Problem of good and evil for an atheist

[Edwardo Piet]

[History]It's there for us to look back on and learn from.

Of course. And it still would be if it was changed, it would just be a different history to look back and learn from. The question is "Would that history be better than the one we have now, or not?". If you say "The history we have now is better by default", as I said, that is saying that what we naturally have is better, that's committing the naturalistic fallacy.

To change it would lead to a timeline that would be very unrecognisable to us.

How would our alternative selves have any harder a time recognizing an alternative timeline than our current selves recognizing this one?

No one has the right to decide who gets to live or not.

Maybe not, but there's nothing wrong with the hypothetical philosophical ethical question of "Would X alternative history be better?" or at least "Could it?"

Which is why the past must remain untouched.

I don't see any must about it, because I have no proof of whether an alternative history would be better or not.

Do you consider the equivalent of not being born or coming to existence equally immoral to being killed?

It depends. If you exist in this timeline along with many others, and I went back in time to alter the future by removing a very evil past that ends up preventing you and many others from existing, does that count as killing?

I don't see how it's any more killing than the fact that our alternative selves haven't existed. I don't see how we have any more of a right to exist than our alternative selves. It would have been as if we'd never existed. That's completely different to the act of killing IMO.

I couldn't do it, because I have no right to decide who gets to exist or not.

Nor do our parents. We don't ask to be born. If our mother had given birth to an alternative version of ourselves would they be any less worthy? My answer would be: Of course not. Why would they? Does it matter who exists or who doesn't other than what harm or benefit they may cause to themselves and others in the future?

changing the past could create a reality where the present and future is far worse than the one we had.

It could do. Or it could be changed for the better right? Why not? Are you saying we live in the best of possible worlds? How do you know this?

I personally would be against any meddling unless it could be guaranteed to be better. But my reason is different to your own: You seem to think it's impossible for any alternative future to be better, I don't, I just don't think it's worth taking the risk.

The damage that could be done by altering the past is beyond comprehension. Which is why I'm glad we cannot interfear with the past.

(my emphasis).

I completely agree with that statement. I certainly don't think it's worth taking the risk of meddling with the past. But, I have bolded the word "could" because that's a very important word in your statement to me. Because I don't deny the possibility that an alternative future could be better. In other words, if you changed the word I bolded to "would", I wouldn't agree.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the alternate reality would be.

This is where we disagree because it obviously matters how good or bad it would be to me, because: We're talking about morals here. So how good or bad an alternative past would be is IOW, how moral it would be. What value it would have. So what else could matter? If it's better it's better, if it's not it's not. The question is can it be better? I don't see why it's impossible is all!

Even if our intention was good, the out come could be a very evil one.

Yes, which is why it isn't worth risking. How it plays out in practice and the principles of it are a different.

History must play out as it has, changing it could be devistating.

Okay, let's put it this way:

No one changes it. There is just an alternative history.

Can no alternative history be better than the current one? If so, that's the naturalistic fallacy because you are saying what has naturally came to be is better than any hypothetical by default.

If, however, you agree with me that there could be an alternative history that's better. Then that's all I'm saying, that an alternative history could be morally preferable if possible. I'm not saying that we could know it, or that we should take the risk of meddling with our past if we could. I'm not saying that.

Taking away someone's existance.
Is that right or wrong?

Well if the timeline was changed so they never existed in the first place... then I don't see how that's right or wrong, moral or immoral. Because they would have never existed to feel good or bad about existing.

If you killed someone while they were still alive who isn't terminally ill and wanting to be euthanized , then I'd say, yes, that's of course wrong and immoral.

What has happened must remain so or an alternate future you will create in it's place.

Are you saying though, that an alternative can't be better? That what has naturally came to be is automatically preferable by default? Surely that's the naturalistic fallacy. Correct me if I'm wrong.