Changes

::::The risk is to the young and impressionable, not to those of us tempered in the struggle. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:14, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The risk is to the young and impressionable, not to those of us tempered in the struggle. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:14, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Then why have an article on the [[Problem of Evil]] at all? I mean, the 'pedia is either going to talk about it or not, right? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 20:12, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Then why have an article on the [[Problem of Evil]] at all? I mean, the 'pedia is either going to talk about it or not, right? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 20:12, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

 

:I brought it up simply because I was reading the article, and that section seemed incomplete. As to why the article should have such a section at all, I can imagine it being useful for various reasons to know the causes of atheism. If you recognize an argument in discourse that you've heard of before, you may be more prepared to respond to it in an informed manner. Why do doctors study the causes of disease? Surely not so they can make more people sick.

:I brought it up simply because I was reading the article, and that section seemed incomplete. As to why the article should have such a section at all, I can imagine it being useful for various reasons to know the causes of atheism. If you recognize an argument in discourse that you've heard of before, you may be more prepared to respond to it in an informed manner. Why do doctors study the causes of disease? Surely not so they can make more people sick.

:As for what good it does our youth, we can't necessarily shelter them from hearing someone argue for atheism on the grounds of not accepting theodicy. Addressing such an argument in this article does not make it more powerful; it underlines the irrational basis of such "reasoning". Surely that's useful, no? Surely it does not validate atheism to point out that its source is often a vague but painful feeling, rather than a logical argument? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 15:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:As for what good it does our youth, we can't necessarily shelter them from hearing someone argue for atheism on the grounds of not accepting theodicy. Addressing such an argument in this article does not make it more powerful; it underlines the irrational basis of such "reasoning". Surely that's useful, no? Surely it does not validate atheism to point out that its source is often a vague but painful feeling, rather than a logical argument? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 15:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)