Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


NATURAL EVIL IS NOT REALLY NATURAL EVIL BUT AN ACT OF GOD IF THERE IS A GOD

How can a God who makes us from nothing and who loves us let us suffer unjustly and  let us be so bad?  This is the problem of evil.

Moral evil is harm done deliberately. Natural evil is harm that nobody does but if there is a God there is no such thing and he is the maker of plagues and so on. Yet religion tries to blame human free will for all evil. Their dubious solution then is to deny that natural disasters are in any way evil.

Moral evil, if it exists, is based on natural evil. You cannot lie unless other people suffer from the natural evil of not knowing when somebody is lying.

The problem of evil says that God tolerates personal evil the evil that you do but condones suffering and things that happen naturally. Personal evil is parasitic on natural evil. Religion says nature makes suffering possible not personal evil. Your choice is blamed for that not nature. But personal evil uses nature's power to hurt. So natural evil is the sea and the personal evils are the fish. The two are different but intertwined and must be judged as if they were the same thing.

Natural evil then is the basic evil and intrinsically forces free agents if they exist to maybe engage in moral evil. If it does not force them to be evil it forces them to may be evil. Being potentially evil is not a choice.

Moral evil and natural evil are treated as separate by those who wish to blame free will for suffering and misery and death. The two are mixed together and are inseparable. Natural evil is the reason you are able to hurt a person's feelings for natural evil puts this vulnerability in them.

Natural evil is watered down as being a neutral thing or even good by those who want to stop you seeing it disproves God. Considering the horrors that happen naturally we can only consider that trivialising to be sick and patronising and hideous.

Saying it is worse to have a vice than for nature to create a plague is insane. That is what you are getting at if you say all evil is to be blamed on sin or the misuse of free will. It violates our human nature to hate somebody being a petty thief more than the plague. The argument that natural evil is relatively fine is morally evil for it is violence against the way we are made to hate it and rightly so.

Natural evil is often seen as having something to with sinners even if the person suffering it is innocent. Thus Adam and Eve and others are accused of having done this to the innocent. That teaching is a moral evil. You have no right to judge them unless you can put them on trial.

You cannot simply say God allows such a serious thing as an earthquake. That is a heavy matter and can only be said after long and dedicated checking out. Its too serious to be trivial over.

Believers need to be told that and not expect praise for their faith.

Finally:

The natural evil argument disproves the argument that evil is all down to human free will. It reveals that any argument blaming it all on free will is insensitive and rude and nasty. In the universe, human evil is a tiny drop in the mix of potential dangers there is. It does not deserve the religious and godly emphasis put on how terrible it is.

The natural evil problem is always talked about in terms of evil that has no intelligent agent behind it but believers in fact think there is no such thing. God is to blame for earthquakes etc. The worship of God is immoral and we have a right to be angry for the sake of those who suffer and find it condoned by believers especially the comfortable ones!

There can be no compromise between the atheist and religion if religion is condoning the intolerable and its evil to worship a God who uses nature to harm. In the name of compassion, the atheist has no right.

The attempt to make natural evil understandable and tolerable if there is a God means God would make this attempt himself.  He would then be a liar.  If so then this is a way to equate natural evil with moral evil!  The immoral monster is God.