People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Religion makes itself feel better about innocent suffering by condoning it - the tendency to condone suffering is universal

Many defenders of the existence of a loving God in the face of evil have been caught lying.  Keller for example altered and misquoted a philosophy paper (Alston) to make it look like any argument against God from evil was bankrupt.  Even believers would have to admit that somebody using such tactics is very callous for suffering is very real and he will condone it even if it is definitive proof that a loving God does not exist.  Keller wrote, "Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one” (page 23).  So he admits that if he became God or got God's powers that he would send rabid dogs to devour human babies just like God would.


Believers in God deny that God is to blame for the evil and suffering in the world and lay the blame with human beings misusing the free will that God gave them. To say anything different would be to say that God is evil or at least has no concept of morality for evil by definition is that which should not exist or be tolerated. If God uses evil for a purpose he uses it because we force him to need it. To imagine that we create evil and force God to have a plan to deal with it that can be a very painful plan is pure misanthropism. It is a very very serious accusation and needs to be seen as such. People who would accuse you would just as easily pretend to care when they think God is letting evil befall you.


Religion says when evil and suffering happen they are permitted by God.  What does permitted mean?  It means that God does not miraculously intervene to stop the evil and suffering.  They happen not because the fault is in him so the fault is in us.  Religion does not reason what a God would or wouldn't allow.  No it looks at evil and suffering and it cannot deny they exist.  So it ends up thinking, "Evil and suffering exist and are brute facts so we must make them fit our God theory."  The cart is before the horse and that would be laughable only it is real people who suffer and die and who are degraded by religion's nonsense.  The cart before the horse is simply condoning.


Is to say God has a plan when people suffer, no matter how much,  to say:


I am so good as a person that I choose to see the good in all that happens. (Arrogance and refusing to look at the picture realistically - you cannot just push the evil into the background)


I am so good I am in a position to judge what is good. (Arrogance)


I am better than the person who does not see the good. (Arrogant and judgmental)


The person who sees no good in their suffering is making it worse by not seeing and looking for the hand of God. (Arrogant and judgmental)


They are at risk of misleading or not guiding others. (Arrogant and judgmental)


If they cannot see the good then I can. (Arrogant and judgmental)






Religion says belief in God does not involve you being willing to condone the evil you think he allows to happen.  In this study, we will learn that even if it is not necessary to be okay with the suffering of others in order to believe in God, believers cannot expect us to assume that they are not the kind of people who would make themselves feel better about the suffering of others by making out its part of a divine plan. Human nature does not care enough about most suffering that happens. Each person is deeply wounded or upset or compassionate by only a few people such as family or friends or neighbours.  Period.

You cannot ask people to believe in your compassion for others if you believe in God when that belief involves accusing others of forcing God to set up a dreadful or partly dreadful plan.  What kind of free will to choose good is based on evil? It is bad enough if you theorise that God might let evil happen over free will but worse if you say he did it for definite such as Christianity does.


If it is true that evil is not God's fault and God hates it then condoning what evil you think comes from God is the greatest evil of all.  Those who condone whether there is a God or not adore their own vision of God but your vision of God is not God and cannot be. It is just your vision.  So if God does not want you to condone it means there is nothing to condone for evil is not his doing.  But logically that makes God very impotent.  Condoning evil may imply disrespect for God.  Human nature is indeed capable of disrespecting God in the name of God and religion.


What happens if the unbeliever wrongly accuses God of doing evil instead of condoning as believers do?  Then the unbeliever is the worst creature imaginable for their attitude to evil as a whole is of extreme importance.  God or not you are still evil. 


If God is falsely accused of being a concept that urges and manipulates people to condone then the unbeliever is a total monster inside.


So the lesson from all this is that it is not just condoning evil from God that is an issue but what the person is accused of if he or she should not condone whether he or she is a believer or not.  It is benign hostility.

By itself or of itself evil is not needed for evil by its nature is useless. Evil is in itself futile. All it is good is for putting evil people off evil when they get a taste of their own medicine. We tend to think that we are saying that in that case at least that bit of it is good. But as evil is useless it would follow that it is a bad way to handle evil people. It is a bad way to help people become good. It is fighting evil with evil and that is evil in itself. The "good" only looks good and seems good but it is not. Thus the divine plan doctrine that God is trying to contain evil with evil is itself evil and inexcusable. It is running away from seeing evil in its true nature. Evil is seen as producing good and the fact that such good is not good at all for the worst evil is getting evil to pass for good or good to pass for evil.


Believers hold that God can connect to us through grace - his loving influence. God then would have to arrange circumstances so that people can choose more good than evil. But what he has done is arrange things so that we do all the good we do out of the wrong motive. I mean we do all we do to please ourselves and not him which is sin according to him. Even if we do good for others we do it because we feel we should and don't care if he wants us to do it or not. Even if we do more ungodly good than godly it would make him a failure. He would have arranged things better if he were good. To worship him is evil for he is unworthy and he is the tyrant of the human race. If he has been made up then those who have done that and maintain that are the tyrants!


The Church may as well worship the Devil because it worships that which allows us to really hurt one another for a purpose. Its God hurts us for an excuse because if evil is necessary to develop goodness in us then each person should be put in a world of dreams which they think is real so that God can send exactly what they need instead of having to let harm befall the person in order to take care of other people’s spirituality. To say that evil serves a divine purpose is to say that God could command mass murder or biological warfare intended to make everybody sick and what disproof is there to shut up anybody who says God is commanding just that? It is different to say that evil serves no purpose but we have to bring good out of it for that is just seeing evil as something that is useless.

How can suffering make me a better person? If it makes me realise that I must not hurt others because I don’t like others hurting me then this problem arises. I’m doing it because I don’t want people to hurt me so I don’t want to promote suffering for that reason. That is actually selfish and selfishness is the cardinal sin in religion. There is no doubt that all who, because of their own suffering, claim to be better friends to others for they want them to avoid any suffering are really acting against suffering for they know if it exists or is enabled it can bite them as well as others.
The Church says that evil starts with man not God. God gave us free will and we abused it and caused evil and temptation and sin.


Do people want you to believe in a loving God because they don't love you enough and want there to be a God to value you for them? Do they want you to believe in God because they want to condone their own lack of love? Do they believe in God because they don't really care? Are they willing to condone the evil and suffering in the universe because they do not really care?


People alarmingly seem to think that the notion that God tolerates evil as part of lovely plan for his children is a nice thought. The plan might be ethical but that does not make it a nice or comforting thing to believe in. It is akin to thinking World War II was nice. Ethics can be brutal scary stuff.


The truth about evil and suffering and what needs to be done to help is extremely hard to face. Most people have some way of avoiding the full truth. It is too painful and risks terrible fear. Religious people will regard God as wholly good and then say that the evil he lets exist which contradicts goodness and therefore him somehow does not contradict. They water down the truth to overcome it. They try to make truth by denying truth. That cannot be done for truth is truth and is not about us. It is selfish to treat truth as if it is or should be. Faith in God is a vice - even if you don't think selfishness is always bad that type certainly is.


Religion comforts itself in present suffering by thinking suffering will help bring better days because God is in control of it all.  Good being brought out of evil in the future – what other time will it happen? - by an agent has nothing to do with justifying evil now at all or justifying letting it happen. You have no right to feel okay about current suffering for the sake of a future that does not exist yet and which may be unlike the good future you imagine.  You need to be extremely careful and get good evidence before you judge an evil was worth it when it is all weighed up for evil is mixture of good and bad anyway. Evil uses good and to justify it because you think there are good results is practically speaking just being okay with it. It is arrogant how you imply you should be trusted as one who cares about evil when you belong to society and society cherrypicks what it wants to get annoyed about while worse evils than it thrive. Where is the evidence you have that you can be trusted despite all that?




Religion gets people to stop being mad at its God by saying, "Look how there is far more good than bad around!"  The amount does not matter.  We must be compassionate enough to be outraged if a virus torments only one baby even if nobody else knows what suffering is like.  The answer is a placebo and hugely offensive and disgraceful.  It is okay for an atheist to remark that life is more good than bad for she does not claim any God has set it up that way.  But to say a God is doing it and even worse to worship that God is terrible.


Even if there is a God we don't know for sure.  Thus there is something bad about human beings saying there is more good than bad thus the bad should be allowed by a God for what right have we to judge that even if we are right?  It is not our place and we could be right or wrong.




God is infinite meaning everything about him is, not a number too great for us to imagine, but literally numberless.  Infinite is that which is great without end or limit. Christians use this doctrine to argue that as God is good it means he is unlimitedly good thus evil is his complete opposite.  The distance between God and evil is infinite.  This calls us to be like God and to oppose and hate evil as much as we can.

This tells us that we cannot ever understand how far from God and good evil is.  Any view of evil we have will be watered down.  It may not feel that way but it is.  We cannot care the way God cares.  Our caring for another no matter how deep is idolatrous for it is a mere imitation of how God cares.

If you condone evil you cannot admit it. You pretend to be good and to love goodness.
You cannot ask to be considered innocent until proven guilty if the evil is great. Asking is evil.  And what bigger evil is there than what happens in the universe under God's watch? This is about you not God - are you the kind of person that wants your terrible irresponsible view to be respected? Are you the person who if given a choice would decree, "Let this evil happen for it is God's will. Let those babies die terribly" though you could be wrong? How dare you if you are!
The person may condone evil in a testable way. For example, if you say John stole the money to feed his children you can be proven wrong.
The sneakiest hypocrite will condone evil in a NON-TESTABLE way.
The hypocrite tries to avoid being proven to be a fake.


The hypocrite encourages evil with a pious smile - his evil looks good.
There is more condoning and stronger condoning involved when evil is condoned and protected from anything that exposes its true nature.
If something could be an example of condoning, it has to be treated as condoning. Making any exceptions jettisons the principle, "Oppose evil and work against it and be aware of its subtlety".
People naturally find it easier to believe that when others suffer it is part of a plan. They don't find it as easy when it is themselves or their loved ones who suffer. When they suffer or the latter suffer, instead of the plan being about the greater good, the plan suddenly becomes one where God has something amazing planned for the sufferers. He is letting them be hurt because he has some lovely surprise that makes it all worth putting up with.
A baby suffers now. To say God has a plan is saying that God is right to do nothing right now as long as he acts later. That is an appalling outlook. It is the now that matters. The present moment should take priority over everything else. If God is not helping now how can you say he will help later? How can you say he should? To say, "God, your will and nobody else's be done" is saying, "I believe the suffering should happen if it happens." But that is too serious for mere belief. It risks being the kind of person who would let that suffering happen if you could and all in the name of faith and faith could be wrong. Faith is no justification for such extremism. Faith is self-destructive and will lead to emotional problems and addictions if it is taken that far.
The more evil and suffering you see around you in the universe you say is God's creation, the more condoning you are doing.

If we look at human nature we worry more. The human being is selective in her or his compassion just like everybody else is! She or he can be glad that others are suffering and not loved ones. She or he can think that those who suffer deserve it. Human nature often condones terrible treatment of oneself and others for it relieves and keeps anger and hatred at bay and they are horrible emotions. Human nature does not love good - it loves good when it fits what it wants it to fit.
Is that the kind of creature that should be respected for saying God lets evil happen for a purpose and even writes violent commandments for a purpose? And people are attracted by imperfection to one degree or another. Some like everything to have another side, an evil side. Are they in a religion that praises the God of the evil Bible because his commands were evil?
Do you want to be the kind of person who deliberately condones? You may do it because you see many others doing it.  You may fear their condemnation and backstabbing if you stand up to them.  So you just play along.
Do you want to be the kind of person who sees inexcusable evil, useless evil, the suffering of little babies, and who imagines there is a divine purpose? That is very serious if there is no God. If there is no God then man is disgracefully condoning terrible things in its name and pretending it is in God's name.  It means you fail to understand fully what happened to the babies. You are not trying to. You are excusing something that cannot be excused. You are hailing vicious ruthless nature as God. To worship a non-existent God means you imagine that God has done what God has not done. If you are decent, you will expect to be told if you are making such a hideous mistake - the greatest one of all. Remember if you believe, "God is right to let that plague torment babies to death though I don't know why" you are saying you would do the same thing or try to if you were God or if God asked you to run things for a while. Surely God should not be told he has such a huge responsibility if he has not?
What does the teaching of free will say about believers?
Christians condone God letting us suffer by saying that he is right to allow it to happen so that he can respect free will that is let us do things without him controlling us. They say God is perfection itself. They are saying then that they would send us that suffering if they had the power to. If the freedom defence is wrong then there is no God so you have to assume free will exists before you can assume God does.
The Church says that not all believers approach evil with the attitude: "I don't care if the evil is intolerable and if there can be no divine plan for it. I will condone it. I will assume there is a plan for I want to feel good while others suffer." But how does the Church know this? At least it admits that for many, the problem of God letting evil happen is about blessing evil and not about trying to be part of his plan to eradicate it. Human nature is dark and hides its true nature so would it be surprising if all believers were wilfully condoning God's role when a baby suffers under his care?
People care not about good but about what they want it to be. Human nature likes inventing its own good. It may be close to the real thing but it is not the real thing. Even if it is a perfect match for real good, it is not mean we are really attuned to what good is. It could be that we don't care about good as good but only care about good for it happens to match what we want good to be.
Thus people have no place speaking up for God when terrible evil befalls. It could be their hypocrisy talking.

God would not send man on a mission to condone the divine role in human suffering.  It is like sending Jack the Ripper into a mission field of prostitutes.
Man tells you what to think of God. You take man's word for it that he really got revelations from God. Man always judges morals and doctrines to see if they came from God. Religion is human opinion pretending it is not. It pretends to be God's work.
God and religion are simply masks. Man cannot claim to be God so man does the next best thing - claim to be inspired to speak for God. Though we are not to condemn something just because it can be abused, we can condemn religion for the harm it has done because religion is an abuse. Let me explain.
In the light of man's involvement in alleged communications from God - they are only ever alleged - it is man who tries to come up with explanations for God allowing evil. It is man's word we take for it. That is so repulsive and is repulsive because of the nature and magnitude of human suffering.  It is unspeakably repulsive when it is not God that is condoned even if there is one but man's version of God or religion's version.  It is like people imagining they know Madonna through the media when in fact that does not amount to knowing her at all but only knowing what perception there is of her.

Human nature tends to condone evil. Some condone evil even to the point where they will spill their blood in the service of evil. That is why no reasonable person would let you get away with it if you do anything that looks like condoning. 
Condoning is too serious of a matter to ignore. If religious people deny they condone the evil that happens, what if what they do and say is indistinguishable from condoning? Anybody can and will condone and deny it. Assume they are condoning. Assuming they mean well is not fair on the victims of evil.
If you talk and act like you are condoning you are condoning - period. No loving God would create a religion that creates such a terrible risk. The risk has to be looked at as extremely serious and important. It is people who suffer we are talking about.
Many condone what is obviously harmful. They might be okay with vigilantes attacking a drug dealer.
Many condone the evil they do themselves and often deny wrongdoing.
Even more people condone being part of communities and religions and societies that enable evil to happen or make it possible. For example, if Muslims all became Quakers that would be the end of Islamic terrorism. But they wouldn't do that. People feel disconnected to evil that is not directly done by them. But they are indirectly connected and making it possible and they worry not about it. A high and mighty person can run an abattoir where animals are cruelly slaughtered and feel okay about it as long as he is not doing the slaughtering. Yet making evil possible is worse than doing it directly. You have less control over evil you make possible at a distance than the evil you do directly.
Many condone evil when they feel that nobody will challenge them.
Many who condone cover it up. For example, they could say, "God has to let great evil happen for we have to have free will to do good or evil." Even if that could be correct, is it the reason they say God should let evil happen?
For the purpose of argument, if many are not they are still at fault. They make it easy for others to condone divine evil. And they are at risk of condoning it themselves.
It is extremely easy to condone divine evil for it is impossible to be caught out. Condoning human evil means some people will see what you are doing. But God's evil cannot be checked out the same way. Thus it makes sense to assume that a person who is okay with what God allows to happen no matter how terrible is condoning for they will get away with it better.
God cannot ask you to just assume that the evil he makes and the evil he allows is necessary for a good that is greater than the evil and makes it worthwhile. It is evil in itself to assume something like that. It is like you are permitting him to hurt babies and you don't know if you should. No matter how much good you do, your empathy for the sufferer is lacking at least as far as God is concerned. It is possible to care about a suffering person one way but not another. Love does not stop you degrading those you love in some way.
God would give clear evidence that he is at work through evil. You need evidence and there is none. You just need a few clear examples and God would need to open his mouth and talk us through it. God should be explaining instead of letting man explain for him for it is not man's place. John's explanation of what I do means nothing for only I can explain. It is insulting and arrogant of him to try to explain. If I am hurting people and he is trying to explain that I mean well but am mistaken or something he insults the victims. The arrogance and stupidity of those who say they know what God is doing is staggering. For example, some say the crucifixion of Christ made his glorious resurrection to eternal life possible and shows God's plan. But it is absurd to say that Christ needed to be crucified.
It is about evidence not assuming. It is too serious of a matter to guess about. Condoning always involves assumptions and a lack of regard for evidence.
As terrible as it is to condone the evil done to you, it is heinous to encourage others to condone what happens to them. It is even more heinous for you to condone what happens to them.
Believers in God are using suffering people as a means to an end. They try to turn the suffering of others into a lesson about faith in God. I mean they look at a baby suffering and look at any alleged good in it that results or happens in spite of it as evidence that God is with the child holding her hand. This is about them idolising faith. It is wrong.
The believers in God are condoning divine evil. To put it another way, they are refusing to see what divine pitiless nature is doing to innocent creatures. They are like people who reason, "This baby has a terrible disease. Somehow this disease has intelligence. It lovingly afflicts the baby for if it does not a worse one would happen." That is refusing to admit what evil is and it is whitewashing it. It is a kind of praise.
People who offer to pray for you should be firmly put in their place. Doing that presupposes that God is right to let bad things happen. It is an insult and a mark of evil. It is extremism in principle.
If you want to say God is right to allow suffering, then your responsibility is to abandon a normal life and dedicate yourself to others and give them your food. Put your actions where your faith is for there is something disgraceful about the likes of the Pope praising God when he has comforts that are denied little babies and little animals.
A supreme God who exists only in the mind of man will produce evil for man thinks much evil. Such a contrived God even if it does not encourage evil does nothing to thwart it. It has no intrinsic power to help with evil. And the supreme God notion gives man a way to say, "It is God making these rules not me". How clever and how empowering for man! The human origin of faith in God and how dangerous that faith is in the hands of religious fraudsters and liars and politicians and monarchs and prophets shout one thing out: DROP GOD!


Everybody agrees that nobody's suffering should be used by you to show yourself or anybody else how good you are.  Let us put aside the fact that you have literally NO entitlement to do that.  The more innocent the person is and the more helpless then the less entitlement you have to do it.   You will use their suffering by praying and by saying you have faith. It is vile for you are not the one in their shoes. They are doing the suffering . Risking using or creating the temptation to use is bad enough but doing it is worse. There is no justification for it for their suffering is not about you.


Religion says we should worship God though he has made terrible viruses and diseases. But there is no should about it. We have the right to refuse.  The terribleness of these things overrides any right God has to expect us to believe he is doing right. The should lies behind all attempts to reconcile God with evil and it is bad in itself thus no reconciliation can work.  Religion wants to influence people and it cannot do that if it starts to say, "You MAY worship God."  It is too weak and turns religion into something as unimportant as what you may have for breakfast. All God's defenders do is show themselves to be spiritually bankrupt.


If I did not have to make a substance and make it and it is only good for poisoning people then I would be called evil for making it if it were the case that people would be better off if I just hid the then why is it okay for God to do that? Even more to the point why is it okay for me to judge, or worse assume, that God should be okay with that? That is me inventing and why am I not condemned for that when I would be if I made up a God and excused the evil I think he did?


Many are who say that something terrible or potentially terrible happened in their lives.  They say that now it does not bother them and they see them as being among the best things that happened to them or at least good and fine are betraying those who now suffer abominably.  It can only water down how terrible their experience is and how it should not be happening.  They are giving them a reason to feel ashamed of how angry and hurt and distressed they feel in response to their troubles.  They deny they do this and that is rubbing salt into the wounds.  And their buzz now is about them trying to compensate themselves with warm nice appreciative feelings so they deny their memories of the horrors or dilute them to make it seem worth what they have now.

Faith in God needs to cease being esteemed for it tempts and seduces people into condoning divine cruelty.



Re Barbara Smoker


Well done Barbara!

"I am ashamed, in retrospect, that I ever found it possible to worship the supposed creator of over-reproduction, sentient food, disease, and natural disasters. If I still believed in an omnipotent creator, I would have to heap curses on him".

I love these lines. They simply express the assumption that instead of trying to make out a baby's terrible suffering is allowed to happen for a good reason by God you help the baby. Do not waste any of your care on God and bestow it all on the baby. If hypothetically we have to help the baby for her own sake or for God's (because he wants us to help others not because they need it but out of devotion for him and he commands it) and it has to be one or the other who should we choose? If we say God then it follows that there is some misanthropy in us. Human nature needs an outlet for its dark side. Some would say that the saints were able to be so good because their outlet for evil was in condoning the sick and twisted ways of God and of those lousy enough to back him up. Not so good underneath it all then...