The omnimalevolence of atheism


I would say you understand this Atheist a bit better than I.

His conniving is bit much. I wonder if he understands the evil he does. To teach children God is evil? To teach children that God is malevolent. Does he? Perhaps not, but he fabricates the doctrine, and teaching children to adore vile gods has been what some of the civilizations of men have done. What abominations they were, and they are!

Excellent post!

See, there's this thing called biology...

For those who don’t know, John Zande of superstitious naked ape fame is a militant atheist I sometimes chat with. He’s written a book and his latest theory is that God is malevolent, evil, based mostly on teleology. Teleology is “a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal.” In short Zande theorizes that based on the condition of the world around us, we have a malevolent creator, one unworthy of our belief.

Over at Silence’s place he left me a comment that I simply must elaborate on because it so perfectly encapsulates the kind of psychological abuse and brainwashing that I experienced as a child, at the hands of…. you guessed it, militant atheists.

I don’t want to lament this fact, I simply want to acknowledge that there is a heavy cultural meme going on right now that tries to claim Christian parents brainwash…

View original post 1,101 more words

20 thoughts on “The omnimalevolence of atheism

  1. Why do moderate comments await moderation? And how long does it take for moderation to arrive? Does it take longer for immoderate comments to achieve moderation?


    1. I am excluding Zande from my blog. You used his name. Sorry.

      Since I am the “moderator” here, moderation waits for me. Again, I apologize for the delay.

  2. Zande’s point is not really that there is a malevolent God, but that there is no God at all. His position seems to be that the wrongs and hardships of the world are random events, and that to posit that there is an omniscient, omnipotent God compels a conclusion that such a God must be malevolent, given the worldly outcomes that such a God either permits or causes.

    There is nothing novel about this position. It has been around for quite some time and has been expressed in many forms. If one attributes to Zande a belief in an evil, malicious God, then one certainly cannot call him an atheist. He simply is adhering to a very depressing religion. Nonetheless, that is not his point. He is a traditional atheist who disputes the existence altogether of a higher being and does not attribute earthly conditions to the actions of either a benign or malevolent deity.


    1. What Zande is doing is using “The Problem of Evil” (see the previous post) to deny the existence of God. He is saying that if there is a God then that God must be evil because His Creation is evil. Then he sets about proving Creation is evil.

      What Zande ignores is that there is a God-sized hole in everyone’s heart, including his own. If we don’t believe in the God of Abraham, then we will idolize something of our own creation. If we believe that Creation is evil — life is pointless — then we will idolize an evil god of our own creation. We will idolize whatever gives us pleasure, helps us to indulge as we wish, and inflates our egos.

      Anyway, I suggest you observe Zande’s comments to insanitybytes22 on the post she referenced. They are not polite, to say the least. =>

      1. I think you and I are saying the same thing, Tom, if I read your first paragraph of this comment correctly. Z is an atheist. He is saying that, given the abundant examples of nasty, brutish, arbitrary sufferings in the world, one cannot posit the existence of an all powerful God without attributing malevolence to such a deity.

        The exchange between Mr. Z and our Insanitybytes seems spirited and engaging. I don’t see any real deviation from the standards of politeness that define the spectrum of the blog world. They each appear to do a good job with their positions.

        As to the moderation barriers you have set up: the word “Z….” causes your blog to throw up walls? How very strange. How very fearful. How very contrary to the exchange of ideas. How silly and unnecessary. I suspect my views on these subjects are much closer to yours, Tom, than to Z’s. But it’s difficult to engage ideas related to Z’s positions if you have fortified your site against the mere mention of his name.


    2. Not quite. Given what we know about JZ, he is engaging in an experiment in Poe’s Law, no doubt. But the thesis in his book, that a God does exist and is Evil, is something that should be taken seriously! For, he is not trying to disprove a God, but arguing for a God based on the state of the world as we actually see it.

  3. Isaiah 5:2 talks about the attitude of ultimate confusion: “woe to those who call good evil, and evil good…”. this is where many in our culture feel most comfortable…not realizing that embracing all “truths” ultimately leads to having to defend the legitimacy of cruelty, separation, and evil. Lord, forgive how we in Your body have misrepresented Your beauty! Have mercy!

    1. The irony is the “those who call good evil, and evil good” rebuke is that nothing in religious philosophy protects one from making the exact same mistake.
      After all, given Adam’s first sin (or was it Eve?), was it not God that scorched the earth and allowed suffering and evil and predation and misery and torture to be rife through the pages of our history (and their future)?
      Was it not God that drowned its creation? That turned Lott’s wife to salt?

      And religious philosophies would ask that we call that ‘good’.

      1. Good point! The verse I cited, in context, speaks to confusion. Confusion in context would be defined as refusal to make distinctions, or the inability to make distinctions.
        Say you had a teenage son who was very trusting, and he noticed things missing from his room whenever he hung out with his new friend Brian. Would you want him to remain falsely optimistic about the situation, or be faced with confronting a friend and having to deal with the betrayal of trust? I believe western civ often behaves like a Pollyannish teen who can’t deal with even the emotional component of betrayal.

      2. I’m not defending the religious from making the same mistake. I fully own my mistakes, and pray for cultural mistakes. Check out my site to see if this is true?
        My this logic chain helps?1. Imagine G-d is a good dad. 2. A kid of his becomes morbidly obese. 3. He tries to intervene, but the kid, being a legal adult, chooses to move away, and get an apartment in the same building as his favorite junk food. 4. Kid eats himself to death. Is this Dad to blame for his kids death, or to be commended for respecting his choices and boundaries.
        So I ask, would a good G-d force his kids to eat their vegetables, or be tolerant of their free will?

        1. Fair question. It raises its own problems: for example, are we to think that God loves us most if he protects our wellbeing or if he respects our freewill. That is a legitimate question, but I think the following context:
          Why is the freewill of so many of us destructive? Freewill has an explanation as to its existence. Now, I suspect it is essentially an evolutionary thing. However, within religious worldviews the explanation is essentially theological. I’m not sure how one would square that; freewill can be destructive, yet (presumably) God is the explanation as to where it comes from.

          (I have other objections to the freewill response, like the fact that God doesn’t actually protect our freewill — think about the times a person has done you wrong; do you not will they had not done that? Whose will is recognised appears to be more a point naturalistic explanation than theological. However, that’s not strictly relevant to our conversation.)

          1. I think the stumbling block in such conversations is akin to the blind men describing the elephant. Each accurately describes what one feels, senses, experiences, observes. Yet comes to entirely different conclusions.
            Perhaps I’m oversimplifying the question of will. I view it through the lens of a dad of 3 girls. I cannot force them or otherwise manipulate their will to love me. They, at some point, must choose to return love. Or not. Or millions of other gradations.
            Here’s another tack on this relational example: A child echoes back, mirrors back the emotional and linguistic input it’s given. If a child is neglected, it learns to neglect. If spoken to softly, it speaks softly. If this is not s rule, but a principle of human behavior;what makes a child with dark input reflect light back?

          2. Or reflect back dark, from light in put?
            I doubt the reach of this ‘principle of reflection’.
            My dad is not like his parents. My partner is not like her parents. My brother is not like me (we had the same parents).

            No. The father cannot make his daughters love him. But if whether he feeds them is dependent on whether they love him, he doesn’t love them.

Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Sillyfrog's Blog

"Once a pond a time..."

TOWER AND FLIGHTS (An AmericaOnCoffee Blog)

In The Beginning Man Tried Ascending To Heaven via The Tower Of Babel. Now He Tries To Elevate His Existence Using Hallucinogenic Drugs. And, Since The 20th Century, He Continually Voyages Into Outer Space Using Spacecrafts. Prayer Thru Christ Is The Only Way To Reach Heaven.

Christ in You

... Life and Love in Jesus

Mark 1:1

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (NIV)

Jill Domschot

Joy in the Southwest


Here are some of the things I have learned from studying the Bible

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Libertas and Latte

Ramblings of a Disgruntled Patriot and Coffee Slave

A Blog About Healing From PTSD

Healing After Narcissistic Abuse & Multiple Traumas

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens


From A Garden To A City - The Prophetic Journey

Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Mount Vernon, Ohio.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Mount Vernon, Ohio.

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Mount Vernon, Ohio.

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: