Atheists too often argue that God cannot exist for there is too much evil and suffering.  Religion says that if you reject faith in God you cannot really call anything unloving or unjust so you cannot really call anything evil.  So it says calling anything evil is tacitly admitting there is a God.

This is glossing and gaslighting because notice how they are now side-stepping suffering.

The atheist who looks at the hypothesis of an anti-suffering God rather than one who is anti-evil in the religious sense given is side-stepped.  They clearly win the argument.  Religion does not abhor suffering enough to even care.  There is more concern for moral abstractions.   

Atheists argue against a loving God but too often we don't argue against wasting love on God.  This is not splitting hairs though the two evidently would go together.  Talking about a person giving their love to something real and that truly deserves it is not as polarising or antagonising.  You have to reach them at some level though it may seem you do not.  It is cynical to not care what people love as long as they love.  A lot of people like that want benefits out of the religious person and that is simply using them.

The atheist can use evil against loving devotion to God in two ways,

One she sees evil and argues it shows there is no God for a bad God has weakness and so is not really to be called supreme or God.

Two he is talking about what believers think about God - is their view internally consistent?  They are not being themselves.  The inconsistency will lead to them getting things wrong or doing harm.

Look at evil and suffering or just suffering and note the difference between atheist thinking and believer thinking. The former will not allow suffering to be tolerable except if there really is no other way.  The former hates it so much that even God is not allowed to stand by and let it happen.  The believer worries enough about validating and pleasing a God who is not experiencing the suffering and thus is privileged to excuse it if God lets it happen.  It is obvious who has the best potential for heart-felt compassion.  Believer goodness is goodness but is ultimately doing too much damage.

Religion says that evil is unreal in the sense that it is a defect or lack of good.  That allows it to get out of any criticism that if there is a God then he creates evil.  So religion defines good as being what God makes and is about meaning that there is no opposite to good meaning that rather than an opposite, evil is a parasite which depends on good and distorting it.

Let us talk about their view of sin. God designs all things and how we think. Sin is parasitic on that design and misdirects it. It takes design to do that so sin must have a mind of its own! There is more going on than what we try to do. Who is doing this anti-designing which is a design in its own right? If sin is a thing and is doing it then God is making it do it. He is the same as a sinner himself. Or sin is some kind of god and rival to God.  Morality is for the neglected and the vulnerable. You are neither if there is a God who has a loving plan no matter how horrible that plan is at times for though horrible it is not evil.  So we find more incoherence again in religion.

The idea of evil being something empty and futile and stupid fits the notion of it being a parasite that will soon starve itself to death allowing good to take its place.  But despite appearances that does not necessarily mean, "It is not dominant and will not happen forever." They are willing to say that if we all suffer right now and forever terribly this evil is a parasite and so good is still the default and the stronger." This makes no sense and is heartless.

Human evil is felt to be bad as in something to be hated and you feel that reparation should be demanded of the bad person and penalties inflicted for some kind of inviolable standard or norm has been violated. It is impossible to see evil done by a person and willed by a person as being just good but not good enough. You have to see it is brutal and more frightening than just a failure or missing the mark. It is more than just doing wrong and is about you having a desire to do wrong and responding to it. God creates that desire if he is real and has to be evil. You may choose the evil perhaps but the being that creates and plants the desire in you is worse for there would be no evildoing without it.

Pure evil is evil that is there for its own sake so it is not about being explained. It is just there. But evil as in lack claims to be not about being explained as well. For that reason it is absurd to say that refuting pure evil is any help in getting evil to be compatible with the absolute power of a loving God.

Believers hold that evil is a malfunction of good but they admit they only surmise or only believe this. That is virtually admitting that they are open to the possibility that evil is pure and as real as boulder. They admit they don't know what they are dealing with. And they ask us to respect THAT!! They ask you to excuse them doing this with a power that may come after YOU! They say you cannot see pure evil or believe in it without becoming evil and without becoming more and more polluted and corrupt.  M Scott Peck explored the view that witnessing evil has the power to put evil in you.  He seen it as in some way a force.  Even if it is not, we experience it like a force.  Even if it is not a force, we tell ourselves that when we see it we might be wrong.  So those who see evil and want to see it and those who want to write about it like gospellers and journalists are in fact incubating it in themselves.

The religious work against evil is a smokescreen and based on lies and wishful thinking.

No Copyright