The word is “Western.” You’re asking about non-Western content, and the answer is: It is if you have more than like three members of your target audience, but that tends to be a tall ask around here.

I mean, how many of the languages in 1925 exist today? What about 1825? That’s your answer for the most part, that is to say: most of them save for endangered languages and successful genocides.

Um… [Citation needed]?

No no this is a “there are starving kids in America” thing; for a good chunk of the third world this shit would be literally unthinkable.

I also hate it when your mom is right.

Not a direct answer to your question, but people misspeak all the time, so there’s no reason that wouldn’t apply to their children. However, hurtful things are still hurtful, so “I didn’t mean it” is more of a statement of fact than a get out of jail free card.

A scam requires someone to make money (or some other benefit) off someone else. That’s the case with modern Christianity, sure, but generalizing that to all religion comes with a hefty [citation needed].

I’m much more familiar with the Christian version which presents god as perfect in an absolute sense.

Islam does too, but with less emphasis on the idea of benevolence. Most relevantly, Islam states that life is a test by God and therefore suffering is an inherent part of it, which is kind of my framework here (though I don’t assume that in my argument below).

Step on a Lego > hurts > not evil. Stick a knife in someone or like commit genocide > very clearly evil.

My point is that that’s logically inconsistent. A genocide killing thousands of people and an earthquake or famine killing thousands of people both leave thousands of people dead. Hell, even letting people die at all is suffering. Back to our postulates, pillar 2 states “his will is our reality.” When you get down to it, the only kind of world that would not run afoul of the Epicurean paradox would be a no-scarcity paradise with only 100% happy thoughts, and at that point we’d be looking at robots (or I suppose angels, if there’s a material difference), not humans. Worse, when you get down to it in such a world people would either lose the ability to even conceive of evil, or be prevented from committing it by an external force. Imagine if at the mall you always had an angel making you return your shopping cart, now multiply that by ten thousand times. Essentially we’re looking at a world of lobotomized robots, which to me doesn’t sound all that appealing.

is god not capable of creating free will without evil?

It might be possible in some outlandish alternate universe, but restricting the discussion to things we can conceive of, evil is baked into the concept of free will. As I argued above, take away the capacity to commit evil and you remove almost the whole breadth of human emotion and activity, by definition running afoul of free will. Perhaps most importantly, though

a god that’s aware of evil and has the power to stop it, but chooses not to, is himself some degree of evil.

at the core of this is the assumption that suffering is ontologically evil. This is very egotistical, but it also betrays a fundamental instability in the whole thing: Without objective morality (which immediately follows from the lack of belief in a creator), how can there be good and evil? This application of the Epicurean paradox assumes that evil can exist independent of a higher authority able to determine good and evil, so it’s a case of circular reasoning more than anything else. The Epicurean paradox can only be used to reject complete benevolence (which, well yes), not complete goodness.

(feel free to take that as a challenge if you think you’ve got the answer).

Muslim here and sure (I’ve wanted to try this for a while now): The criteria for the first pillar are arbitrary. What’s being proposed is that a good creator wouldn’t allow their creation to suffer, or—taking it a step further—wouldn’t create a world where suffering is even possible. However, that would require human (or, really, lite in general) not to exist; give humans free will and suffering will happen. You could argue then that the act of creating humans was evil, which would be logically consistent, and in that case my answer is: I’ll drop (your conception of) the first pillar. God knows about suffering and is capable of stopping it but tolerates it for one purpose or another.

Could you expand (or link to something that expands) on the Solomon thing?

Cutting out philosophical arguments, prophecies and “no way this is a coincidence” types of stuff (which, yeah, there’s a lot of those), it’s a combination of

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?

-Quran 41:53

They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah and also the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), though they were commanded to worship only One God. There is no god except Him. His Glory is far above any partners they ascribe (to Him).

-9:31

And let not those who [greedily] withhold what Allah has given them of His bounty ever think that it is better for them. Rather, it is worse for them. Their necks will be encircled by what they withheld on the Day of Resurrection. And to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth. And Allah, with what you do, is [fully] Acquainted.

-3:180

Of course there’s a lot more where that came from, but the point is: We here have a religious text that encourages independent thought and pondering of the world and itself, promises harsh punishment for hoarding wealth and unequivocally condemns priestly institutions. Does that sound like an attempt to gain wealth or power? Exactly. Also this

He [Muhammad] looked displeased and turned (his attention) away, because a blind man came to him (interrupting his discourse). What would make you realise? Perhaps he would purify himself (by your attention),

-80:1-3

is not how a cult leader talks about himself. It’s admittedly hard to parse from the translation, but this is a somewhat harsh admonition of Muhammad here. The segment continues until verse 10 if anyone wants continue reading, but the gist of it is “you’re ignoring the man seeking guidance and trying to convince those who reject it? That is not how that works. Yes, even if it’s a random blind guy.”

moment.

Maybe it’s not enough for them to buy a new car? I mean it’s 6 years old; I’m pretty sure Tesla was the only player in the EV scene back then.

Why, though?

Civil war? I have literally never heard anything about this. Best case scenario Putin is assassinated and another autocrat replaces him.

Russia is doing… fine? I mean the Russian people sure aren’t, but authoritarianism in Russia isn’t in any real threat despite the war. There’s also absolutely no comparison with China, which is getting stronger by the day. Weak and incompetent authoritarians are overthrown, and the CCP is neither weak nor incompetent.

Long story short: Trump is a fascist, but it was the actions of people like Nixon and Reagan that made a fascist like Trump inevitable by dealing untold and irreparable damage to the social and economic checks keeping the system from destroying itself. Kissinger was his own brand of evil, aiding in the killing of anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions. Suffice it to say that in no time period did America ever lack for absurd amounts of evil; the only difference was that the system and the people manning it had not yet lost the ability to defend their preferred kind of evil.

PS: I’m not trying to defend the US constitution; that document is beyond saving for many reasons, but any system will fail to maintain itself when the people manning it aren’t willing to defend it.

*Until rich fucks gobble up all the newly cheap houses again. You can’t win with capitalism.

There’s nothing wrong with usurping resources from the ruling class, but there is a lot wrong with imposing tyranny on the proletariat.

their dictatorship is forcefully dissolved.

So never.