“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Lucanus]

If, by "information content" you mean the number of base pairs in a genome, there are phenomena like duplications or the insertion of viral DNA that effectively increase the number of bps. Combine those with point mutations, inversions etc. and BOOM, you have a shit ton of possibilities for an organism to develop new genes with entirely new functions and products. Add some 3 billions of years to this kind of process going on (and we have geological evidence for this) and it's no surprise that some pretty complex life form eventually sprung up.

If by “geological evidence” you mean fossil record then for your information fossil record does not provide any evidence on how living beings evolved. Therefore, it makes no difference if you say living organs evolved in 5 minutes or they evolved in 5 trillion years.

What does this have to do with my point?
And, by the way, the fossil record does provide some evidence on how living beings evolved. If you just bothered to go look and study.

"Increase in information content" does not make any sense in a biological context.

How hilarious!

We *interpret* DNA as information while in fact, it's just a chemical which helps catalyse a bunch of reactions in a fuckload of different ways. Those whose DNA can provoke the most useful reactions in the most efficient ways have a higher chance of surviving and thus, of replicating that same DNA.

What is the difference between “DNA as information” and “reactions in a ----load of different ways.” If “Increase in information content does not make any sense in a biological context” then what does that mean when you say “DNA provoke most useful reactions in the most efficient ways?” What a comical depiction you had given for genetic information.

DNA is not information because there's nothing conscious behind it and behind the way it develops. It's not arranged with purpose; rather, it's arranged in a way that has been favoured over billions of years of natural selection. The DNA that had the biggest chance to duplicate itself simply did that and propagated over time.

What the fuck has Dawkins to do with what I said? Everything I wrote above can be found on any college-level genetics book, and is not based on any conjecture. When I argue, I don't just pull things out of my ass, you know. Duplications, insertions of viral DNA and mutations have been observed, and there's no reason to think that they couldn't happen in the past too.

Dawkins failed to provide proper information model yet school textbooks are showing how information developed over evolution, does that means Dawkins is a Donkey, who carry load of textbooks over his back without knowing what is inside those books.

Aristotle defined that heavier object hit the ground first than the lighter object if both objects released simultaneously. That information was in the textbooks for more than thousand years, so what!

I really can't see your point here. Who the fuck cares about Dawkins?
And the knowledge of Aristotle was updated as soon as it was proven wrong. The point here being..?

No one has any evidence that an invisible man in the sky poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago, or whenever the fuck you date your creation story.

Idea of Intelligent God gives a solid understanding about everything that exist. Nothingness and Chance are outright confusing and ambiguous. You reject the existence of God and you do not have alternate to Nothingness. You are a lost person.

The "Idea of Intelligent God" doesn't give a solid understanding about anything. Why should it? Is there any evidence for it?
Uncertainty is not bad at all. It's intellectual honesty at the very least. You don't have a shred of evidence for the existence of a god, neither for his involvement in the creation/development of the world, yet, since you've read it in a book that claims to be the ultimate truth about the universe, you accept that there is a god and that it indeed created the universe. But there's no guarantee that the book itself is true! And if you are so sure about it, well, you *are* deluded. You can't just claim something without having any evidence to back it up. But you do, and you don't accept it.

Can't you see how childish your behaviour is?

Look at this, and then tell me what you find more solid an understanding:

(1)
-"How did the variety of species that we see today come to be?"
- "God did it."

(2)
-"How did the variety of species that we see today come to be?"
-"It's complicated: we still don't know exactly how it came to be. Still, based on the evidence we have, we can reasonably suppose that it evolved through a process of natural selection. The organisms that were better adapted to their environment had a better chance of reproducing, and so they filled their environmental niches. This is confirmed by the fossil record, by genome sequencing and by observations on contemporary species, such as the Italian Wall Lizard" (that's really dumbed down, but you can't explain the whole of evolution in 4 lines)

Also, there might be gaps in the fossil record, but what we have there, plus the comparison between genomes of the species we have today (eg humans and the rest of the great apes) makes quite a lot of sense!

This is not science. This is conjecture.

Science is conjectures backed up by evidence. If you don't like science, then shove your head up Mohammed's butthole, I don't fucking care.

Your view is biased and ignorant.

My views are not based on Nothingness or Chance but yours are.

My views are based on science, which is the interpretation of the world based on what we can observe/test empirically. Yours are based on an ancient Middle Eastern Man's brain farts.

And with this, you've shown everybody you don't understand how science works, and how it's different from religious dogma.

The fact that you can't be 100% sure about something IS part of science because our understanding of the world changes and is refined decade after decade, century after century, along with the advancement of our technology.

What makes you so sure that evolution is true if our understanding changes decade after decade with the advancements in technology?

Without proper scientific proofs and evidences, your belief in Evolution is no more than Faith in an unknown blind god.

Evolution is something we can reasonably assume to be true based on the evidence we currently have. I assume it's true, I'm not SURE it's true. Show me peer-reviewed, scientific studies that prove that it isn't and I'll change my mind. Unlike you, I understand when I'm wrong and I'm willing and able to change my mind.

The Catholic Church could get you burnt at the stake just for being a heretic. Would you have had the guts to even go on and say you were an atheist then?

This response does not contain number of those atheists who were killed by Catholic Church. I repeat my question, how many atheists were killed by Catholic Church? I need digits not an Abstract Blah.

Look at what happened to Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
And he wasn't even an Atheist, he was a Pantheist. And this happened in the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. So... guess what happened (or could happen) to atheists then.

Giordano Bruno was not an atheist. I asked you how many atheists Catholic Church killed.

If I grant the case of Bruno to the favour of your argument then you are bringing one man (not atheist) killed by Catholic Church against 100,000,000 plus lives that atheists took within 150 years.

Shame on you.

Who the fuck cares about the numbers? There probably *weren't* even atheists during those times! So fucking what!

Yeah, to be more precise, there's not much difference between Islam in Saudi Arabia and in the majority of other Muslim countries. You can get killed for being an Atheist in many of those. In the 21st century. You can find a neat list of the countries that punish atheism with death here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

Your source is not telling the number of atheists who were killed by Muslims in the Muslim world.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria, within last 50 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in USSR, Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan in last 150 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in Saudi Arabia in the entire history of this country.

The numbers don't matter! Atheists *are* persecuted too, and there has been constant prejudice against them during all of history. So stop being a prick and just accept that.

Replying to this disgusts me. How dare you even compare Mandela, who fought for the equal rights of his people, to the savages of ISIS who brutally murder everyone who does not agree by the letter to what they say?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

I am not associating Mandala with ISIS. I am comparing ISIS with the secular world. With those who were calling Mandala a terrorist and who had made his life miserable. When Mandala gained popularity, those cunning notorious hypocrites announced Nobel Peace Prize for Mandala.

I think you have some problem with your understanding or you are playing the fool.

What you said just doesn't make any sense at all. Mandela's goals and ISIS's goals are completely different. Are you always this stupid or did you drink something today?

Those people were COMMUNISTS, dude. COMMUNISTS. Atheism is not a political ideology; it can be a part of one, but it certainly ISN'T its core. Communist/totalitarian/authoritarian states persecute religions as they persecute any other ideology that is not in line with what the government says, not because of an intrinsic property of atheism.

All those communists were atheists. There were no Muslims, Christians, and Jews among those communists who were insanely cutting and crushing human beings.

Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe. Such a philosophy is avowedly secularistic and atheistic. Under it, God is merely a figment of the imagination; religion is a product of fear and ignorance. Moreover, Communism, like humanism, thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society. Cold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, Communism provides no place for God.

Even today all communists are atheists. Have you ever seen a person who believe in the existence of God and he is a Communist as well?

Well, here in Italy there *are* Catho-Communists, but that's another story.

All Communists are Atheists ≠ All Atheists are Communists. And Communists didn't do what they did because of their atheism, they did it because they didn't want their regime to be challenged. Stop being a moron.

Again, look here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/1...0G20131210

Your source is not giving factual data on killed atheists.

No one fucking cares about HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD TO DIE! What matters is the laws: religious people can persecute the non-religious too.

Fucking hell, you're thick!

Stop being an idiot. You know as well as I do how much ANY religious belief can lead to "barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness".

You are talking subjectively. In place of giving data, you are playing emotional games. I do not understand why you feel reluctant in giving precise numbers of killed atheists. Perhaps violent, maniac, fundamentalist Muslims had not touched even a single atheist and you are shouting and yelling simply to distract the attention of audiences from the crime that atheism has committed against humanity.

Again. It was not atheism. It was communism. Now please, go fuck yourself.

Isn't what ISIS is doing right now in the name of Islam barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?

People who are taking active part in the movements of ISIS are chicken-headed stupid culprits. I do not blame them for what they are doing. I blame those who are organising, funding, and using those criminals to get hold on Muslim lands. In fact, they are real barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, ferocious, and bloodthirsty people who always hide their criminal faces behind the veil of politics. These wheeler-dealers are controlling these chicken-headed culprits and for all terrorist acts done by these criminals in the Muslim lands, they put blame on the heads of Muslims who lost their families and homes. These scoundrels give full financial and technological support to the culprits who spread terror in the Muslim World.

Terrorism in today’s world is nothing but a war strategy of the secular world. First Secular World creates terror in some nation by supporting negative elements in that nation and by sending trained killers and then they attack that nation to kill that artificially created terror. This way Secular force enter the region and get control over that land and over all available resources. Secular governments are as barbarous as were the communist governments. Basic reason for this barbarism is one and the same, the elimination of Divine Laws from their sovereign systems.

Yeah, the Secular Governments of the Bush dynasty, George and George W, known for their atheism

Also, the barbaric secular governments of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark... Don't even get me started on those.

Harris Wrote: If mainstream belief in the world is not atheism and never was in the entire human history that is a sufficient proof, that atheism is illogical.

Lucanus Wrote: Non-sequitur, and appeal to popularity. GG

You can say Harris is a stupid person because he believes in unseen God but you cannot say the same thing to over five billion people in the world who believe in the same unseen God. You have to check your own selves why you do not have that sense of God when almost total population of the world has that sense. It is a natural sense.

It's SO natural, when it's shoved down your throat as soon as you're born.