The Written Mirror

Throughout history, religion has attempted to answer humanity’s most profound questions: Why are we here? What happens after we die? Is there a higher power governing our existence? These are questions that, by their very nature, demand humility and intellectual curiosity. Yet, the most dominant religious traditions assert, with unwavering confidence, that they hold the absolute truth. To commit oneself entirely to an institutional belief system is to commit intellectual suicide—an act of self-imposed ignorance that severs the possibility of engaging with new ideas, alternative perspectives, and the lived experiences of others. In doing so, one does not seek truth but instead embraces the comfort of certainty at the expense of understanding.

I consider myself agnostic, in the sense that no human can claim definitive knowledge about the existence or nature of a higher power. However, among the competing explanations for the universe, atheism offers the most logically consistent and evidence-based framework. The problem of suffering, in particular, dismantles the notion of an omnipotent, benevolent God. No argument—philosophical or theological—has ever sufficiently justified the existence of pointless, senseless suffering, especially when it extends beyond human free will and enters the realm of animal cruelty, natural disasters, and the indiscriminate horrors of disease, famine, and genocide.

The Problem of Evil: A God That Must Beg for Forgiveness

In a Nazi concentration camp, a Jewish prisoner once wrote, “If there is a God, He will have to beg for my forgiveness.” This quote encapsulates one of the most devastating challenges to religious belief—the existence of unthinkable human suffering under the watch of a supposedly all-powerful, all-loving deity.

Religious apologists often cite free will as a defence against suffering. But free will, as a concept, does not adequately explain the scale and nature of evil in the world. If God created humanity, he deliberately calibrated the balance of good and evil within us. If free will is so sacred, why did God allow it to manifest in a world where people rape, torture, and murder children? Religious believers often pray to God, and then thank him for answering those very prayers. If free will is so sacred, why does God intervene in petty personal prayers yet remain silent when genocides occur and human beings are begging for biblical aid? The standard response—that suffering has a greater purpose—is an insult to human intelligence. A mother watching her child die of starvation does not gain moral wisdom from the experience. A rape victim does not become spiritually enlightened through trauma. And even if human suffering were somehow necessary, why does this extend to animals, who possess no moral agency and gain nothing from their suffering?

Animal Suffering: The Theological Argument That Collapses Religion

The free will argument completely disintegrates when applied to non-human suffering. Alex O’ Connor raises that a deer bleeding out on the road, its last hours spent in agony, does not grow spiritually from the experience. A parasite that burrows into a child’s eyes and blinds them, as Stephen Fry once pointed out, does not serve some divine plan. These are cruel, purposeless realities built into the very fabric of our world. If an all-powerful, all-loving God exists, he designed this system—a system where pain, predation, and disease are fundamental components of life.

One cannot reconcile the idea of a compassionate creator with the existence of pointless suffering. If a human designer created a world that functioned in this way—where children were born with fatal diseases, where entire species existed purely to be tortured by nature, where pain outpaced pleasure for many animals—we would call that designer a monster. Why should the standards be different for a God? If anything, an omnipotent being has less excuse for such negligence, not more.

The Arrogance of a God Who Demands Worship

Even if one could excuse God’s indifference to suffering, why does He demand worship? The Abrahamic God, in particular, does not simply ask for belief—He commands constant adoration, submission, and obedience. This alone raises disturbing philosophical questions.

If God is perfect, self-sufficient, and all-powerful, why does He require praise? Why is He so jealous of other gods? Why does He demand faith rather than provide undeniable evidence of His existence? These traits are not those of a benevolent ruler but rather those of a fragile, insecure dictator. Imagine a human king who:

• Allows his people to suffer,
• Provides no direct communication,
• Punishes those who fail to worship him,
• And expects eternal gratitude despite his indifference.

We would call such a ruler a narcissistic tyrant, yet this is exactly how the God of major religions presents Himself. And yet, He expects humanity to bow, sing praises, and live life in constant gratitude. If God exists, He is not benevolent—He is indifferent, cruel, or deeply insecure.

Why Religion Persists: Comfort Over Truth.

Despite these contradictions, religion remains dominant. But this endurance is not due to its intellectual strength—rather, it thrives because it offers psychological comfort. The promise of life after death, the illusion of cosmic justice, and the desire for moral absolutes are deeply appealing. Atheism, by contrast, offers no comforting afterlife, no divine justice, no grand cosmic plan. It requires individuals to accept reality as it is, not as they wish it to be.

Yet, in this acceptance, there is a deeper form of empowerment. If the universe is indifferent, then we must create our own meaning. If there is no cosmic justice, then it is up to us to build an ethical society. If God does not intervene, then our actions—our kindness, our courage, our resilience—matter more than ever.

I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do know this: the suffering in this world does not point to a benevolent deity. If God exists, He has abandoned us. If He does not, then we are truly alone—but perhaps, in that solitude, we are finally free.

Final Thoughts: The Agnostic’s Standpoint

I remain agnostic, not because I find theism convincing, but because absolute certainty is impossible. However, based on the available evidence, atheism offers the most coherent and rational explanation for the universe. As Richard Dawkins says, I believe in god to the same extent to which i believe in vampires or fairies. There is equal evidence for both.

The problem of suffering is not a minor inconvenience in religious philosophy—it is a fatal contradiction that no theological framework has ever solved. And as long as religion demands worship of an absent, indifferent, or cruel God, it will always be built on a foundation of fear and submission rather than truth and understanding.

It is not disbelief that is dangerous—it is the unquestioning acceptance of dogma. True intellectual freedom comes not from faith, but from the courage to say:

I do not know—but I will seek, I will question, and I will never be afraid of the truth. If the divine exists, it is not threatened by my questions but illuminated by my search.