RELIGION TIES ITSELF IN KNOTS OVER HOW GOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE RELEVANT TO GOOD AND EVIL

You see a woman being hit by her husband and there is something other than the harm that bothers you.  It is like the harm is only part of something, even a symptom.

If you redefine evil as needless harm then you don't need God.  God or not, a baby is being harmed by being made as if she were a football.

Religion will tell you that your condemnation of his behavior is unhelpful for you are not discerning the evil but the harm.

Anyway religion still nags that without God we have no reason for condemning any such thing.  We can answer that it is possible to react in the baby's defence not because of any shoulds or shouldn'ts.  We will react and help and that is what matters.  Who knows?  Perhaps more people would react without the moralising.  Morality easily turns into concern about rules not people.  People sense that and find it off-putting.

Back to religion.

First it tries to make out that we have free will and we need to believe in God to use it wisely and ethically.  Why? 

One reason is supposedly that we need to appreciate it as a present from God. 

The other is that God gave it to us that we would live freely by his principles.

Now free will even if given by God is no more a gift than you would be giving a robot a gift if you could grant it free will.  Has the robot been a good robot so now you can make it a free agent?

And if God makes us free so that we can live good lives that makes us bad for we told we will get approval and approval is a kind of reward.  It would be horrible to help plague victims at great cost to yourself if you care about that.

Anyway, the notion of being given free will arises from the assumption that God grounds morality.  It says that if you don't have a God then talking about morality is like trying to walk without legs.

When atheists advocate good kind behaviour they are called bluffers.  We tend to surmise that they are not accused of deliberately lying to themselves and by extension others.  But they are.  Religion says morality matters more than walking.  It adds that you cannot try to walk without legs without lying to yourself and potentially others that you can so that it is the same with morality.

This teaching tells us that if enough people become atheists, being a moral atheist means nothing for eventually people will see that their values are not firmly on the ground but in thin air.  The well-meaning atheist is accused of being a danger without knowing it.  This is an implicit call to restrict atheist rights.

Religion says that without God things just happen but are neither good or evil in reality.  There is no good or evil full stop.  Plus if these things are real but mixed together then it could be that they are just interesting but otherwise of no value.  The two views are different but there is no important difference between them.  If evil and good are too connected they might as well not be real in the first place.

Religion proposes that we talk of good and evil as being polar opposites which are locked in a battle.  The real motive here is to have an us versus them.  They are using talk of good and evil being on opposite sides of the battlefield to justify and set up oppositions.  They want division and use good and evil as afterthoughts to hide it and justify.  It does not follow that if good and evil are ever clear opposites that anybody cares.

If loving a person who embodies evil, evil is definitely personal, is impossible though many faiths say they manage it, then this teaching of theirs is itself evil.  It advocates hate for the "wicked".   It depersonalises them.

Let us look at this intertwining subject.  Religion says that we cannot measure what does the least harm without a personal and good and wise God to help with his infinite power and wisdom. 

This is its argument.

Let us look at how each action ultimately puts everything in a direction that would not have taken place exactly the same had the action not been taken.  For example, I could make a vaccine to save billions from an illness that is horrible but which won't kill them.  I release it.  Soon there is a nuclear war and all life is wiped out.  If I had thrown away the vaccine this would not have happened.  The road to hell is paved not just with good intentions but good perceptions.  I would need a God otherwise I feel I am only guessing about what has the most potential for love and health and justice.  He can reward my goodness by watering it like a flower.

Now let us consider that nothing is solved.  The doctrine is pure moral blackmail.  It could be God's plan for the nuclear war to happen.  And we are told to use God not for God but so that we can feel we are moral and good.  It shows how God belief is a booby trap.

To say that God exists, is to say there is a problem of evil. The innocent suffer as if nothing is caring for them. The believers contend that if God does not exist then we have the problem of good.  The logic is that if there is a God then you have the problem of accounting for evil but if you dismiss God then you still have this problem and now you have a new one, the problem of good.

They say that thinking about problem of evil can enrich us.  But if you deny God it cannot.  And plus you wreck the very meaning of good.  So it goes with demonising atheists or those who think it does not matter what a God orders or wants.

We could talk here about the problem of how God belief does the unthinkable and dehumanises atheists. This is more than a problem.  It is actively malicious and dangerous.

Religion says that evil and good are not equal.  It says that evil is just a parasite that twists good and attaches itself on to it to corrupt good people. This arouses a placebo feeling that things are going to be okay.  The feeling empowers religious power.  People run after religion for it.  Yet the truth is this.  Your nice piece of iron could be swamped by rust.  Religion just lies and lies and lies.  It is being callous.

If the problem of good is one problem and the problem of evil is another, then what if we have two separate problems?  We normally assume they are both two sides of the one coin.