“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Lucanus]

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

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.

Whatever explanation you had given above is totally based on conjectures. Dawkins is much smarter than you are and yet he has not come up with some verifiable scientific model to show how simple organisms gain information that made them complex over evolution.

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.

No one has any evidence that evolution really happened over 3 billion years. It is an unjustified assertion that is totally based on the assumptions. You only have fossil record, which cannot be taken as solid scientific evidence because of the tremendous gaps it has.

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.
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! Your view is biased and ignorant.

“Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement. It needs some LUCK to get started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that LUCK. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of LUCK, with anthropic justification.”
Page 141
The God Delusion

“I predict that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will be found to resemble life on Earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some kind of Darwinian natural selection. Unfortunately, this is a prediction that we shall, in all probability, not be able to test in our lifetimes, but it remains a way of dramatizing an important truth about life on our own planet.”
Page 288
The Blind Watchmaker

Throughout his work Dawkins abundantly used the words such as

“Perhaps, maybe, possibly, almost certainly, most likely, in all probability, somehow”

These words are not representing science. Scientific truths are based upon definite and precise evidences. Total evolution is based over assumptions and conjectures because there is no definite and precise evidence for the justification of evolution and natural selection.

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.

Yeah, while Catholicism was a free choice for all living in Europe during the dark ages.

How many atheists catholic church had killed in the middle age?

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?

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.

Or like Islam is in Saudi Arabia

I am curious to know what kind of Islam Saudi Arabia has and how it is different from the Islam in other Muslim countries.

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

or in the ISIS-occupied territories today.

Do you know those who avowed Nelson Mandala most wanted terrorist and tortured him nearly whole of his life based on this accusation were the people who had given him the Nobel Prize for Peace? Is not it funny?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...27902.html

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?

Nothing like those filthy communist Atheists of the USSR.

Do you know apart from USSR what atheists had done in Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan?

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. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god(s).

You realize that atheism was and still is - in some places like uhh... the majority of muslim countries - punishable by death.

I don't know about you, but I would find it quite an incentive to stay quiet about my disbelief.

Tell me in which Muslim country atheists were killed just because they were atheists. You are only trying to dramatize fictitious assumption.

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

It's clear that it's wrong to force ANY kind of belief system. The Soviets did that, but I don't think that any atheist around here would agree with the political views of the Soviet Union.

Right on target. The political views of atheist dictators in Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Afghanistan only exhibit that lack of God leads people only to barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness.

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".
Isn't what ISIS is doing right now in the name of Islam barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?
Weren't the forced conversions of the Natives of South America to Christianity barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?
Weren't the Irish Troubles of the last century an example of how even minimal religious differences can make people barbaric, cruel, brutal, savage, vicious, feral and bloodthirsty?
Wasn't the general clusterfuck of Yugoslavia some 20 years ago the epitome of the barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness caused by religious and ethnic conflicts?
And I'll stop it there.

This is pure and simple non-sequitur bullshit. How does the fact that they turned back to their original religion prove that atheism is illogical and not that they were simply *forced* not to worship?

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.

Non-sequitur, and appeal to popularity. gg