“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Harris]

I have read the bible and if that is "good", I want no part of it.

Have you read Quran? If not then try it.

I don't need to read a list of boring injunctions buried amongst a pile of boring sanctimonious claptrap every morning in order to remind myself not to kill people. But perhaps that's just me.

If you are a killer then reading or not does not make any difference. Reading of a scripture gives nothing until you understand it and properly implement its laws in your practical life. Read Quran and try to understand it. If you look at it with a sceptic eye then nothing good, you will get out of it.

“We send down (stage by stage) in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.”

Al Israa' (17)
-Verse 82-

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

Lucanus Wrote: It's acknowledged by all scientists who know their shit.

In Science, “SOME EVIDENCE” is not an evidence that can be applicable in innovative projects.

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

Lucanus Wrote: Wrong. Geology, chemistry and physics show us that we indeed can deduce the conditions of the earth billions of years ago. Also, we can *see* what was happening a billion years ago in stars distant a billion light years from us. Your argument doesn't hold.

How many base pairs Trilobites had?

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

Lucanus Wrote: This is a baseless assertion. Unconscious systems can operate a selection. Take for instance a selective ion channel on a cell membrane. It's not selective because it chooses an ion it likes and makes it pass. It's selective because of its chemical and physical properties.

Please give definition of Unconscious.

Harris Wrote: 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.

Lucanus Wrote: Another bunch of baseless assertions, combined with a non-sequitur and even more baseless assertions.

Can you invalidate the essence of so called “baseless assertion” by giving scientific facts?

There are random processes happening in every organism; actually, all of them are. Chemical reactions happen randomly when two reagent molecules "bump" against each other. Given enough energy and favourable conditions (temperature, pH, enzymes), the likelihood of those reactions happening will increase. It still is a *random* thermodynamical process.

In nature there exist nothing which has no cause. If you are not familiar with some natural phenomenon that does not mean that phenomenon is random and without a cause.

What do you mean, unguided? Unguided by what?

Ask Dawkins.

"There is no process in the living organ that can breach the natural protocols in order to attain information."

what does this even mean in English?

Use Google Translate.

And you obviously have no idea of how population genetics work.

Population genetics is the study of the distributions and changes of allele frequency in a population, as the population is subject to the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. This is a formal definition.

In the growth of living beings, there is not only a need of information to build genes and proteins but also a higher order of information requires for advanced assembly instructions to build body plans. DNA codes are for the building of proteins but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types, cell types have to be arranged into tissues, tissues have to be arranged into organs, organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new body plans (distinctive arrangement of those body parts).

DNA alone is not responsible for those higher order of organisations. DNA codes for proteins, by itself, it does not ensure that proteins, cell types, tissues, and organs will all be arranged in the body plans. What that means is that the body plan morph a genesis as a whole, depends upon information that is not encoded in the DNA. This means you can mutate DNA indefinitely because in the best case you are just going to find new protein some place out there in that combinatorial sequence space. By mutating DNA alone, it will not generate the higher order structures that are necessary to building the body plan. Therefore, what we can conclude from this that Neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information to build new genes and proteins and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origin of novel biological forms which is to say that only mutation for the evolution is not acceptable.

Harris Wrote: 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.

Lucanus Wrote: Darwin didn't know about genes but Mendel postulated their existence while studying pea plants around the same time as Darwin was publishing his studies.

Suppose Mendel was familiar with genes as much as Francis Harry Compton Crick is familiar, so what. Does that make any substantial change in what I have written?

The rest is a gigantic non-sequitur, and a misunderstanding of genetics, nay, the whole scientific method.

And do you know that the difference between Darwin and Mendel was the basis of heredity; Mendel had it right and Darwin had it wrong. Do you understand what that means?

And it's not like there's a whole bunch of evidence for gods of any kind, mind you.

First go and find evidence that can prove Evolution true after that try to criticize God.

Harris Wrote: 5. “Natural Selection” by definition is a blind, unconscious, and unguided PROCESS, which has no mechanism, no substance, and no force.

Lucanus Wrote: No, processes do indeed have mechanisms and substance. For example, in this case the mechanisms would consist in a lack of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and the resulting variations in allelic frequencies in a population, and the substance would be the population itself that is affected by those variations.

The Hardy-Weinberg equation can provide only a ROUGH REPRESENTATION of the gene frequency in a population over time. It explains evolution in relief, by demonstrating the restrictive and unrealistic conditions necessary to turn evolution off.

It only holds IF

1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population

New information was indeed being added into the population gene pool by a certain type of gene flow known as immigration. Immigration is the entering of individuals into a population. However, this is not the “new information” that is required to catalyse the evolution of, for example, reptilian scales into bird feathers, as these two features are genetically and structurally different. The impossibility of a Hardy-Weinberg population, also known as Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, does not prove or provide any evidence for large-scale, onwards-upwards evolution, as there is still NO KNOWN PROCESS BY WHICH NEW GENETIC INFORMATION IS ADDED TO THE GENOME THAT WOULD IN TURN CAUSE THE ORGANISM TO EVOLVE NEW FEATURES ALTOGETHER.

Just because we can see the dog family change over hundreds, or even thousands of years does not give any indication that they will change into a completely different “kind” or taxonomic “family.” A dog can only genetically and structurally become so small or large, and it cannot gain new genetic information that allows it to evolve new features altogether. The DNA of an organism can only give variety to the phenotypic characters of the organism.

Equations of theoretical population genetics show that evolution is unlikely. The Hardy-Weinberg law mathematically describes how a population is in equilibrium both for the frequency of alleles and for the frequency of genotypes. Indeed because this law is a fundamental principle of genetic equilibrium, it does not support Darwinism, which means exactly the contrary, the breaking of equilibrium toward the increase of organization and the creation of entirely new organisms.

As I understand it, it gives the baseline position in which NO evolution can be said to occur, and the inevitable result that provided there is no change in allele frequency, random allele pairs from any starting mix of pairs, however far from equilibrium, will result in the same genotype frequencies in the next generation, because ultimately it does not matter how they are linked this generation if they assort independently in making the next.

Nope. Evolution is a natural process, just like the nuclear reactions going on in the sun are a natural process. Neither of them requires an intellect or an end to determine them. You're arguing semantics.

Evolution is a fictitious phenomenon that atheists had developed to promote atheism.

So... Five points, all of them full of shit. Good job!

You are overestimating your knowhow.

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

Lucanus Wrote: It's a scientific theory whose validity has been reinforced by thousands of studies and observations. Your ignorance of those is not my concern.

All those thousands of observations and studies failed to produce one scientific method by which evolutionists can show how new genetic information can be added to the genome that would in turn cause the organism to evolve new features altogether.

The universe isn't evidence of anything except of itself. Again, you are pulling arguments out of your ass, which makes me wonder how many things you can store there. Are you a Time Lord or something?

Tell me:

Does universe produces its own being or
Universe came out of nothingness or perhaps
Universe is eternal

Which one of the above statements in your opinion is true.

Harris Wrote:

“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-

Lucanus wrote: Oh, how cute, Koranic verses. The finest in "FULLY-FLEDGED EVIDENCE™".

These two verses are showing two great facts about human nature.

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


Lucanus Wrote: What does nothingness have to do with what we're talking about?

I wrote, “Nothingness and Chance are outright confusing and ambiguous” in response you wrote “Uncertainty is not bad at all. It's intellectual honesty at the very least.” Did you get the answer for “what does nothingness has to do with what we are talking about”

Harris Wrote: 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.”

Lucanus Wrote: And please, improve your English. Some of your sentences are barely understandable at all.

First, learn philosophy then talk about it.

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, population genetics, molecular genetics. Go. Look. Them. Up.

There are no evidences in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, population genetics, molecular genetics that can explain how one lonely cell turned into conscious human. There is no way science can demonstrate that new genetic information can be added to the genome that would in turn cause the organism to get new organs and new features in its overall structure.

(

Harris Wrote: 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?

Lucanus Wrote: Again, you misunderstand science. We can make reasonable guesses about how those things happened based on what we can observe today. The fact that we don't know for sure does not imply that god is the answer.

Oh! THE GREAT GUESSWORK. That is how you build up the theory of evolution.

Harris Wrote: 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.

Lucanus Wrote: No because evolution does not work that way, and you purposefully mischaracterize it. Study it, PLEASE.

If you think what I wrote is not true then prove it wrong by scientific reasoning.

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

Lucanus Wrote: Because they were control freaks who had whoever did not agree with them burnt at the stake. Holy shit.

Do you have any evidence that Catholics have burnt atheists at the stake or you are talking based on Hollywood Movies?

Harris Wrote: 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.

Lucanus Wrote: You are completely missing the point.

I am not missing any point. You do not have facts to support your stupid blahs!

No I don't get it. What would your point be? That secular governments are all terroristic? Meh... Even if it were so, it wouldn't be because of their secularism.

At least I know now that you were pretending to be a dolt.

Gather round people, it's strawman day!

And again, my point flew over your head entirely.

Communist did all the nasty deeds because they were atheists who were in power. Perhaps you have problem in understanding this simple thing or again you are pretending to be a dolt. A person who do not believe in God, judgement day, reward and punishment is a relativist. Such person can easily undermine human values.

You didn't even bother to understand, eh? The point is you CAN'T be an atheist there because if people find out they can bring you to court and they can have your head chopped off! By law! Porcoddio

In Nazi Germany, many Jews had changed their identities to save their lives, yet those Nazis caught most of them. How comes not a single atheist was caught and cut into pieces by nasty Muslim and Christian warlords.

Then if that's the case, why are many secular nations the most prosperous, equal and civilized ones? And why are theocracies like Iran or absolute religious monarchies like Saudi Arabia piss poor in their respect of human rights? Is that what god wants, a total disrespect for human rights? Then your god is a prick and does not deserve to be worshipped.

You seem to be one of those who love to argue based on speculations and conspiracies. Palestine was an independent and prosperous country now it is not. The same thing is happening with all nearby Muslim Countries what once happened to Palestine.

If you think rape is against human rights, then go and compare official rape statistics of USA with the statistics of Saudi Arabia. The figures will give you exact picture of human rights in both countries.

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

Harris Wrote:

“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!”

Lucanus Wrote: Nice job ignoring my point entirely.

Read the verse carefully and try to contemplate over it.

Oh man, you just love building strawmen don't you?

I had given an authentic definition of Argumentum Ex Culo and said that your arguments are perfect example of this fallacy. Are you left with nothing than Strawman in your pocket?

The mind boggles at infinity and paradox, because it cannot resolve them or represent them symbolically. God, an existent thing which was never created, the start of all which exists but was never made to exist, is such a paradox, and ALSO boggles the mind.

Transfinite numbers are not finite numbers but not that they are not numbers.

Natural beings are perceived as organic units through the senses, and it is the task of science, through a functional analysis, to transform this confused knowledge of the whole into a distinct knowledge of its parts and their ordering in a system. Thanks to the infinity of the universes various parts, human beings will never be able to analyse and thereby know the whole of the universe. Moreover, thanks to the infinite subtlety of the smallest parts, which escape the senses, these too will necessarily remain unknown.

It is the greatest and indeed most disastrous error to claim that humans can achieve absolute knowledge through science.

This material world is conditioned by the categories of time and space, but these are themselves illusions, concealing the realities of eternity and infinity. The deep infinite faculties of Fantasy and Heart cannot apprehend these realities rationally, but only intuitively by means of Logic.

Saying that something is infinite means merely that we are not able to conceive the ends, and bounds of the thing named.

Finally yet importantly, infinite God is a Being He is not nothingness.

Even if God is real, if you are comfortable with the God idea, it is not because God is understandable, but because your idea of God is not representative of the truth. Therefore, whatever you are arguing for, and believe in, is a false God.

I am still waiting answer on my previous question.

“Tell me what the alternate of God is because my mind boggles when I start thinking about Nothingness.”

IATIA Wrote: Back in the day, how many people thought the earth was flat? Is it? Huh? Huh? The majority may rule, but that does not make it true.

Bennyboy Wrote: Not only that, THESE are the geniuses who made the idea of God.

All false ideas have failed but the idea of God unlike any other idea still dominates the conscious minds of about 90% of world’s population.

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

IATIA Wrote: Evidence is evidence.

Perhaps partial is whole for you but not for me for sure.

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

IATIA Wrote: Um … Yeah! If i observe a star that is one billion light years away, I am looking a REAL TIME scientific data that is one billion years old. Na-na na-na boo-boo

Can that REAL TIME SCIENTIFIC DATA tell us which star that we see in REAL TIME night sky, is dead?

IATIA Wrote: Wrong. Emotions are chemical based, morals are society based.

And what is SOCIETY in your opinion?

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

IATIA Wrote: Yes.

Harris Wrote: Only “yes” is not sufficient. Evidence please!

IATIA Wrote: Chemicals and psychology.

What is the CHEMICAL FORMULA for LOVE?

An appeal to authority and I disagree with him. In fact, I disagree with a lot of Hawking's ideas.

Is it “an appeal to authority,” or you “disagree with a lot of Hawking’s ideas.”

Put the bible down and read some books. If I thought you were truly interested, I would be more than willing to help out, but I think you already have your mind made up. A correct answer is found in volumes of books. Much more than a forum can deal with or that you would bother to read.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

Evidence please.

You're saying an assault course has no physical properties so is therefore our of the scope of science. But then you contradict yourself by saying.

Quote: 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.

So is an assault course a planned physical objected, structure, thing, or is it not a physical structure? Which is it?

I stick to my initial views that Assault Course has no physical properties. Instead or writing “… as it has no properties,” I wrote “… as it has no PHYSICAL properties” and for this mistake I apology.

Why assault course has no physical properties.

By definition course is the way in which something progresses or develops. It is a procedure to move without obstruction in order to deal with a particular situation. If something happens in the course of a particular period of time, it happens during that period of time.

Everyone knows there are different types of courses say:

Navigation course, sail course, meal course, education course, medicine course, music course, architecture course, orienteering course, etc.

However, Course is an abstract object as significant parts of it appear to be about objects, which lie outside space and time, and is therefore incapable of figuring in causal relationships. Abstract objects can be neither seen nor heard, nor can they be tasted, felt or smelled. Therefore, course has no physical properties and here you are wrong in saying that assault course has physical properties.

Concrete physical objects can be being picked out ostensively, while abstract objects are those to which we can refer only by means of some functional expression. Other good example of abstract objects are numbers and sets.

I'm not comparing natural selection with a physical assault course, I'm comparing selections made in the army to natural selection, the assault course would be comparable to different environments in nature. One is natural the other is man made but that doesn't mean they aren't comparable, especially not since assault courses often aren't 100% man made and I'm sure there probably are 100% natural assault courses which some people use for training.

Selection is the action of CAREFULLY choosing something as being the best or most suitable. Most noticeable thing in the selection of things is a THING or SET OF THINGS that have been selected from a LARGER GROUP. Therefore, selection means deduction not increment.

Let us take the first fictitious living cell. That cell was struggling for the survival and on the way; it met with the natural selection. Natural selection selected the best part of that cell and eliminated the rest. However, in order to develop from simple into complex structure, addition is the requirement not the subtraction. So how comes natural selection eliminate part of the first living cell and that cell grew into more complex structure. Illogical!

Selection is always based on the logical decisions. In a selection structure, a question is asked, and depending on the answer, the process takes one course of action out of several available options. If Condition A is True then perform Action X else perform Action Y.

If natural selection is the blind, unconscious, and unguided process that has no mind and no mind’s eye, which does not plan as it has no vision, no foresight, and no sight at all then how comes it is making precisely guided decisions for elimination. Illogical!

On one side, you say natural selection is something in nature that helps evolution to flourish and on the other side, you cannot give scientific description to Natural Selection. Does that remind you something?

If selection of a sexual partner is a conscious decision and sexual selection is a form of natural selection then conscious decisions are a part of natural selection. The only thing I would say about this is that possibly a lot of what makes animals, including humans, decide on a mate, is instinct rather than a conscious decision.

For the sake of argument, I say, you are correct and conscious decisions are part of natural selection, does that means that unconscious natural selection, to which you cannot give proper scientific definition, that has no vision and no foresight is creating conscious beings who are self-aware and have tremendous power of making conscious decisions. Does that sound rational to you?

You keep saying "it selects" There is no it, thing, person, being, selecting the best of the best. You seem to be taking the word selection WAY to literally. You should just forget about the word selection because it doesn't mean what you think it means in this context, in this context it's just an expression.

“Expression” is the action of making known one's thoughts or conveying of feeling through words, actions, or artistic activities. In mathematics, an expression is a symbol or equation, which represents a quantity or function. The sense of an expression is a mode of presentation of its referent. It is the cognitive and contemplative act. A logical expression is one whose meaning can be characterized by a set of rules of inference of a certain sort.

Selection is a term that EXPRESS cluster concepts, like intelligent and conclusiveness, which are determined by the application of several criteria. Unfortunately, the EXPRESSION “natural selection” by its definition dissipate all referential concepts that may fit to any scientific and logical criteria.

What do you mean when you say "The best of the best" The best of the best at what?

At selecting the fittest for the survival.

Here's why natural selection results in no zombies. Zombie person vs average human. Average human has a job, personality, gets along in society, has a girlfriend, breeds, his children are average humans, they get along in society, get jobs, get girlfriends and boyfriends and breed, their children are quite clever but don't all get jobs but they still breed and so on and so on.

Average zombie, not upwardly mobile enough to really get along with people, can't talk or form bonds with people, failed at a job interview for trying to bite the boss, couldn't get a girlfriend because he smelled like a rotting corpse, got his head blown off by a shotgun when he was trying to bite someone, didn't breed, didn't reproduce, no more zombies.

Does that mean you agree that “Natural selection” selects BEST OF THE BEST?

Please people, learn about evolution and natural selection (and not from apologist websites). So often people continue to punch a strawman because they demonstrate with every sentence that they have no idea what the concepts are. Scientists in many fields have all spent huge amounts of time studying data objectively, testing and retesting the theories. To think you can just say "no they are all wrong" when you haven't even demonstrated a basic understanding of the principles just makes you look foolish. I'm trying to help you out. Facts are facts, they can't hurt you, go learn.

In place of making a plead, bring only one solid evidence that gives inferential facts on how one unpretentious cell gathered humongous amount of data, which transformed it into billions of conscious humans and infinite number of other kinds including plants even when natural selection means elimination.

Even if you won the prestigious award for disproving evolution,

I am not trying to disprove an unproved evolution. Evolution is not science rather it is a political tool that atheists are using to promote atheism.

you are no closer to demonstrating the existence or intervention of a "God". You are not betting on the horse you think you're betting on.

Let us say you win in demonstrating that God does not exist in that case you have to present some alternate to God. What in your opinion the alternate of God is?

Please avoid answers such as “I do not know” or “I wait until science will find out.”

Science might never get the answer or you will not live until that time. You are living now and rejecting now so you should have a solid intelligible reason behind that rejection.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I say Harris is stupid because he calls himself logical in his religious views, yet everyone one of his posts are loaded with logical fallacies.

Case in point, the post I am responding to.

Ad populum - The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.

The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

Do you know what the difference between true idea and false idea is? False idea eventually get lost whereas true idea would never get lost. The idea of God existed throughout human history and continues to exist without any downfall. Over 90% population in all times of human history believed in the existence of God and today this belief resides in the minds of people who comprise about 90% of world’s population. Belief in God is a natural sense rejection of which is an artificial act.

Why am I not impressed with Harris's arguments?

I am not writing to impress anyone but I am only showing that your reasons and arguments are based on false ideas.

Science can never disprove the existence of God as science only deals with stuff that people can perceive by their primal senses. Anyone who use science as argument against God is a deluded person. The only way to disprove the existence of God is through LOGIC.

Don't hold your breath: I don't think Harris is capable of learning at all, because he's barely capable of reading. Once again, this is the guy who reads the sentence "the data is not misrepresented," and comes to the conclusion that what it means is "the data is misrepresented," because it contains the word "misrepresented."

Why else would you use that word, if you're not talking about something being misrepresented?

How many times you want me to quote the same thing. I am quoting for the last time now.


“As one proof that atheists aren’t without morals, in comparison to the general population, atheists, have been using one evidence, which is that only 0,2% of the prison population is made of atheists. The statistical data that they have been using was taken from a 15 YEAR OLD AND NOT VERY ACCURATE REPORT OF THE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF INMATES given to Denise Golumbaski, who used to be a research analyst at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, BUT TILL NOW THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFICIAL DATA OR CONTACT TO TRACE AND AUTHENTICATE THE REPORT.”

This is the opening paragraph.

July 28, 2013 By NatSkep Staff

http://natskep.com/only-0-07-of-prisoner...ns-report/

I'm not going to tackle this whole mess. 'A' by itself has enough problems. The 'problem of evil' is only a problem for the God of theodicy. That version of God is supposed to be an infinitely powerful, knowledgable, benevolent creator of us, the earth, the universe, and everything. However, the world we observe is at odds with the claim that such a being is in charge of it. Thus, the problem of evil. If your version of God is diminished in any of those qualities, the problem disappears. If not, more than ad hoc hand-waving is required to resolve the problem. And the conclusion of the argument is NOT 'there is no God', it's 'there is no God of theodicy'.

All right, let us say there is no God. In this case we are left with two options;

a. There should be an alternate of God or
b. Nothingness.

Alternate of God is God because any power that is capable to create and sustain universe is God.
Nothingness cannot exist because I exist.
Good and evil exist because God exist.

Please do not consider above three statements as syllogism.

Harris Wrote: What makes you so sure that whatever written in Quran is a nonsense? What proofs do you have to disprove anything in Quran? Perhaps Science, Philosophy, Literature, Mathematics, or what else you have to support your blind dismissal. Why are you so certain that all atheists see things in exactly similar manner as you do? What makes you feel you are above everyone else?

Mister Agenda Wrote: What made you think that was an honest and accurate representation of his post?

He does not know Quran and you as well. Disputing based on wishful desires is Arrogant.

Secular world? The 'secular world' is largely run by Christians. What an odd but convenient to your worldview term to use.

So what! If Muslims, Christian, and Jews are part of Secular system does that means Secular laws changed to divine law (even partially). Does any divine law contribute anything in any secular system regardless how many religious people are part of that system?

First communists spread disasters, now the secular world has taken hold on that job. Both are the followers of atheism regardless what is the colour of their jackets.

Atheism (No God) has quality to make people arrogant and indifferent to the life of other people.

More recently, the Western powers (mistakenly, in my opinion) outlawed DDT, even for human protection, but only after malaria was virtually eradicated in Europe, North America, and Asia. This decision cost millions of Africans their lives, usually by the age of five. However, the malaria problem in Africa is so entrenched that even with DDT it may not have been possible to eliminate it in Africa, and if it failed, the surviving mosquitoes would be DDT-resistant. The wise compromise would be to not use it for agriculture, but continue to allow its use to protect homes.

Have you any idea how rich Africa is in its Gold, Diamond, oil, and other natural resources and where all that wealth is going and how? Do you know who is taking full-fledged benefit out of the African natural wealth while African nations are starving?

If only 10% of that wealth spent for the welfare of African Nations, there would be no African person left without food and medicine.

http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/

If you are interested, I can provide you more stuff on what is happening to African wealth.