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?

Patrick H

Analysing: "The argument from evil is usually seen as an argument against God and the most destructive one but it can be seen as an argument that respects the God idea so much that it refuses to say he in any sense uses or is okay with evil."

Is evil really the most powerful argument against God even if it is wrong?

If it is not wrong then it should be.  This means we should be emotionally reluctant to accept any possible solution. It means we only accept one because logic says so. That is why the argument, "It is a mystery" is not an argument but a cop out.

Is evil really the most powerful argument against God even if it is wrong?

If so then why? The only decent answer is that evil is so hurtful and disgusting it is an insult to God (if hypothetically he exists) for how it attacks and degrades its children and a bigger insult to the victims and those at risk. If God alone matters or comes first and if to hurt his children is to hurt him then how evil demeans God should be the biggest concern.

The discussions of the problem of evil notoriously and universally ignore what evil says to God. Passive aggressively however they blame us for moral evil not God and see us as attacking God. But moral evil depends on natural evil and would barely exist if it did not. People need to be vulnerable before anybody can even consider hurting them.