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

[Brian37]

Ok yet another person trying to make a new argument as to why atheists are wrong. "Evil" disproves atheism.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/4792...es-atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

The author is trying to impose a false dichotomy that would be convenient to his argument by means of pitching straw. Done.

This was the best though, after prevaricating about evil as a non-thing (no shit moron)

Evil is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing.

Clearly not a body man. No, dipshit, if you "take out all the car", you have a pile of fucking rust.

Or you could say that evil is like a cut in your finger: If you take the cut out of your finger, you have a better finger; if you take the finger out of your cut, you have nothing.

If you take out all of the finger...you have an even larger gash in your hand Dougie.

These people are -sick-. This isn't run of the mill dumb, this is pathological ignorance.

[Jenny A]

However, the existence of evil turns out to be a bigger problem for atheists to explain than for theists. The kind of evil Dawkins and the rest of the civilized world abhor doesn't disprove God—it disproves atheism. . . . Well, atheists can't have it both ways. Either evil exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then atheists should stop complaining about the "evil" things religious people have done because they haven't really done any. They've just been "dancing to the music" of their DNA. If atheism is true, all behaviors are merely a matter of preference anyway. On the other hand, if evil actually does exist, then atheists have an even bigger problem. The existence of evil actually establishes the existence of God. . . . 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.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/4792...es-atheism


Ah, yes evil is the flip side of good, but good and evil are human constructs. Neither requires a supernatural being.

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? 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?"

Yes people have an idea of crooked and straight and good and evil. But I don't think crooked and straight have much to do with god, because they are human ideas. To argue that because there is evil god exists is silly. Like crooked and straight, good and evil are human constructs. We have an idea what good is because we have evolved as social beings. Hence we imagined a god with the idea of good and evil.

We know evil is a social problem for human beings. A really omnipotent god could have eliminated evil. Yet we still have evil. Therefore, if there is a god, he is not a good god.

[Tonus]

The author is trying to impose a false dichotomy that would be convenient to his argument by means of pitching straw. Done.

That was my impression as well. When someone starts off with "atheists use this fact to support atheism" you realize that he's gone off the rails before he even began.

Then again, this is a common theist approach these days, to try and "disprove atheism." Hey, here's a simple way to disprove atheism: GET GOD TO SHOW UP. What's that? You can't? Oh, okay. Carry on "disproving atheism" then.

[KUSA]

Why do you even read these retarded articles? I read it and feel dumber for ingesting its contents.

[Magilla]

The problem as I see it is that "God" as perceived by Christians, for example, is straight-jacketed by their definition of "him". "God" has various omni-... characteristics, and various absolute characteristics, and they cannot be transgressed by "God", because if any one, (or all of them), are transgressed by "him", then their "God" does not exist, (ie. "God" is NOT what the Christians say). Then, "God" would have to be re-defined, and the theology would need to be made different.

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) said:-
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The analogies about rusty cars and lighting with shadows behind, are, it seems to me, puerile and meant for the unsophisticated to accept. What Turek is doing is discussing is the universe, (world), as it is, and not as it could be if it was created by an omnipotent and benevolent god. I see no reason why there could not be a universe without evil, if "God" so wished it. As it is, according to theology, we have to put up with the universe the way it is, because "God" decreed that it should be so. I fail to see how a universe without murder, for example would spoil anything in any way. An omnipotent god could have made humans, with minds which never contemplate doing murder.

On the other hand, as I understand it, the Christian believes that they will go to "heaven", after they die. In this supposed heaven, all will be well, love will pervade, there will be no pain or evil. On that view then, it is possible to have a place without evil. Now a Christian counter-argument might be that "hell" is the evil part, which is necessary to contrast with the light of the good of their "heaven". But there is another option open to "God" if "he" so wished, and that is to do away with the supposed place called hell, and when any unrepentant sinners die, just let them cease to exist. So the good guys get into heaven and know it, and so appreciate it. The sinners get nothing, (after death). Of course, all I am doing is giving "God" a few tips here. But if there is no god then giving tips to it, makes little sense, except that I can still point out ways things could be, if "God" existed, and if "he" so wished.

But the point I made earlier is that if we accept the existence of "God" we have to take things the way "God" made them. So if "God" wished to have no evil - period - "he" could have it that way, and what we want would be just too bad. In any case we wouldn't know, (have direct experience of), the difference.

Turek also says that if atheism is true, the atheist needs to sit in the lap of "God" to make any discussion about evil. I say: "Of course we don't". We simply do away with the religious concept of evil, and derive our own concepts of what counts as good and bad.

What I am doing is saying that theism defines "God" into existence, and theism defines evil into existence as well. Just as theists can discuss the ins and outs of these concepts, so too can atheists. To me they are just conceptions being discussed. So I can be sitting in the lap of reality - so to speak - discussing what it would be like to be in the lap of "God", if "God" was real, whilst all along it is quite logical to be able to dos so, if "God" is not real, and even if there be NO god(s).

[Minimalist]

However, the existence of evil turns out to be a bigger problem for atheists to explain than for theists.

No, it doesn't. Humans suck. Religious humans suck even more than most.

[Allnewoutlook]

Also it should be pointed out that there really is no exact evil. Evil is completely relative to the person or situation it is applied in.

For instance, Adolf Hitler believed he was doing Gods work and fighting the "evil" Jews trying to create the perfect race of people that would be Gods people. But pretty much anyone who isn't a neo-nazi or psycho killer today believes that Hitler was an evil wreck of a human being. In reality Hitler was just crazy fundamentalist who was carrying out genocide on the behalf of a mythological moral boogeyman that doesn't even exist.

Now anybody can define evil as a bad thing that someone or something does to someone or something but at the same time others can see the same "evil" event as a good thing like how Islamic terrorists believe killing thousands of innocent "infidels" is great and glorious for their God while anyone who's not a jihadist sees it as a crime against humanity.

It's all about perspective. Evil is a human creation that we use to define a situation or act against something we see as "good" but each individual sees the same situation differently. I'm not saying bad things and good things aren't real, their just entirely dependent on the individual perspective.

Also fuck Hitler.

[robvalue]

It's weird how God can't create "good" without also having to create evil. For an omnipotent guy, he sure has a lot of arbitrary parameters to work around. What a steaming pile.

[Norman Humann]

It's weird how God can't create "good" without also having to create evil. For an omnipotent guy, he sure has a lot of arbitrary parameters to work around. What a steaming pile.

It's all in the Creator of the Universe textbook. Says right there, don't ever do anything that makes sense and/or proves your existence. It's rude.