I don’t understand the rabbi’s response.
An atheist comes here who apparently has things in life that just aren’t adding up for him.
Maybe there was a way to show him the rabbi’s approach (which דווקא in this case could help).
I really don’t understand why answer him like that . . .

Because of that tiny fraction of arrogance in him. And no, his empty hairsplitting won’t help; I’m sharp and realistic, unlike that, but I really was interested to know. In any case, he was right in his answer. Amen.

A sloppy question hurled with certainty is something laughable. How exactly does evolution prove that life is vanity? And what is the meaning of the saying, “Life itself is vanity because God is what He is”?? Not only has this general topic—evolution and God—been beaten to death here, and the curious questioner didn’t bother doing a basic search, but he apparently expects some kind of magnificently structured speech in reply to his offhand question. Iron Dome doesn’t fire an expensive missile at every flying Palestinian object unless the system identifies that the object is properly targeted at someplace worth the name.

And let us say amen! (and this time in the sense of full agreement) 🙂

The question is unclear and undefined, and it’s not clear what grounds there are for complaining about the rabbi.

A bunch of fools. I don’t even know where to start explaining why evolution is vanity. It is purposeless and meaningless, based on force, violence, and the constant elimination of the weak. Endless disease, a future of nothing, and in the end—death. Nature is injustice incarnate.
And I haven’t even talked about life itself; go read and study Ecclesiastes (and that was my distinction there between evolution and life, you fool at the margins). Don’t you see? The cries and noise of the tortured are the sweetest sounds in God’s ears. “And behold the tears of the oppressed, and they have no comforter.” Go pray to your evil and capricious god. But what a twist—they discovered he was actually an idol. But by providence he stopped turning a blind eye and brought “something” at Mount Sinai, in Michi’s words.

Who discovered that he was an idol? What the hell are you babbling about?

To the great scholar Mr. A., may he live and be well:
Since my policy is not to censor comments unless they fall below even the lowest threshold of bad taste, and since for now you are slightly above it (but not by much), let me make a suggestion for improvement:
If you have a concrete comment or question—please present it. If you don’t want to explain your lofty and profound ideas to fools like us, then kindly don’t write messages here.
On this site there is almost no restriction on the content of arguments raised, so long as they are reasoned and have some substance. People here are supposed to raise arguments or questions in whatever direction they wish, but certainly not to hurl unsupported slogans (which on their face seem to me really stupid, but that is probably because of my lack of intelligence) like those in your comment.
Signed: the least of the fools here.

Evolution is the constant elimination of the weaker species. Animals themselves die equally whether there is evolution or not. The question of suffering in the world (and the possible conclusion that God is absent, or cruel and unworthy of relationship) is definitely a serious question—many have dealt with it, and it has also been discussed here on the site. It seems to me that the site owner holds the view that our world is the best of the possible worlds governed by laws together with free choice. God wants laws even though their price is suffering, and one would need to propose an alternative system of laws in order to argue that God did not choose the optimal set of laws. There is of course room to discuss what the point of regular lawfulness and free choice is, and whether they justify the suffering. I now understand that in your original post you joined those who argue as follows: (regardless of evolution)
1. The world is full of suffering. 2. Therefore God is cruel. 3. Without God, life has no purpose. 4. If God is cruel—plain and simple—then life also has no purpose. And from here I’ll leave the stage to others.

I write and answer the way you write and answer.
Look, I come in good faith, and I also come from the yeshiva world, but I operate measure for measure—especially toward arrogance. I’ve had enough of it, enough of you religious people. I can see that you have knowledge, and that’s why I started asking here, but your arrogance rubbed me the wrong way from the very first moment. Because of that I missed out on reading your books—not a big deal. But I do end up reading one of your reflections here and there. If something seems stupid to you, then instead of mocking it, you’re welcome to point out what it is. I spoke plain Hebrew. Empirically, I see only vanity both from evolution and from the content of life. There is no theoretical or empirical proof for the existence of God. What I conclude from reality is that if there is a hypothesis that there is something called God, who is the cause of all causes and the cause of himself, it is vanity. It makes no difference one way or the other. And as for our matter, I presented you with a concrete question from the outset: what kind of God do you believe in? Signed: the great A.

To At the Margins of Vanity, who wrote, “and one would need to propose an alternative system of laws in order to argue that God did not choose the optimal set of laws” — I propose that there be no death and the other things human beings define as bad. And if that state of affairs creates some kind of problem, God can solve it. Let the Omnipotent solve it.