supreme being and the very fabric of reality is being changed continually around you at his whim. Either he is restructuring the world and our memory of it to suit some higher purpose, or directly influencing our will from time to time so we feel the need "out of nowhere" to do the right thing. Either way you are not your own man.

It is therefore a bit unfair of Epicurus to accuse a non-interventionist God of malevolence - of being an absentee landlord.

There is another argument... if God is perfect and never makes mistakes then the expulsion from The Garden of Eden (metaphor) was entirely foreseen and part of his grand design to create a Universe with flora and fauna and men and women to freely marvel at it. After all, if they aren't free to marvel at it it isn't much of an accomplishment. He could have made it crap and brainwash us into thinking its great. Don't forget, most of the stuff in life that we complain is crap are artifacts of human civilization, not directly evolved products of a complex Universe.

Again, just to clarify this is all for the sake of argument. I just wanted to pick holes in Epicurean philosophy. I don't believe in God.

 

[Janus Vesta]

...Epicurus...

Sorry, fellow Atheist, but I feel that Epicurus is wrong on this question. Putting my theological hat on for the sake of argument - as I do not believe in any form of God - the question of evil, or as I would prefer to refer to it "human suffering" not being prevented by a loving God is easy to answer.

free will

Once we stopped being 'his' pets in The Garden of Eden we were able to freely live without divine intervention and do bad things...

I always find it strange that religious people think that God is interventionist. About the only loophole he gives himself here is the creation of an exemplar for humanity, to show us 'The Way', who has become known as Jesus (although I personally doubt he existed). The cool thing about this idea from a theological bystander's viewpoint is that Jesus can be a man, like us and merely leave an imprint on history, an evangelical quasi-parable narrative, to persuade those that followed that there was a way back to a Moral Good even if we had lost innocence.

To my mind all the walking on water stuff, Lazarus and the Resurrection are unnecessary embroidery of a simple story of God giving us a chance by taking fallible human form and without miracles or intervention of angels showing us the way.

That said, I still don't feel the need to believe in any of it.

But using free will as an excuse simply make him malevolent. Which is covered by the second question. I fail to see how free will affects say, an accident. A benevolent God would stop the accidentor at he very least protect those involved. As an accident has nothing to do with free will it should be within God's bounds to help/save any of those caught in said accident. If he is unwilling to help that makes him a malevolent god. This applies to disabilities as well.

Sorry, about the slow reply.

The thing is you can't reasonably expect to "have your cake and eat it" (or rather: "eat your cake, yet still have it") in this regard...

If you desire to have free will you cannot have an interventionist God. If you want your prayers answered and accidents prevented you need to accept that you are a pet of a supreme being and the very fabric of reality is being changed continually around you at his whim. Either he is restructuring the world and our memory of it to suit some higher purpose, or directly influencing our will from time to time so we feel the need "out of nowhere" to do the right thing. Either way you are not your own man.

It is therefore a bit unfair of Epicurus to accuse a non-interventionist God of malevolence - of being an absentee landlord.

There is another argument... if God is perfect and never makes mistakes then the expulsion from The Garden of Eden (metaphor) was entirely foreseen and part of his grand design to create a Universe with flora and fauna and men and women to freely marvel at it. After all, if they aren't free to marvel at it it isn't much of an accomplishment. He could have made it crap and brainwash us into thinking its great. Don't forget, most of the stuff in life that we complain is crap are artifacts of human civilization, not directly evolved products of a complex Universe.

Again, just to clarify this is all for the sake of argument. I just wanted to pick holes in Epicurean philosophy. I don't believe in God.

You win. And I would rather no godor a god who makes himself known and fucks with everyone. Better than the half and half **** the Abrahimic god seems to be.