The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.

[Cato]

Humanity serves it's own ends. This question fails to address religion as religion covers more than humanity. The greater good =/= the greater good for humanity.

"Humanity serves it's own ends." No shit. Being a lion serves its own ends. Being a water buffalo serves its own ends. Being a lowly ant serves its own ends. Being a particle of dust serves its own ends. Being a photon that ends its life being percepted by my eye and interpreted by my brain serves its own ends. My life serves its own ends. The whistle at the end of a timed game serves its own ends. Check-mate serves its own ends. The third out in the bottom of the ninth serves its own ends. The reign of a monarch serves its own ends. Me cumming (choose your receptacle) serves its own ends.

If I were to agree with you about something, it would be the fact that religion serves its own ends, but has very little to do with humanity. I can prove it...

If you were a congnitavely full formed adult and weren't already indoctrinated with the religion chosen by the geography of your birth, which would you choose? Which is more reasonable/believable? If I were given this choice, I would choose Disney. Why not Disney? In Disney, good always vanquishes evil despite requisite trials. Disney places a premium on happiness. Disney has the ability to transform pirates into a loveable lot. Disney kicks the shit out of your God, period. What? Disney is fiction?

I know Disney is fiction; however, I can be a better person if I follow Disney than I could if I were to follow the prick that inspired the Bible. Greatest story ever told, my ass. Perhaps Walt Disney was a bit of an idealist, so what? I don't recall Walt Disney being so disatisfied with his minions that he drowned them or thought necessary (after the drowning didn't work) to create a new character to sacrifice for his benevolence.

At least Disney had the temerity to ensure that his stories were properly translated in every language on the planet. I could be wrong, but I can't recall a single instance where humanity argues over the need for Bear Necessities. Only religion wants to trade food for sermon.

[fr0d0]

The subject isn't religion Cato, but deity. I would agree with anyone about the attrocities committed by religion.

[Zen Badger]

If diseases are for a greater in good for humanity, we should not want to cure them.
We should want to cure them.
Therefore diseases are not for a greater good for humanity.

Did we answer this one yet? (apologies I can't be bothered to read all of this thread)

Humanity serves it's own ends. This question fails to address religion as religion covers more than humanity. The greater good =/= the greater good for humanity.

Outside of humanity, where do you find religion?

Prior to some charlatan inventing the ultimate con game called religion it was to be found no where.

[Mystic]

If diseases are for a greater in good for humanity, we should not want to cure them.
We should want to cure them.
Therefore diseases are not for a greater good for humanity.

Did we answer this one yet? (apologies I can't be bothered to read all of this thread)

Humanity serves it's own ends. This question fails to address religion as religion covers more than humanity. The greater good =/= the greater good for humanity.

The problem of evil doesn't have a problem with creation of humans. In this case, you are addressing the evil of diseases.

Humans can exist without disease.

[fr0d0]

Humans can exist without disease.

I think it's called interdependence

[Mystic]

Humans can exist without disease.

I think it's called interdependence

You're going to have expand. I can't read your mind.

[fr0d0]

You're going to have expand. I can't read your mind.

Sorry I didn't think that was complicated!

Parasites and hosts have a symbiotic relationship where both can rely on each other to some extent.

When considering human suffering as evil, you have to take the perspective that humans are more important.

Humans can't live without disease.

[Skepsis]

You're going to have expand. I can't read your mind.

Sorry I didn't think that was complicated!

Parasites and hosts have a symbiotic relationship where both can rely on each other to some extent.

When considering human suffering as evil, you have to take the perspective that humans are more important.

Humans can't live without disease.

Humans can't live without bacteria. This isn't the same as disease, because bacteria can be benign.
If you are shisting the scope from human importance, that's fine. The more pressing matter then becomes, "Why did a benevolent God create a system that forces animals to kill and consume one another in order to ensure survival?"
Biocentric analysis of evil is even worse than anthropocentric, because the whole of biology and nature as observed on this planet has been shown to be dependent on the suffering of any given species. Humans can't survive without the manufactured slaughter of a meat source, the harvesting of crops, and the imprisonment of other animals for other things like milk or eggs.
You will have to explain why a God would require evolution in his creation, a system where suffering is inherent, where it is necessary.

[Mystic]

Perhaps another possible premise, is that God wanted to create through evolution, to have diversity in sentient life else where as well as humans, while creating directly, we would wonder why one thing was created in a certain way over another, and why aren't all of us created super good looking, strong, smart, etc....so it was for diversity, and there is wisdom in that for character building....and given the other premises, suffering in long term of peace and non-suffering is worth any character building...it can be justified?

[Skepsis]

Before this thread gets too in-depth, the defence is going to have to provide some reason why one thing takes precedence over another. It is going to have to be explained what "greater good" really means, and why it is greater than... whatever.
Also, @MysticKnight, was the use of evolution to provide diversity worth its weight in suffering? Can there consievably be a better system that provides diversity, without the need for a system which inerently includes suffering?
A creator God is responcible for everything that occurs at any point in time to his creation. I don't feel that an intelligent God with the power to create a universe would allow any suffering, having the ability to create whatever it is he wants. The two conflict directly, his creation with his nature, and to an extent they are forever irreconcilable.