Evangelion can make some people into atheists. I don’t care whether I’m arguing for maltheism

Recently I saw that someone became an atheist because of Evangelion.



If you’re interested in the philosophy of atheism, you might be interested to know that Bertrand Russell tried to disprove Godel’s proof of a Supreme Being – and failed!


Russell had considerable faith that there was no God, but it was faith – unsupported faith. Philosophically, Russell was not able to construct an argument to beat Godel’s ontological argument. Wikipedia mentions that Oppy thought that Godel’s god was not theologically interesting.

As for the paradox (controversially) attributed to Epicurus, there are at least two good counterarguments:

1 – The typical Christian argument based on the Book of Job – Yes, God allows humans to suffer pain, but we humans are stupid and God is omniscient and it’s all for the best. (And we can support this with all kinds of apologetics.)

2 – The ultra-Stoic axiom – Yes, humans suffer pain. We take it as axiomatic that this is not worth getting sentimental about.

Personally I prefer the ultra-Stoic axiom. I get very bored with apologetics, whether Christian or otherwise. This means that while I argue for a Supreme Being, a lot of humanists will get upset because they claim I’m arguing for maltheism – the belief that God exists and is evil. I categorize that, along with Oppy’s objection, as a form of pain that I feel – and by my axiom, it’s not worth getting excited about.


It looks like Wikipedia doesn’t use the term “maltheism,” but it has a few relevant links:





8 thoughts on “Evangelion can make some people into atheists. I don’t care whether I’m arguing for maltheism

  1. I just noticed an important logical flaw in the original post from the atheist:

    >I eventually came to realize that everyone is already an atheist in regards to almost every other god there is or was, but for the one(s) they believe in now.

    That’s totally incorrect and illogical. If you want to write a logic proof for that statement, you will have to assume a huge number of highly controversial axioms. You might get away with that if your audience is completely blinkered to a Christian outlook, but you’ll fail badly if you argue that way in India.

    Take, for example, Jesus and Odin. A Catholic can believe that Odin exists and is a “god” with a small “g,” but Jesus is THE God with the big “G” indicating uniqueness, the Supreme Being. So part of the logic problem is made worse by the ambiguity in English about the difference between non-unique gods and a unique Supreme Being – and another part of the problem is that self-proclaimed “atheists” reserve the right to re-define the word “atheist” in the middle of the argument, without alerting anyone else.


    • My definition was consistant, theism, the believe in the existance of a god is given the ‘lack of’ or ‘absence’ quality through the prefex ‘a’ just like the word asymmetry means lack of or absence of symmetry. In the case of every other god throughout history there are gods (or Gods) many people who lack the knowledge of or haven’t even heard of before, how can people possible poccess the belief or something they haven’t even concieved of yet?


      • There are two usages of “god” – minor gods like Apollo and supreme gods like Brahman, Allah, etc.

        Considering that (a supreme) God pervades the entire universe, all things exist within it. So knowledge of an all-pervading god is more accessible than knowledge dependent on rational symbolic constructions and ratiocinations.

        You can argue that people born in ancient Alaska would be ignorant of Apollo, and people born in ancient Greece would be ignorant of Mictlancutli, but those objections don’t apply to an all-pervading god.


      • I should also like to add that you’re incorrect and that I am not a ‘Maltheist’, a ‘Dystheist’ or a ‘Misotheist’. In the post itself it says in bold “just because I wouldn’t worship a cruel god, working in mysterious ways or otherwise, it still didn’t determine for me whether ‘said cruel god’ existed or not.” showing Epicurus’s Paradox was not what convinced me he didn’t exist. Maybe you should have read it to the end before you misrepresented my position.


        • Did I say you were a maltheist? I was trying to say that I didn’t care whether other people call ME a maltheist. But I’ll have to go back and check what I wrote. If it turns out I miswrote, I owe you an apology.


Comments Might Work, But We Won't Know Until You Try

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.