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.

I'm not (yet) presenting an argument about theodicy except in response to this post (and, I suppose, I "liked" that Newsthump thing on Facebook), but I'm defending the notion that there's nothing wrong with doing so. I may yet do a post of my own on the question of whether I'm right in that notion.

The abstract/concrete thing may be about emotional impact, or it may be another form of cognitive bias, so I may be indulging in the Dart Arts. I think that'd worry me most if I was perpetuating the bias or if I was using my powers for evil, but I don't think I'm doing either of those.

Derailing for Dummies is annoying in that it takes a bunch of stuff we ought to regard as fallacies from anyone (including oppressed minorities) and then seems to imply that it's all about whether someone has privilege. I could make an argument that atheists lack privilege in some countries, I suppose (parts of the USA, for example, or anywhere where Islam holds sway), but I'd prefer just to say that in general we don't let the existence of worse things stop us worrying about bad things.

But I'm not sure I "care more about being right than compassionate": it's not clear to me how the victims needing compassion are negatively effected by arguments about theodicy. I think you might be saying that it'd upset not just the immediate victims but people who generally care about the quake victims to see an argument about theodicy on the basis of the quake. I guess it's sad when I upset people, but I'm not sure what they'd be upset about: if they're upset on behalf of the victims, I think it'd be valid to say that theodicy arguments don't hurt them.

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.

The atheist isn't claiming that God has anything to do with earthquakes, they're pointing out an internal problem with theism by showing evidence which lends weight to the idea that at least one plank of classical theism is false. I can point out internal problems with views I don't myself share, by phrasing them as hypotheticals: "if your view were true, I'd expect to see this, but I don't".

disrupting people's emotional coping strategies

I'm not sure about this one. Should I let wrong beliefs go by if they're making someone feel better? I think I do that sometimes, but I don't think arguing about theodicy online in the wake of the quake is going to disrupt anyone's coping strategy very much, because I don't think my own postings have that much influence.