Why evil disproves atheism

And yes you read that correctly. Today morning I read this post by Nan and now we have the same dude, in the break between replacing the shoes in his mouth, telling us atheism is disproved by evil. He tells us

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.

In an earlier post where I tackled this issue, I wrote and I think it is true that atheism being a lack of belief in deities has no obligation to account for anything. Atheists can delve into such topics not because of their atheism, but because they are human and these and many others are human questions. He continues to tell us

While it’s commonly thought that only theists have to explain the existence of evil, the truth is every worldview does. Eastern pantheistic religions try to get around the problem by denying that evil even exists. Evil is an illusion, they say (and according to them, so are you!).

It is not true that every worldview has to explain the problem of evil. This problem, if we can call it so, is a problem for a person who claims to believe in a personal god, who is all powerful and all loving. A believer in an indifferent god who for all we care could have created the world by mistake and said fuck it, let it be has no need to explain away evil. The person who insists that others have this problem is either daft or doesn’t understand what the problem of evil is. Any normal person will be outraged by the inhumane acts we do to each other in the name of gods. Turek thinks that by having issue with this, atheists are trying to have their cake and eat it. He says this because we have said the universe as far as we can tell is indifferent to our frail feelings. The earth continues to rotate, the sun to give light regardless of how many of our brothers we kill. It never stops for a moment of silence even when it kills hundred of thousands in a tsunami. But to each of us, there are things that are inimical to our well being and some have labeled them evil, some bad things. I didn’t do philosophy for long, you see I wasn’t trying to become a philosopher but I think this

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.

is a bad argument or conclusion. How would one come from the existence of one to the other? How do you make this jump? He tells us Augustine puzzled over the following question

1. God created all things.
2. Evil is a thing.
3. Therefore, God created evil.

Is premise 1 valid? No. I also never said English is my strength, I have tried to make sense of this next argument and I can’t make head or tails of what Turek is saying. He writes

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. 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. In other words, evil only makes sense against the backdrop of good. That’s why we often describe evil as negations of good things. We say someone is immoral, unjust, unfair, dishonest, etc. 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.

Though I know I have seen a good shadows with no sunshine. Good and bad are man’s way of seeing the world. The lion kills the gazelle for food, thereby denying it a chance to live. Is this evil? No. It’s just how the world works. Man has divided the world between good and evil with the result that the world is seen as evil. The world just is. Turek tells us

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?”

but here, it is evident C.S Lewis argument was faulty. It was unsound. If he was an atheist and blamed god for shit, then his head should be checked. He was probably confused. The world isn’t unjust. It has no feelings. To assign it such is to anthropomorphize. And for all the Muslims killing in their god’s name, Turek has this to say

Just who is this God? Allah isn’t a candidate because according to Islamic doctrine Allah is arbitrary, and thus can’t be the unchanging standard of good. The true God is the God of the Bible who is revealed as the unchanging ground of all goodness.

Where is paarsurrey when you need him? Maybe he could clear this up with Turek and give us an answer we could all use whenever we have to talk about god. This post is already long enough. Whatever is Turek’s profession, he need to spend more time thinking. If this is his best attempt, he could try his hand elsewhere, maybe as a fisherman where the only talent would be to lay nets.