Considering the question, it should be noted that the opinion that God is the source of all disorder is often part of a broader worldview, where the blame for the decline of spiritual values and social conflicts is shifted not to human actions but to the atheistic position itself.

The Attribution of Chaos: Human Choice Versus Divine Will

Considering the question, it should be noted that the opinion that God is the source of all disorder is often part of a broader worldview, where the blame for the decline of spiritual values and social conflicts is shifted not to human actions but to the atheistic position itself. For example, one statement goes:

"You harbor bitterness toward atheists, it’s in every word you utter, while blaming the Church for why we act this way. — I harbor no bitterness toward atheists; I pity them. The main culprit is atheism. I view atheism broadly. Atheism is the desire to settle without God, a conscious resistance against God. Such atheism is not inherent in our atheists. But we still have atheism; it has destroyed our churches, driven our conscience into a dead end, and made victims of our bishops. The culprit of everything is atheism, and I cannot reconcile with it. It’s the same as reconciling with a lie; I pity the atheists—they are unfortunate people." (source: link txt)

This excerpt illustrates that blaming God for the calamities that have occurred can be seen as a way to shift the responsibility for the consequences of human choices and actions onto the idea of faith—or its absence. From the perspective of those who adhere to natural moral laws, the misfortunes and chaos in the world are the result of violating these laws. This is explained as follows:

"The most common argument against the existence of the God of Love, though more emotional than rational, is the presence in the human world of diseases, wars, injustice, innocent suffering, etc.

How does Christianity respond to this?

The primary cause of all human calamities is the violation of spiritual and moral laws, which are as real as physical laws. Misfortunes are not God’s punishment but the natural consequences of those desires, thoughts, feelings, intentions, immoral and criminal actions that contradict one’s conscience and are called sin in religion. Through these, a person wounds themselves, contaminates their spiritual and physical organism, and ruins their life, for sin in itself carries its own punishment." (source: link txt)

From this, it can be concluded that if someone is persuaded that it is God who is the cause of every problem, such an approach essentially reduces the responsibility for the world's chaos to a single source, thereby oversimplifying the complex reality of human choice. Two directions can be suggested in response:

1. Emphasize that blaming God for the arbitrary evils occurring in the world means ignoring the significance of moral choice and human responsibility. The key point is that suffering and disorder result from violations of both spiritual and moral laws, not as a direct consequence of God’s will.

2. Argue that the question of belief versus unbelief remains beyond the scope where scientific knowledge can provide a definitive answer. As noted:

"The belief of some scientists in the non-existence of God and of others in His existence unequivocally indicates that scientific knowledge alone does not resolve this worldview issue. ... Therefore, atheism, which attempts to address this on behalf of science, comes into direct conflict with it." (source: link txt)

Thus, the approach that helps counter the simplified criticism of divinity as the source of all misfortunes involves clarifying that human suffering is the result of the violation of the order established by both spiritual and moral principles, rather than a manifestation of some hostile will. At the same time, one must defend their position in the discourse clearly and with well-founded arguments—a point underscored by the following advice:

"The two, so to speak, extreme ways of conducting an argument are yielding and rigidity. Once you engage in a discussion and understand your attitude toward the subject, you must stand firmly on the position you have taken, striving to make it as definite and clear as possible. Allegories, hypotheses, and the absence of direct answers all blur the boundaries of one’s position, making the debate evasive and even lacking in substance." (source: link txt)

Thus, the answer to the question can be formulated as follows: if atheists face the claim that God is the source of all disorder, they can defend the position that the causes of evil arise from the violation of moral and spiritual laws—not from the will of any higher being. It is essential to demonstrate, with well-founded arguments, that it is human choice and its consequences that determine the state of order in the world, and that the debate over God’s existence ultimately remains a personal, worldview choice that cannot be settled solely through rational or scientific arguments.