Not all atheists believe that.

Take a look at these two statements:

1. I believe there is no god.

2. I do not believe there is a god.

At first glance, they may look like they say the same thing, but they don't.

Statement 1 is your definition of atheism - believing that God doesn't exist for sure. Some atheists think this way, but not all.

Statement 2 means simply not having the belief that God exists. It doesn't mean that you think he doesn't exist, or that you have proof he doesn't exist. It just means you don't have this particular belief regarding his existence. Someone who says they don't know whether or not God exists would not believe that he exists, and at the same time not believe that he doesn't exist.

Both of these statements are classified as "atheism". Plenty of atheists, I included, hold to statement 2.

EDIT: Oops. Clicked the wrong button when trying to reply.

>.<

The word "god" does have a very wide range of meanings, but I think most of the time the context is enough to tell people which meaning you're using.

If I say, "Oh my god, I'm late to work!" you'd understand I'm just using it to express emotion.

If I say, "The ancient Greeks built temples to honour their gods", it's obvious that I'm talking about the Greek gods and not the god of any other religion.

If I say, "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet", you know I'm referring to the Muslim monotheistic God.

Definitely, there are people who don't think God is all that powerful, or all that good, etc. But the majority of modern day Christians will agree with a definition of God as being all powerful, all knowing, and absolutely good; for these people the argument from evil does pose problems. The debate then usually centres on what a truly good God would do - the most popular theistic argument is that God allows evil because it is a necessary consequence of free will, and a good God should allow free will.

I agree that it's not an argument against the existence of God by every definition that religious people have come up with (it'd be an extraordinary argument if it managed to cover such a wide base). But it is an argument against a God who is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. Since this is a definition that a significant number of religious people accept, it's a genuine anti-God argument. It's just not anti-every-concept-of-God.

Well, that's actually not how the argument from evil goes - or at least, it's not how someone who is serious about the argument would state it. The argument doesn't run: "If God exists, then he is omnibenevolent." Rather, omnibenevolence is one of the characteristics that are inherent in the definition of God as used in this argument. The most basic form of this argument runs: "If God exists and is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then there will be no evil. There is evil, therefore there is no God who is omni-all-of-the-above." The argument from evil is only a workable argument against a God who is conceived as being omnibenevolent.

Of course, due to the limitations of human knowledge, we cannot know whether or not God (if he exists) is omnibenevolent or not, but for the purposes of argument we assume that we can know some things about God. For the purpsoses of every argument we have to assume that we can know some things about the topic of argument, or we will never be able to say anything.

The argument from evil doesn't pretend to be able to defeat every tenet of the Christian religion - or every tenet of any other religion, for that matter. It only critiques one thing: the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being (a being whose existence espoused by a number of schools of theological thought), arguing that the existence of such a being would be inconsistent with known facts about the world. In this respect, it is the same as pretty much any other argument concerning the concept "God".

Let me ask it this way: Why is it a fallacy to say that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being cannot exist if evil exists and to provide supporting arguments? What makes such an argument a fallacy, other than the fact that you can't really know what something (e.g. God) is like? And if this fact is all that you're basing your claim of fallacy on, would you then say that every other argument that falls prey to this is also a fallacy? Would it be a fallacy for me to argue that children should eat their vegetables for the sake of their health, because I can't really know that vegetables are good for their health?

I agree with your saying that the most rational stance is "we have no idea how God thinks". But like I argued, skepticism is not a practical stance to take, whether in or outside religion. Unless you subscribe to the school of thought that says we shouldn't attempt to find out anything about God at all (and it doesn't seem like you do, since you said there are some good reasons for not believing in God), you'd need to suspend your skepticism somewhat when debating religious issues.

To say anything at all about God would be intellectually dishonest, if you take intellectual dishonesty to be assuming that you know something then arguing as though you do in fact know it. (Although I don't think this is dishonesty - it's just an omission of the disclaimer that you can't really know this or really know that, an omission that everybody makes all the time and assumes that you will be making too. People don't formulate all their factual sentences like: "I think my name is Ben but I could be wrong", "I think it is currently five o'clock but I could be wrong", "I think the earth is round but I could be wrong", do they?)

Anyway - under your concept of intellectual dishonesty, any argument, logical or evidential, for or against God would be intellectually dishonest, because how can you know that God is limited by natural laws or by logical possibility? It's easy for us to imagine things violating the laws of nature - like Moses parting the Red Sea - so we tend to assume that God is capable of such feats. It's not easy at all for us to imagine things violating the principles of logic, like a circle being square, or God in his omnipotence being able to create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. But just because we humans with our limited minds can't imagine a being that transcends logic doesn't mean this being does not exist in some way. Indeed, I think this is the very reason that God, if such a being exists, is ultimately inaccessible to us: he crosses every boundary of human intellect.

The argument from evil cannot ever be a infallible argument against God. But in this respect it is no worse than any other argument that concerns God, as they are all based on either logic or empirical evidence, neither of which are infallible when applied to God. As these fallible arguments are the best that we humans have got, they're what we must work with. Whoever it was that said we should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out, has it right: there are just some things, like skepticism, that we have to close our minds against, if we are to say or do anything useful.

You can certainly take the stance that the limited human mind cannot possibly comprehend the mind of an unlimited being. It's a very rational stance. But this if we're to have any serious discussions about God at all, we'll need to hide this idea in one corner of our minds, and just reason about God as best we can.

I'll make an example. Take the theory of skepticism, which states that we know nothing about this world for certain. You might think you know what you look like, where you live, etc, but there's a possibility that you could be deluded. This is a pretty rational stance to take.

But does this mean that it's pointless for us to attempt to gain knowledge? Should we just close down all our schools and universities, because everything that is being taught and discovered may well be false? Should we stop making any kind of decisions, because decisions are based upon beliefs, and any or all of these beliefs we hold may be false?

No. While we should keep a healthy dose of skepticism in our minds, in everyday life we need to act as if we can know what is real and what is not, or else society simply won't be able to function.

The same applies to religious considerations, where the "we can't know anything about God" is something like a localised version of the skepticism argument. Sure, it's good to have that thought somewhere in your mind; it keeps you humble and open-minded. But for practical purposes, when you're debating whether or not God exists, or just discussing or expounding the tenets of any religion that includes belief in an unlimited God, you need to act as if you can attempt to find out at least some things about God.

Otherwise, the philosophers and scientists will have nothing to say about God except "we don't know", the Pope, priests, and pastors will have nothing to say except "we don't know", and the Bible will be replaced by a single line saying: "Your puny mind can't truly know anything about God or what he wants you to do, so there's no point trying to find out. Just sit back and hope that you go to heaven. Good luck."

Indeed it is not, and a God who isn't omnibenevolent would not fall prey to the argument from evil.

But the argument from evil doesn't attempt to show that God must be omnibenevolent. Rather, omnibenevolence is one of the assumptions that is made of God, along with the other omnis. And this is a pretty reasonable assumption to make, since adherents of the big three monotheistic religions generally do consider their God to be omnibenevolent.

I definitely think that the overall trend from belief in religion to non-belief in religion is the result of scientific advances - the god-of-the-gaps theory. The more science is able to explain, the less religion is needed to do the explaining.

What I'm not so sure of is whether or not it's accurate to rank religious sophistication by the number of gods worshipped, and how well this pattern corresponds to real-life religions and societies. I do see the logic behind your theory, and I believe you're thinking along similar lines to me. But this is how I'd describe it:

---------------------------------------

In early times, people were looking for explanations to questions about the physical world: What is life, how did the world come to be, what determines what happens next? So they postulated the existence of gods. These were very practical gods, invented by practical people, designed to explain practical things, so they tended to be very physical, very active in intervening with the world and with human life, and rather anthropomorphic. This is true not only of polytheistic gods but also the monotheistic God. In the Bible he talks to people, walks with people, and sends angels (which I think is the monotheistic version of lesser gods) to run his errands. It even describes the physical appearance of Heaven, God, and the angels.

But people are drawn to the best and most logical explanations for things, so as science began offering competing explanations for physical phenomena, it usually won out. Eventually most religious people could predict that science will continue encroaching on religious territory until one day their religion dies out.

To save religion from extinction, they began to alter the basic concepts. They turned it into a more psychological matter, thinking that was safe because (back in those times) psychology was not explainable by science. You don't look to religion to tell you why the sun rises; you look to religion for happiness and moral support. The Devil is not so much a physical manifestation as it is an evil power and a voice in your head that constantly tempts you to sin.

But after some centuries, the academic study of psychology appeared, and again started providing more logical-sounding explanations and treatments than what religion offered. Crazy people weren't possessed and didn't need exorcism; they had mental illnesses and needed psychotherapy. Immorality is not spiritual wrongdoing but succumbing to animal instinct. And so forth.

In order to survive, religion adapted again. It is now a spiritual matter: about experiencing God and his love. Spiritual faith is something that transcends both science and psychology, hence it survives to the present day. This is why it's so difficult to convince a religious person that their religion is false by showing them that it runs counter to science - they will just tell you that religion is above the laws of science and the physical world.

---------------------------------------

This is a very simplistic theory, and is very Judeo-Christian-centric. But similar cases can be found in many old religions that have survived to present times, e.g. I think it fits Buddhism quite well.