Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?

[Darkstar]

Oh boy... Here we go:

While it's commonly thought that only theists have to explain the existence of evil, the truth is every worldview does.

Is that so? As has been stated before, so people are jerks. Is it really that hard to wrap your head around?

If atheism is true, all behaviors are merely a matter of preference anyway.

Not really, no. That's an extremely ignorant thing to say that betrays the philosophical ignorance of the writer. I'm not sure if he is truly oblivious to any moral theory aside from "god said so" or if he just denies their existence. The existence of morals cannot be reliant on the existence of god (Euthyphro Dilemma) as anyone who has taken an introductory course in philosophical ethics can tell you.

While evil is real, it's not a "thing." Evil doesn't exist on its own.

That's right! It's just a concept used to describe certain things.

It only exists as a lack or a deficiency in a good thing.

-nononononono... no. Doing something immoral is not simply doing something that isn't moral. Merely not doing something nice for someone is not the same (usually) as doing something malicious to them.

That's why we often describe evil as negations of good things. We say someone is immoral, unjust, unfair, dishonest, etc.

In some of those cases, yes, but not all of them. Saying that immoral = evil is just being tautological, but it shows something about how evil is not merely the lack of good. There are moral actions, things that are actively good, and immoral actions, things that are actively bad. But, there are also amoral things, things that are neither moral nor immoral. Is it morally right or wrong to tie my shoe? Is it nice to give money to charity... or even just random people? Does that mean that it is evil to not randomly hand out money to everyone you meet? Of course not, that would be absurd.

We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can't be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can't be evil without good.

This is a poor analogy. In both a world of pure good and pure bad, people would have no basis for comparison. However, a lack of pleasure is not the same as pain just as a lack of pain is not pleasure. Even if all that existed was evil it would not follow that the suffering that arose from this would somehow be negated since there was nothing to compare it to. Pain is pain. A world of pure good would be the same in this regard. The people would prefer pleasure to lack of pleasure just as those in the evil world would prefer lack of pain to pain.

So evil can't exist unless good exists. But good can't exist unless God exists.

I've already established that these are both false.

In other words, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God exists.

What is meant by 'objective' good and evil here?

If evil is real—as the recent headlines from France plainly reveal—then God exists.

What? You're equivocating badly here. You say that atheists don't believe in 'evil' but 'objective' 'evil' requires 'objective' 'good' to exist, so maybe they believe in non-objective evil? These headlines prove nothing. Until 'objective' is defined in this context, we can't go any further.

The best evil can do is show there's a devil out there, but it can't disprove God.

Nope, Satan isn't real either.

C.S. Lewis was once an atheist who thought evil disproved God. He later realized he was stealing from God in order to argue against Him. He wrote, "[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

Well, it sure wasn't a magical inter-dimensional man, that's for sure.

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"

A man does not call a line straight unless he has some idea of a crooked line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it just?

This is too easy.

Richard Dawkins is correct that religious people have done evil things, but his atheism affords him no objective standard by which to judge anything as good or evil.

As if religion provides a good standard for judging right and wrong? How absurd! Once again, this relies on the (false) assumption that a god is required in order for there to be morality. Even if the Christian god did exist, I would hardly call is standards 'objectively' moral. Everything this god says seems to be an Argumentum ad baculum.



It has occurred to me that I have worded some of my responses as if Turek were actually reading this. Meh, whatever.