Malarkey comes in many flavors.

Believing something without evidence tends to be a problem that gullible people have no problem in doing.

@FlatAssembler

I think it's a very good comparison in the narrow sense of silly people believing in silly things for silly reasons, but not so much in a broader sense of people being shunned or punished for not accepting Flat Earthism.

I'd like to address your point about earthquakes, though. The difference between an earthquake and the Holocaust - in a moral sense - has been referred to as 'natural evil' vs 'moral evil'. The difference is that an instance of natural evil, like an earthquake, doesn't require a moral agent, while moral evil (for obvious reasons) does.

This has been called into question by some philosophers.  The reasoning runs something like, 'If God created, is in charge of, sustains, and operates the universe, then acts of so-called 'natural evil' do indeed have a moral agent (God) who causes them. Therefore, ALL evil is moral evil and natural evil does not exist'. The argument is fraught with problems - mostly definitional - but interesting all the same.

Boru

(November 30, 2020 at 4:55 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Believing something without evidence tends to be a problem that gullible people have no problem in doing.

There's no effort involved.

In a christian world view there are no natural events. Everything is caused and controlled by god, except the humans who have free will (loophole).

In this world view earthquakes and floods can be seen as evil acts because they harm the well being of humans.

(December 1, 2020 at 12:10 am)Rahn127 Wrote: In a christian world view there are no natural events. Everything is caused and controlled by god, except the humans who have free will (loophole).

In this world view earthquakes and floods can be seen as evil acts because they harm the well being of humans.

I'm sure this is a common argument, but it's rather comical and easily demonstrated to be unlikely.  If a hurricane destroyed a beach with no city, would there be a hurricane?  Yes, there are natural events that harm no one.

Gods just practicing on all our furry little friends. Like serial killers with cats and dogs or what have you. Or maybe it's a warning shot for too much homosexing? The point is that even though christians don't believe that the earth has volition - they believe that the god who is in charge of and responsible for everything on the earth does - and that makes him a moral agent and the destruction of any life, not just human life, and in fact the destruction of the environment itself..is a situation of moral import.

Christians believe that the only state of affairs which could turn a hurricane into a moral evil, is the true state of affairs in this world, righteously decided by the very god who wields those same forces. It's a ridiculous idea, sure...but when has that ever stopped the superstitious?

I noticed in an earlier reply that there was the suggestion that people are to blame, for putting their houses too close to water, for the misery of flooded houses. Well - that's not quite right either. For all of human history and prehistory we've lived in a small strip on the coasts. That's not for no reason - it's down the necessities of being human, a state which none of us chose - nor did we choose the general state of human beings which makes it inevitable. Just like eating and breathing out of the same whole. Choking and drowning are, thus, inflicted miseries. We have no choice but to do the thing that kills us, and those things are part of the design or plan, and subject to the control of the designer or planner...and all of it..absolutely all of it, the whole chain of moral responsibility - terminates with the author of each and every one of these states of affairs. None of us could be more than part time collaborators with the creator of pain - the creator of misery - the ultimate source of all harm.

Basic tenet.  Right?