“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Harris]

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.

Is “SOME EVIDENCE” = “FULL-FLEDGED EVIDENCE” that is acknowledged by all scientists unequivocally?

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.

“DNA is not information because there is nothing conscious behind it and behind the way it develops,” this assertion is wrong. However, I reject your argument not because you gave wrong interpretation but based on following five points:

1. No scientific method can retrieve scientific data from the events that happened a billion years ago.

2. Word “Selection” is directly proportional to Conscious acts and inversely proportional to the Unconsciousness.

3. There are no random and unguided processes in the biological structures therefore no chances for the rise of new organs in existent beings. There is no process in the living organ that can breach the natural protocols in order to attain information. That is the reason humans remained humans and not turned into fairies over time. Disorder means sickness and devaluation of existing organs.

4. Gene is a recent discovery and Darwin was unaware of it. People living before Francis Harry Compton Crick had no clue about Genes. Therefore, only 100 years back there was no record on genes. To say evolution happened over few billion years is absolutely nonsense, as science do not know what was happening to the genes only 1000 years back. Neo Darwinism is purely a conjecture and assumption that has no evidence for its support.

5. “Natural Selection” by definition is a blind, unconscious, and unguided PROCESS, which has no mechanism, no substance, and no force. “PROCESS” by definition is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. PROCESS always based upon conscious and mindful strategy to attain specific purpose. Without involvement of certain degree of intellectual planning and design, no action or activity can be termed as PROCESS. Therefore, in this sense, there is no such thing as “PROCESS of Natural Selection” in science.

And the knowledge of Aristotle was updated as soon as it was proven wrong. The point here being..?

My point is Theory of Evolution is not scientifically proven theory yet it resides in the science textbooks as scientific fact.

The "Idea of Intelligent God" doesn't give a solid understanding about anything. Why should it? Is there any evidence for it?

Universe is the evidence for the existence of God. What else can be the evidence that is more obvious? Above all evidences final evidence is God Himself. However, He will not reveal Himself. Why not? The answer is in my article.

“Are they waiting to see if the angels come to them, or thy Lord (Himself), or certain of the signs of thy Lord! The day that certain of the signs of thy Lord do come, no good will it do to a soul to believe in them then if it believed not before nor earned righteousness through its faith. Say: "Wait ye: we too are waiting."
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 158-

“And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by? Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!”
Yusuf (12)
-Verse 105-

Uncertainty is not bad at all. It's intellectual honesty at the very least.

“Nothingness” does not fall in the criteria of uncertainty. Comparing nothingness with uncertainty is a self-deception.

Uncertainty arises from the complexity and the subtlety of our relations with others and of the patterns that our psychological concepts require us to discern, and not from the indirectness of our evidence. Questions of complexity, subtlety, directness and indirectness of evidences are irrelevant to nothingness, as nothingness means “not anything.”

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)

Please bring something authentic and intelligible.

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.

Where that EVIDENCE is. What scientific authority you have that confirms Evolution happened over a billion years?

Natural Selection without proper scientific definition and without practical evidences is nothing more than a mystery.

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.

If your views are based on science and not on chance and nothingness that means you have the answers to questions:

How first living cell appeared into existence?
How the universe popped up into existence?

Evolution is something we can reasonably assume to be true based on the evidence we currently have.

And what are those evidences? Do you mean abiogenesis, palaeontology, and mutation?

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.

Search only one evidence that may exhibit “increase in information contents over evolution” and you will have your answer.

That means search for evidence that can explain how one humble cell gained so much information by Natural Selection that it evolved into conscious living being say in one Centillion years. In addition, search why not all living beings are evolving anymore and if you think evolution is still happening then try to find transient animals (including humans), which should be in abundance everywhere.

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

If Catholics have not harmed any atheist then why you (atheist) talk wrong about them?

Harris Wrote: 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.

Lucanus Wrote: The numbers don't matter!

“Numbers do not matter!” Ha! This is how an atheist mind think. Atheists killed more than 100 million people and you are saying, “Numbers do not 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.

Why do not you give figures of those persecuted atheists? Perhaps no atheist was in fact persecuted and you are trying to dramatize the situation.

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?

Yes dear yes, you are correct. I am also saying the same thing but for some reason your mind is incorrectly interpreting couple of my last responses.

Mandela’s goals were not similar to the goals of ISIS. Mandela was not a terrorist neither his plans were terroristic.

Secular Politicians denunciated Mandela for terrorism. When these secular hypocrites saw, they could not beat Mandela; they have announced Nobel Peace Prize for him so no one would raise finger over their dirty tricks.

Mandela was not a terrorist but those who were accusing him for terrorism are the actual terrorists.

Did you get it or not?

All Communists are Atheists ≠ All Atheists are Communists.

True

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.

Those communists acted insanely because they were atheists.

Atheist looks at living beings (including human beings) as mere living machines and consciousness for him is the function of brain.

Secondly, all atheists are relativists as in atheism there is no concept of Divine reward and punishment and there is no concept of judgment day.

Thirdly, life is the whole wealth that an atheist has therefore, this idea can provoke enthusiasm for having maximum enjoyment in this life. When such desire call to mind, an atheist do not care how he is going to get that enjoyment. He will try to get it by hook or by crook.

These concepts are sufficient to make an atheist indifferent to life of other people. Such an atheist can easily undermine human values.

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!

If you and your source do not know, how many atheists were killed in the Muslim nations then how comes you and your source blaming Muslims for something that did not happen?

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

Were those communists not atheists?

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.

Secular system means No Divine Laws. If Muslims, Christians, and Jews are part of secular system that means they are following laws based on atheism. Anyone who follow laws based on the concept “NO GOD” is a relativist who is capable of undermining human values because of his personal standards of morality. Therefore, if you are observing cruel acts of theist leaders in secular regimes that is because relativism dominates their sovereign systems. Such leaders disguise this relativism by putting slogans of national causes over this doctrine. Under the umbrella of national cause, normally secular leaders hide their lethal tricks that they frequently use for the fulfilment to their personal desires. This is exactly how leaders and influential groups in the communist regimes behaved and atheism is to be blamed for all their cruel conducts.

Harris Wrote: 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.

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

“When trouble toucheth a man, He crieth unto Us (in all postures) - lying down on his side, or sitting, or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passeth on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that touched him! Thus do the deeds of transgressors seem fair in their eyes!”
Yunus (10)
-Verse 12-

You just made up this zombie, it doesn't actually exist, no unconscious zombie has been able to breed.

Breeding is an artificial selection and I am talking about Natural Selection. Intellectually guided process is involved in the breeding whereas natural selection is unguided and unconscious process. Therefore, natural selection is equally valid for any zombie if natural selection give rise to them.

If natural selection is blind, unguided, and unconscious process then why there are no real zombies. If Natural Selection is not a conscious process then why it only selects best of the best. Think about that.

An assault course has physical properties.

Assault course is a planned structure of guided commands initiated by intelligent and conscious mind. Unguided natural selection is not a match to a guided assault course, as it has no physical properties.

I have to back track on what I said before, I worded a previous answer I gave you wrongly.

When I said there is no being doing any selecting, I actually meant there is no one being doing the selecting, and that natural selection isn't a conscious thing which is doing the selecting.

I have no problem in agreeing with you on that. Simply ponder over your own words and you will see that definition of natural selection does not comply with the conventional norms of scientific methods. Therefore, in fact, there is no such thing as natural selection in science.

Because sexual selection I think according to some people is a part, an agent of natural selection and evolution, this makes anyone who is choosing a sexual partner an agent of natural selection who is making a choice to breed with a specific type of person and that results in the passing on of certain traits to the next generation. So there are choices being made within sexual selection but this isn't true for the entirety of what makes up natural selection.

Sex is a physical urge and selection of a partner is a conscious decision. Natural selection is not a match to a conscious and guided selection of a partner.

All 'evil' is based on social morals. It is not an absolute. It changes from decade to decade, generation to generation, culture to culture.

If science cannot give proofs on social morals then how it can give proofs on certain human feelings like love, hate, etc. Social morals are dependent over human feelings and emotions.

Harris Wrote: Can Science prove that your spouse loves you?

IATIA Wrote: Yes.

Only “yes” is not sufficient. Evidence please!

Harris Wrote: Can Science explain the fine-tuning of the physical constants?

IATIA Wrote: There is no such thing.

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many FUNDAMENTAL NUMBERS, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been VERY FINELY ADJUSTED to make possible the DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE."

Stephen Hawking
Page 125
A Brief History of Time

Harris Wrote: Can Science explain why we require sleep?

IATIA Wrote: Yes.

Harris Wrote: Is not gravity still a greater mystery than evolution?

IATIA Wrote: No.

Yes(s) and No(s) are not sufficient. EVIDENCE PLEASE!

Bullshit we can't.

5 billion people are stupid because they believe in unseen God. 3 billion believe in the tooth fairy as well, but hopefully most of them will be smart enough to grow out of it.

It seems you have found an alternate to God. Tell me what the alternate of God is because my mind boggles when I start thinking about Nothingness.

The truth of a statement does not depend on how many people believe it is true.

You can use this description for a group of people whom you can count on your figure tips. However, when we take into consideration people who believe in God or deity and who are about 90% of the total world’s population then for sure, this is not a joke.

On top of this, if you add believers in God from the entire human history who were always more than 90% then that provides a logical proof that impression of God is part of human conscious. Denial of God in fact is an artificial act.

Please learn about logical fallacies.

I know 130 types of fallacies. However, I hate using their fancy names in my responses. Beware not everyone know these fancy names and not everyone bother to open dictionaries to check their meanings.

No, I am not afraid of death.

Can you express your desire for Death?

I'm just pointing out the discrepancy between what you claim god is, and what you describe him as.

Although I do notice that many theists will attempt to sidestep this problem by pretending that the atheist believes in god, as opposed to following the discussion wherever it may lead.

You have not read my main article and that is the reason you think that my understanding of God is different from the reality. Problem is that you are rejecting the existence of God without knowing that there is no alternate to God.

What are the values of these events, which you are interpreting as discrepancies, in time that has no beginning and no end?