particular argument depends upon the definition of "evil". Change that and this point falls apart. The antipathy between "good" and "evil" is a Western idea.
The quote in OP is little more than the same linguistic ruse as the absolute statement "There are no absolutes".
e.g. perhaps you are familiar with Hindu divine personifications of "good" and "evil"? On a couple of occasions, even when Krishna fights and "kills" Kali (like when Kali was poisoning all of the rivers) Kali is spiritually ascended afterwards. And the higher order Trimurti includes Brahma, Vishnu, AND Shiva.
It appears that Hindus have more respect for the paradox of trying to talk, one way or the other, about something as ineffable as omnipotent omniscience would be by means of something as puny as language, a problem that you'd think honest rationalists would recognize. Rationalism does not say that there is no "god", just that there is no empirical support for what people call "God". To pretend that Rationalism does more than that is to make a god of Rationalism, a sad thing indeed, because to some of us the real beauty of Rationalism is in its specificity.
= new reply since forum marked as read
