But if we want to live at all, we’re going to have to work with it. I didn’t say like it, I said work with it. — Fire Ologist

Yes. Thank your God for creating it, since you consider pain good. Job questioned it and Jehovah told him : Because I'm bigger than you. He accepted that and if it's fine for you, be happy. I disagree that there is anything intelligent or benevolent in a system that requires antelope to die in agony, torn apart by lions. They don't get the option of "working with it".

They don't get the option of "working with it". — Vera Mont

The other antelopes do.
The lions do.
The vultures do.
The bacteria do.
The grass does.

The other antelopes do.
The lions do.
The vultures do.
The bacteria do.
The grass does. — Fire Ologist

No, they don't. The other antelope are lucky to escape, for the moment; they don't 'work with' the loss of a herd-mate. Vultures, bacteria and grass benefit from the death and decomposition of animals. Another's pain is of no use to them.
(BTW, muscle growth doesn't hurt, either. Damage does.)

Ironically, Dawkins still made God the center of his universe ... but this isn't the case for all Atheist.

Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? — BitconnectCarlos

Among many other things, cockroaches are disgusting.

Among many other things, cockroaches are disgusting. — Lionino

And humans aren't?

No, I would not say that atheism is illogical, though I believe that God wants us to love each other and create peace (my personal opinion), that does not allow me to say that therefore atheists (whom do not believe in God) are automatically illogical.

It has taken a lot of time and dedication to understand what the implications entail (though I did start early) and so I can say this with a rather high degree of confidence. In my youth I certainly did not think so kindly. :heart:

“If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria.” - Nietzsche

And humans aren't? — Vera Mont

The ones I like aren't.

Of course it does. Who can deny that our morality is strongly influenced by evolution?

Evolution shapes our brains to survive which is not necessarily what is right or rational.

Not necessarily right or rational, but not possibly wrong or irrational.

says who?

If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong. Evolution helps us survive, not necessarily thrive or self-actualize.

says who? — flannel jesus

I did, see above.

If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong — BitconnectCarlos

Only if you see it as a matter of black and white and not as a spectrum.

necessarily thrive or self-actualize — BitconnectCarlos

Do you not think that the values that we define as necessary for those two are given (majorly) by evolution?

Although the head may err, the blood will never be wrong. — Nakajima Atsushi

antelope to die in agony — Vera Mont

If you have some conclusive proof of the phenomenology of antelope agony, that would be interesting!

muscle growth doesn't hurt, either. Damage does. — Vera Mont

I see you've entirely ignored the necessary relationship between the two, again.

Do you not think what the values that we define necessary for those two to be defined (majorly by evolution)? — Lionino

Man, what the hell did I even mean by this. Fixed now.

I did, see above. — Lionino

With no explanation, sure, that's not very compelling though

Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly. — BitconnectCarlos

That right? All the time the majority of the people believed in God, none of them killed any other? — Vera Mont

The truth is, you are both right.
What religions don't often face up to is that brotherly love and sanctity are actually applied only to believers. When it comes to unbelievers, all too often it's a different story. (Unbelievers includes those of a different sect.)
It's difficult to state this accurately. Not all religious people all the time regard unbelievers beyond the pale of sanctity, but it frequently goes that way.
But I don't think history shows religious people any worse than irreligious or atheistic people. (Though the majority of people through the majority of history have been religious, so the comparison is a bit flaky.)

But I don't think history shows religious people any worse than irreligious or atheistic people. — Ludwig V

Or vice versa. People who claim a religion don't just kill the irreligious and the heretics, they also kill those who profess a different version of their own religion, and those who profess their same religion but fight for a different king, people of their own nation and faith accused of crimes, their rivals, neighbours, fathers, spouses and other drunks at the same tavern.
Belief in a god stops no humans to from acting like humans; having no faith in a god causes no humans to act any worse.