Livre d'Or

OK, so you're deliberately presenting your argument about theodicy in the middle of a disaster because you think it's likely to have more emotional impact. Fair enough; that says to me that you care more about being right than being compassionate, which is a priority ordering that many people share, but I still reserve the right to regard it as tacky. That statement is a tone argument in as far as one accepts that people upset about the earthquake are relatively more privileged than people who are excited about rationality and atheism. *shrug* Some things are in fact important enough that it's worth being tacky or even offensive to get your point across, and if you've made that judgement call, well, up to you.

I think atheist theodicy is somewhat incoherent, myself. If you don't believe that God exists, it follows that God has nothing to do with earthquakes, and indeed you can't really ask any meaningful questions about whether earthquakes are moral or just. Still, I've never tried to convert anyone to atheism so I don't have any real opinions about whether saying: God doesn't exist, but if God did exist He would be evil for causing earthquakes, is likely to be an effective argument. Maybe it will work for some, and maybe that's more important than disrupting people's emotional coping strategies.