God is evil though.

Atheists, gosh, you guys are dumb. I'm real.

The salt sustains me

Satan was the good guy [spoiler]wort[/spoiler] [spoiler]wort[/spoiler]

Jesus, why do atheists get so triggered about what people believe?

There is no objective morality. Morality has changed with each culture. For example, slavery, which was condoned by the Bible, has been ended. Inequality of women and homosexuals, condoned in the Bible, has been ended. I pose that there is [u]no right or wrong with the existence of a god[/u]. Divine command theory states that whatever god proclaims is right is right, and whatever is wrong is wrong. For example, when god told the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman, child, and animal of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3), you cannot say this is wrong while believing in god. However, secularists can say that slaughtering children is wrong. There can ONLY be morality without a god. Morals change, and the only way to improve upon morality is with secularism.

That's dumb.

Religious people can't argue logically about anything because they are insane people who have imaginary friends.

[quote]To argue against evil, you must assume an objective good. Yet, such a source cannot exist under the atheistic presuppositions.[/quote]1. Theism doesn't grant an "objective" good it just shifts the "subjectivity" up to God's decree. This is not morality in any useful definition of the term we've conceived of to help us distinguish right and wrong in accordance with human life. 2. Secular objective morality actually can exist for the same reason good and bad moves in chess can exist. Objectively there are moves in chess in any situation beneficial to a player winning the game, and detrimental to the player winning the game. If the object of the game is to win, then making a move detrimental to your chances of winning is objectively bad. Objectively there are things which are beneficial to human life and detrimental to human life. This is actually even simpler than the chess analogy since it can be reduced to, if the object of human life is human life, then doing something detrimental to human life is objectively bad. Now you can expand this to theism if you'd like and say, "Ah yes well in theism the object is to align your beliefs and actions as closely with God's as possible, and so any action not aligned with God's is objectively bad," however at that point your "moral system" has been completely separated from the quality and flourishing of human life. If your morality has nothing to do with what is right and wrong in interacting with and benefiting living beings then it's essentially not a moral system. And then you can say, "Ah well God's decrees are in alignment with what is most beneficial to life!" which they actually aren't but at that point God is useless since if he's just agreeing with things that are beneficial to life we can already find out those things by living and the moral standard exists without him since it's acknowledging there is are objective parameters independent of God's will which determine morality of an action. Thus God is made moot if this approach is taken even from a theistic standpoint. [quote]According to atheism[/quote]According to atheism, the claim "There is a God," does not have sufficient evidence for belief. That is it. Anything else written after "according to atheism" is some sort of extra add-on that is not at all according to atheism. Atheism is the stance on exactly one issue. So no, to everything that followed this.

..

I'm pretty sure atheism is just the belief that there is no god, and that's it.

The existence of good or evil does not hinge upon the existence of a God. What we perceive as "good" or "evil" is passed down from generation to generation in human societies. For instance, we know that murder and rápe are wrong, and we consider it evil. We teach younger generations what is and is not socially acceptable. (Insert Nature vs. Nurture debate here). I think it's ridiculous to assume that because we have good people and bad people in this world, that it somehow proves that God exists. I don't see how those two things are linked whatsoever. If God did exist, how would we know that He's inherently "good"? How can humans assume to know the nature of a God who we've never seen or talked to? Sadly, there's no proof whatsoever that He does exist. The Bible doesn't prove His existence through vague stories written 2,000+ years ago by some religious fanatics in the desert. Religion is mostly based off of personal feelings without any facts to back it up. Tl;dr - Good and evil does exist in society based on our perceptions of what's right and wrong, but is NOT tied to the existence of any God or Devil. God's existence cannot be proven, or fully disproven.

In religion, technically there is no logic/science because that would be somewhat called blasphemy.

[quote]Theodicy (the problem of evil) is an extremely invalid argument from the atheistic Worldview. To argue against evil, you must assume an objective good[/quote] False on both counts. 1. What exactly is an atheistic world view? An atheist is a person who does not believe in god(s). The way they view the world can vastly differ depending on many factors. Their stance on moral objectivity is not inherently tied to their belief in a supreme being. For example: a person can not believe in god, but still believe that as an objective feature of the world, killing is morally wrong (and evil) based off of utilitarian principles. The world is a better place (as defined by the majority of humans - as in a democracy - rather than a single godly being - as in a dictatorship (sic)). Here though, objectivity is reduced down in a way that can be problematic. Some of my friends argue semantics here, but it still equates to objectivity (though only in a tangible sense). 2. You can also use the concepts of good and evil under a subjective moral view. These views tend to be more incline with social contractarianism, but essentially we all agree to moral dos and don'ts (in a similar manner as to rule/law agreement) and just hold those standards to a higher regard. From the get go, your argument is flawed, as it commits the straw man fallacy. You are defining the position in a certain way (by assuming) that allows you to easily dismantle and disprove it based on literary definitions.