₦airaland Forum

Frisky Old Randy Unmarried Molester
FRISK

Mr_Anony: lol, sometimes you start out with good reasoning and then your arguments begin to degenerate so that you end up very badly.

perhaps you don't quite understand what logic is. Logic is not a thing. It is a method for deciphering between truth and falsity. So using a figurative statement like "bows to logic" does not in anyway nullify omnipotence.
The rest of your talk is really babble and shows you can't really make a proper argument.
In every argument, there must be a point of reference taken for granted upon which truth may be measured against. Where you don't have that, you dive into incoherence. You started off with the problem of evil where we had to take for granted that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. That way, the argument can make sense. Now when you found out that your argument was not achieving the purposes you hoped it would, you then decided to deny the very basis of your argument (and you are doing so in a very unintelligent way I am afraid). That's just pathetic.

You say omniscience cannot be verified i.e. an omniscient being cannot know that it is omniscient. We just have to take it on faith.
I put it to you that you equally cannot know that you know anything. You just have to have blind faith in your senses.

...........From here begins the long drive into absurdity

Well, not really. You may have some reading comprehension problems. I have said I am willing to accept your folly, several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times. Several times...
"Bows to logic" does not hinder omnipotence? Really? So how does he solve the simple "create a stone he cannot carry" problem. I'm a little glad you weren't indoctrinated into the religion of piss, I could you flying into a building.
Having accepted two omnixxx, and defining your "all-good" purpose as one that has a long term 'good' benefit, do you accept that given he hasn't told you this all-good purpose you accept his purpose is good heavily against reason considering the amount of suffering, or evil, available in this universe?
The martian agreeing with you, probably without understanding the context, does make you suddenly 'intelligent'.
Another dance coming up...

@mac, I'd extend it say pointless to any lifeform in general sef... And the 'mitigating good' excuse is tenuous at best considering omnipotency...ie, if one even chose to accept the illogic that is omnipotency

It is unquestionably blind faith, not reason, you use here @anony. Our dear father type fanaticism as well. In the face of overwhelming evidence against your conclusions you still cling on. Many people in korea do think our dear family are demi-gods simply because they don't know better, but you do. Well, if you don't, then that makes you another type of ignorant, yes? Even with your 'all-good', omnipotent but cannot defy logic (yet cannot be false...), let's not even consider omniscience (it simply cannot be verified, in any universe, and you claim his omnipotency bows to logic) ,your arguments still fail terribly...
Because I say so is not logic...Admit you accept he is 'all-good' on faith. I, personally, can ignore the other gaping holes...for now...
Yield, good ser...

God is bounded by necessity, but he isn't...
He is omnipotent yet he isn't responsible for any evil, and cannot tell a lie
He isn't a genie, he doesn't bend to man's will. He gave man free will. He doesn't disrupt their decision making, but knows what decision they are going to make ahead of time. He interferes though through other agents in nature, like earthquakes.
He is omniscient, how do you know? Because I told you so. How does he escape the fact that he could never know he's omniscient due to simple logic, because I told you so.
His ultimate purpose is some hidden, 'good' goal (note the quotes aren't there for the reason you think. He dishes out untolds amount of suffering yet you still defend him...
Seeping awake. I will finish thislat.7zzzzzzzzzz

Are you saying some people close their ears and go LALALALA when they hear something reasonable they disagree with?
Luckily, bombs are not powered by irony.

Mr_Anony: Lol, we have danced around for long enough (....and we can dance some more if you like).
I won't give you a point by point answer for this one so here's my reply:

I accept that your "problem of evil" argument is a valid one. If God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then suffering should not exist. I agree. But then my contest was that God is all-loving and not omnibenevolent. Suffering can then exist since God being omniscient would know the purpose of suffering He allows.

Your contentions have to show that there is suffering that cannot possibly be necessary and to do this you must have to be omniscient, anything short of that just wouldn't do. It is irrelevant if everyone on the planet can't find a good reason (the combined intelligence of everyone on the planet is not equal to omniscience) also, emotional arguments about dying babies and zombie ants just can't help you since merely pointing at the "evil" does not explain it's purpose.

There is a second mistake you are making which is equating suffering/pain to evil. This is simply wrong since pain in itself has a good purpose.

3rd blunder: You are claiming an objective good and evil yet at the same time trying to claim that there is no higher moral law upon which it is based. This is illogical.
It is even funnier when in an attempt to make your point, you say: "...facts are facts. 1 + 1 = 2..." thereby invoking the the higher law of mathematics upon which 1+1 is based.


So far, you have not given a worthy rebuttal. I think the only way out for you as Martian suggested is that you deny that there is good and evil that way, there would be no moral laws and thereby no moral lawgiver. . . .but that will also mean that your "problem of evil" argument will go up in smoke.

Or maybe you can come up with a good rebuttal who knows.

Make no mistake about it, we were probably going agree to disagree, this is just..well no good reason, except I find it fun

These 'problems' and 'rebutals' are insufficient. What do you think I am, one of those kids your God let's go to bed hungry. It's not funny. I require meat, or good arguments...

Your definitions for good and evil differ from the ones I'm using. You're adding 'anony' to the simple definition of natural evil. Simply replace suffering to evil, good to beneficial for the ecosystem. And you know what natural evil is, when it suits your arguments, as I've already shown. It's just time to shout LALALALALA

How's your wkd going btw?

Why no pics

What does atheism have to do with faith? There is no evidence for god, hence it requires no faith to dismiss the motion. Accepting it on the other hand requires faith (actually quite a lot of religious just turn their brains off, I'll blame fear/ indoctrination for that). Your issue is with science or the scientific method and/or the very vast majority of the scientific community which adopts big bang and evolution. You also seem to have a problem with people who support the scientific communities views.
I think that's a bit silly and hypocritical. You have a problem with science? Next time you sick pls pray the sick away, etc.

@crazy
Why so mad?

@myjoe
If I may, do you have a logical reason for concluding there is some sort of consciousness behind creation? You could just post a link if you've described it before


Edit: never mind, I see you just responded to thehomer

Mr_Anony: We have overflogged this issue enough. I agree, "superfluous suffering = evil"......but then the part you are neglecting is "superfluous in regards to who/what?" You can't have something that is superfluous in itself. That is simply silly.

You seem to be indicating that such suffering is objectively evil you want to recognize a higher moral law but deny that there must exist a higher law giver for such a law. You cannot have it both ways my friend. the two must follow each other.

I need you to use some logic here.

So tired. Natural evil does not require a law-giver. Evil we are dealing with here has nothing to do with moral codes. You keep alluding to moral codes unnecessarily. It has to do simply with an organisms desires while maintaining the ecosystem, keeping life happy and suffering free. If an organism desires life, then why not aid it's life? It does not like pain, why inflict pain on it?
In order for the predator to live, it would have to eat some other poor animal. This alone qualifies as evil imo, but I will let that slide for now because of possible mitigating good; the predator needs to eat (though I'd question why an omnixxx built such a system in the first place), or maybe the prey's dying helps maintain the balance and health of the ecosystem. What would be unnecessary would be say instead of giving the prey a quick death, it slowly constricts it, crushing, breaking its bones, then swallows it still alive and starts the digestive process, dissolving it over a period of days (yes, I know that's not how the whole snake thing works but this is just a hypothetical example, btw, who's the guy that escaped the whale again?). If the ecosystems balance only required the preys death, then its long, painful death qualifies as unnecessary, therefore evil. Any sort of suffering that does not contribute to the well being of the ecosystem qualifies as evil.

You.do.not.need.a.higher.law.giver.to.judge.this.
You do not need a moral code for this...
(Btw, Life gives itself its purpose simply by being alive..)

Mr_Anony: I can't personally think of such a reason because I am not omniscient. If I was omniscient, I could give you a million reasons why it would be necessary.
Now to the serial killer, it is necessary to him that he tortures his victim. To you it is not. For you to pronounce his actions as evil and question it's necessity, you must invoke a higher law. If you claim no such higher morality exists, then the serial killer's actions cannot be objectively evil. They are only actions that you find disgusting and nothing more.

If we all combined and tried to come up with a good justification, it wouldn't make us omniscient so you really have no point.

No I don't need to invoke a higher law, see above. No your being omniscient does not mean you could find a good reason, omniscient as much as you want, facts are facts. 1 + 1 = 2. There might be one, but considering how no one on this planet can come up with one, it's a very, very long shot. Even you have stated that there are probably less evil ways an all-xx.xx could go about doing things in one of your earlier analogies...

Mr_Anony: Lol, you make me laugh when you talk about blind faith. If evil is a deviation from good, then it logically follows that the creation is good by default and hence we can infer that the creator's nature is good. If however, evil is the default and good is the deviation of it, then we can infer that the creator is evil but then that will mean that 'evil' is actually the right way that things are supposed to be therefore 'evil' would be good.

This little exercise should point out to you that events happen. The moment you put a value of good and evil to them, you have immediately invoked God's goodness. Immediately you say that God is not good or doesn't exist, then you can no longer input a moral value on events occurring in our existence. You cannot have it both ways.

You can either accept that God is....or like Martian, you can deny the existence of good and evil entirely. It is blind faith that staunchly denies something even when all reasoning points to the contrary.



lol, the blind faith talk again? ever heard about irrational skepticism?

Back to my first point. We are dealing with something objective here not your moral good and evil.... Tired of pointing this out.... You seem to conveniently not grasp what natural evil is when you can't use it to suit your purposes.
This jazz is all just an excuse to add something completely unnecessary to the equation of judging good and evil, god.... Just like the other you posted earlier

As for irrational, children die from hunger everyday yet you call my skepticism irrational? Interesting.

Mr_Anony: Just an aside: Could it be that the world is working perfectly as it should but because your perception of it is flawed, you cannot know it because you are viewing through an 'imperfect' lens? Consider it if you may.


What I like to call the burden of sapience

I've never said there's such a thing as a perfect world. That's impossible for a subjective 'perfect', perfect for who? Even if you defined 'perfect', there are possibly numerous configurations that would do. As for extinguishing natural evil, this world could sure as hell use some improvements.

He started off well, but he sort of veers off after a while. Looking him up it appears he's not a fan of dawkins dawkins has been doing some good work, yes.

Mr_Anony: Lol, if a tree falls on a man and crushes him so that he dies, the tree is not evil for falling. The moment you start asking about whether the suffering/death of the man was necessary or not, you have immediately implied that there must be someone or something that has intentions for which the death of the man is or is not necessary to.

We've done this to death... Tree is not evil, his suffering is. You don't need intelligent life around to verify 1+1=2, it's always so. Superfluous suffering = evil.

Mr_Anony: Please understand the analogy....We are observing from the point of view of the baby. The point is that the baby does not understand why it feels pain but that doesn't automatically mean that the pain is evil.
It is only from the point of view of an adult that we can truly judge the actions of the father and whether it is necessary.
In the same way I am saying that from your point of view as a human being within the suffering, you cannot know it's necessity. You can only know this from the point of view of God.
That you can't understand why suffering happens does not automatically mean that it happens for no reason.

I get your analogy good sir, but I've already addressed this in the previous post.

Mr_Anony: You said, "if there is a chance that God has good intentions, they are astronomically low". Could you tell us how you came upon that estimation. How do you know this?

Can you think of any good reason for the surplus evil? For instance why stand by when someone is gouging another human beings eyes with a screwdriver? This after they had beaten him so bad with a hammer there was no face left, in fact you could see his brains. They even stuck the screwdriver in said brains and his guts for good measure. He was alive and whimpering through all this. God wanted it recorded so they'll be caught? They dished out similar treatment to roughly 20 other victims as well. And frankly, imo, nature is much more crueler than those f***ing psychos, and yet he does nothing.

If we all combine, and try to come up with a good justification, but can't, then that's probably because there isn't any good justification. If he claims to be all-good then you are accepting his claims on faith, not reason. He has supplied no evidence to support his claims of all-goodness other than his word. You'd be following him around similarly to how people blindly follow their cult leaders, eg our dear father.

Mr_Anony: Lol, don't worry, I'll let this pass. . . . . . .Unless you want to insist on showing us your wily then please be my guest.

Mere mortals would grow mental from just gazing. But seriously, ASK FOR EVIDENCE, do not accept things on blind faith.

Mr_Anony: SideNote: Have you come up with your concept of a perfect world yet?

I've never said I had a concept for a perfect world, or that indeed that's possible. This world could certainly do with a lot of improvements though. And we, humanity, are working at it. The end results hopefully being better, less evil lives for all of life, ie less suffering. I don't see god contributing anywhere though...

Mr_Anony: You are missing something important here. If an investigator who has not encountered God at all comes upon an event such as people who were buried alive in a landslide, he will not think to blame a supernatural being for it. It won't be an evil event (though an unfortunate one) because the investigator doesn't recognize any causal agent in this scenario.

It will be an evil event if they suffered unnecessarily. You're flipping back to moral evil...

Mr_Anony: How about when he comes across people who have been tortured to death? Now he is thinking "bloodthirsty sociopath" but he is thinking of a physical human being and not a supernatural one.

Good, now stop there...

Mr_Anony: The moment he begins to ponder any deeper meaning to the 'evil' he observes and begins to want justice, then he must call upon a higher power which must be far more powerful than him (to be able to exact justice), far more knowledgeable than him (to be able see and know all the evidence) and far more 'good' than him (to be able to make things right)

...what in the world are you on about...

Mr_Anony: The highest such possible being is what you have referred to as omnixxx. If this omnixxx does not exist, then there is no justice therefore no one can rightfully be blamed, this in turn means there is no evil causal agent hence no evil actions. We are left with events happening without any moral value i.e. anything goes.

...I said stop! what is this....

Mr_Anony: The fact that we have objective good and evil is a very strong indicator that God must exist.

Mr_Anony: The point I have been making is that suffering/pain does not automatically mean evil. Also you cannot judge the necessity of suffering from your point of view as you cannot see a bigger picture.
I'll give you an analogy: Is it evil to vaccinate your baby? Mind you from your baby's point of view, she doesn't understand why she has to be pierced with a needle while her "loving" father who is able to stop her suffering just looks on and does nothing. From the baby's point of view, her father does not love her to allow her to go through so much pain.
Should the baby therefore hate her father or should she trust him to do what is best even if she doesn't understand why?

I have left left room for mitigating good, I'd rather not as I believe your all-xx.xx should be able to achieve his goals without suffering if he wanted to, just like I would if I were programming a simulation, but I've let that go. If we cannot come up with any good reason for the surplus suffering, logic dictates that if there were an agent behind it, especially an all-powerful one, his will is being done. Stop dancing. There is a chance it has good intentions, but they are, again, astronomically low, as even we mere mortals can come up with less evil ways to accomplish these goals, which I assume is free will (and your description of free will and also how he interferes regardless via evil is highly dubious).
As for your analogy, the baby isn't sentient yet. We are. We are being given a hell of a lot more than a simple prick. Not just us mind you, a lot of other life as well, and we have not been told why. That's not the same thing as your analogy. Besides, if the father was injecting the baby for no good reason other than to dish out some pain, it is an evil event regardless of if the baby can reflect on it or not.

Mr_Anony: Lol. Let's put it this way; assuming you exist, should I just accept that you are male just because you say so?

NO
YOU SHOULD DEMAND EVIDENCE

Mr_Anony: From the moment you posed the question: "If God is good, then why does evil exist?" you have already assumed the existence of God. In fact the argument takes for granted that God exists. The question before us now is whether God is good or not. The nature of this debate doesn't allow you to play the "God doesn't exist" card.


I have never held the view that the universe rotates around us. I have only said that to judge something as evil, there must be an intelligent observer either subjectively experiencing it or objectively observing it. (I think you have now come to realize this)
To judge the necessity of suffering, the observer must be able to see the entire big picture. If an observer cannot do this, then he/she cannot rightfully say that the suffering is unnecessary.


....On the contrary y'all seem to have difficulty following an argument to it's logical conclusion.

Phone, can't quote atm

First: I refer to the investigator, I can see how that can be misleading though, I should have made that clear. I want to show how alien your conclusions are to the pov of one who hasn't encountered your god and lead that to something else.
To him, you've made a lot of assumptions based on this hypothetical god. If you assume the investigator should be nonplussed by someone making such claims, then why would you think the situation changes if indeed a being claiming all-xx.xx actually exists, shows up, claims responsibility, in fact smites some more just to prove himself, and does not clearly account for its actions. You see surplus evil, you deduce an evil purpose, that is the rational conclusion. The odds of there being a good intention when you and all your peers cannot figure one out are astronomically low. Therefore should you accept the god's claims that he has good intentions, you would be accepting the gods claims that it has an all-good purpose against reason and on faith.
But yes, the problem of evil assumes an omnixx.x beings presence.

Second: I think there's an absolute zero, a temperature (or energy) lower limit. With or without intelligence to appreciate it, this limit is unambiguously low. Same thing with suffering/pain, we might not be there to judge it unnecessary but if indeed there really is no mitigating good, it is still unambiguously unnecessary, hence evil. Like say a long, drawn out and painful death.

So assuming god exists, address the bit concerning why I should just accept he has good intentions just because he says so, if you will good ser.

Reyginus: Or better still, greed and fear lead to intolerance, which leads to persecution. Though I agree with your issue of greed and self-preservation, it is not always so.
With these words, your last line is golden:' its causative agent is intolerance'.

I think you mean to say YOUR (ie you, reyginus) last line is golden. It still makes little sense... You aren't trolling, are you?

I give up, at least until a translator can be found

truthislight: ^^^
always taking the easy way out.

We all know that it is easier to Destroy than to build.

Since you have nothing to offer you take the easy way out = destroy

I hear you, oh great dictator

Double post

Purist: lol. . . Anony is quite an intelligent fellow, I must admit. He regularly employs the ultimate cop out when boxed to a tight corner: "God has a higher plan that is beyond our understanding" - basically rephrasing the biblical phrase, "His ways are not our ways, his thoughts not our thoughts."

Another Anony cop out: "It's his universe and he sets the rules. You don't like it? Go make your own universe!"

This good ser anony. You're throwing arguments around with the assumption that the existence of a God is proven. There isn't any evidence, absolutely any, to support it. For our poor, simple, mortal brains, there is no conceivable benefit for A LOT (and most of it the natural kind no less) of the surplus evil in this universe. Why in the world should anyone, other than wishful thinking, assume some greater, good purpose from a genius. If supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing (again impossible, but I'll indulge you) actually did show up and didn't explain himself, clearly showing why this universe and providing non-evil, good excuses for the wanton evil, I'd say you were protecting a sociopath. Brainwashed like one of those who believed our dear leader had never taken a sh1t in his life (or at least that it tastes like honey).

As for evil existing only in the minds of intelligent life, I knew that was going to be your response to my post. I've said often, repeatedly despite the possibility of looking like an 1d1ot, that the universe does not revolve around us, at all. Unnecessary suffering = evil, I thought we settled on that? This the most objective way to go about defining evil, it relates to all life, and even constructs of ours like moral codes. Other animals suffer too, unnecessarily, all the time. That is cruel, simple. We can show up and judge it morally evil, but natural evil exists so long as life exists and it suffers, especially for no good reason. Or is stuff evil only when it happens to xtians? Or perhaps kittens? if you think so I'd say dogs, we could flip coins to decide which.

No appeals to anything here, you seem to be having problem seeing other povs (well imho), hence the seemingly absurd questions.

Reyginus: I thought you signed out.
Lol. You got me there. What was I thinking. I meant 'for' and not 'of'. Btw, what else apart from intolerance can bring about persecution?
Can we go straight to the point and stop moving in circles. Explaining the last line to you, will only take me back to the circle.

Not really, the last line makes little sense as well.

Greed can lead to persecution. Fear too, and fear is not always brought about by intolerance. Fear can lead to intolerance though, then persecution. But with greed in particular, there is no real intolerance involved, just self-preservation.

Note we are talking about morals here, a subjective merry-go-round. But we can ignore all of that and define persecution as unmerited or unfounded judging by our respective moral standards.

Mr_Anony: I was about to start explaining when I noticed you said:

Now, how do you know this? If there is no intelligence to judge it, how can we describe an event as evil? without intelligent life, how can we know that there is suffering or that the suffering is "unnecessary"? i.e how is it possible for an unintelligent/unconscious being to suffer?

The explanation I was going to give you was one that deals with our intelligence and consciousness but since you have said suffering can exist even if there was no life to discern it, I would like to ask how you know this.

Other animals suffer too. They can't sit and think about it doesn't mean it's not evil, it's unnecessary pain, or hunger etc. I'd argue that great apes, dogs and some others can be traumatized as well. Natural evil applies to all life.

EDIT:Note I am stressing superflous suffering, the point had already been made, and there is absolutely no conceivable goal one of us could think of for elongating the suffering. I think though an all-powerful being should be able extend it to all suffering, but we can ignore that as well for now

Mr_Anony: Actually, I didn't watch it. I didn't have to. You are only appealing to the emotions here. your case does not do anything to refute my argument in any way.

Note, I am not underplaying the severity of the crime or trying to airbrush the horror of it in any way. I am only saying that nothing about it proves that God does not exist or that He is not all-loving. On the contrary, the presence of evil i.e. the fact that we see it and recognize it as evil - is more reason why God must exist and why God is all-good.

Explain the bold if you will. I can't see it at all. And note, evil exists even without intelligent life to judge it. Roughly, unnecessary suffering = evil, for all life. But we can ignore that for now and perhaps you can tell me how you translate "evil = God exists", an all-x.xx.x god ie.

plaetton: I once met a guy from Iran who happened to be a Zoroastrian. I was suprised to see that the oldest religion still survived and delighted to learn first hand from a real practitioner.
I learnt that they have a large, though minority population in Iran, and enjoy freedoms to practice their ancient religion.

The only bahai I've known were from Iran. They were fleeing persecution and ended up settling in Canada. The Bahai faith originated from Iran as well, of course a lot more recently. Strange country it seems, that Iran. Culturally it would seem they were rather great until...

Uyi Iredia: Seriously, when have atheists lobbied for tyheir own section. I'm unaware of that. BTW, if it is indeed true that some atheists lobbied for a section it will strengthen my stance that atheism is a religion.

Lots of times....
https://www.nairaland.com/389083/request-atheist-christian-section#11553785
https://www.nairaland.com/505782/questions-comments-complaints-talk-moderators/36#11543093

Check the official complaints thread for more, I've seen many others complain there as well. Search the forums using the search bar as well, many other threads related...

As for atheism being a religion, I'm tired of addressing that, sorry. Look at my earlier responses on this thread even.

foluberry: And Hez abt 2 lose d battle of keeping u alive!

This is pure class
What's that line from the bible where the women are told to shut up and stay in the kitchen?

Fellis is getting hyper today
HYPER

Reyginus: You dont have to write some unrelated random texts to defend your stand. 'As their are intolerant religionists so are their intolerant atheists'.
Let me help you understand what is meant by 'intolerance is a force of persecution'. Force in layman's terms is anything that brings about the workings of an object or thing. It can be by pull or push. There are contact and non-contact forces. The contact requires contact before they exert their pressure. Example, frictional force. The non-contact forces do not. Example of non-contact forces are electromagnetism, gravitation and intolerance.lol. Intolerance leads to persecution because it's only when you can't tolerate a person or thing that you decide to make them extinct. Hope you got it now, since that's what you want. The bottom line is , atheism does not in any way redirect your actions, it only changes who you are.

pls note the bold. You mean to say "persecution is a force of intolerance", not the other way round. I'm not sure why I have to point this out. Also, using the word 'force' to describe what you mean is inappropriate, though I can now at least see what you are trying to convey. I'm not sure I agree with that assertion fully though, persecution does not always come about because of intolerance, but basically before you attempt to make someone look foolish pls try and make sure that at the very least you are coherent. I only engaged you because your concerns are valid but since then you've made little sense.

If you think the rest of the post has little to do with the discussion then you have little grasp of the problem (despite you highlighting it), or we're talking about completely different things. It might be that you are only concerned with your lot, ie, only the persecution that concerns you personally, in this case certain atheists haranguing you. But this a global problem, applicable to many different situations. Then again, your last line:
"The bottom line is , atheism does not in any way redirect your actions, it only changes who you are."
Good #deity, what does this mean?

Uyi Iredia: Fact 1 The Creator did a better job than you could evEr hope to do. BesIides most places arE potentially habitable once the technology to build houses therE becomes available.

Fact 2 Evolution is a failed tHeory.

Fact 3. God is an iuncaiiused caiiuise and exists iin every sense of it.

Therefore santa is real.
And winchies

@rey, "Intolerance is not persecution, but a force of persecution"... Wth does that even mean? Do you read the stuff you write?

Have I stated there aren't d1cks out there that are atheist? Or buddhist? Atheism is not a religion btw, get that through your head. Do you ask a bald man what sort of haircut he's got? Someone with zero interest in football to explain his team's philosophy?

Humanistic principles, which many atheists and secular societies adhere, do NOT encourage the us vs them mentality. This is a key difference between them and the very successful abrahamic faiths. Other similar systems have been far, far more tolerant than the abrahamic systems. Their adherents tend to not be ginormous cun.ts, even when you look at their ratios and compare them with the abrahamic ones. Also these societies tend to frown on persecution a lot more, and on principle. For crying out loud there are countries you can't get into if you're an atheist. Cities if you're not muslim. Gays can't marry who they want even though it's absolutely not anyone else's biz. Women can't vote in some countries. They show skin? Off to jail. Rape? Marry the rapist.
Etc etc etc

I don tire sef, well done. U trollin? U win. I'm off...

Mr_Anony: Why are we dancing around in circles over this? Let's have a recap shall we?

The problem you posed is
Premise 1: if God is omnipotent and omniscient then He is able to prevent all suffering.
Premise 2: If God is omnibenevolent, then He does not like suffering and will want to do anything to stop it.
Conclusion: Suffering exists, therefore it is either God does not hate suffering or God can't stop it even if He wanted to.

(Note that your argument does not question God's existence, rather it questions God's abilities and God's kindness)

My response to you is
Premise 1: God is omnipotent and omniscient therefore He is able to prevent suffering.
Premise 2: God is not omnibenevolent rather He is All-loving. Love allows some suffering if it achieves a greater purpose.
Conclusion: Suffering exists but since we know God is omniscient and omnipotent and all-loving, He knows the purpose of our suffering and we can trust God to do what is best.

Satisfied?

Not quite, close but no. Do you accept that the odds of there being an all-xx.xx god are astronomically low?

There's a video that is disturbing. Serial killers doing their thing, have you seen it? If not, perhaps you'd like a demonstration of just what evil is (natural evil, up there, moral evil, in most cultures it's off the charts), and why it's extremely unlikely/difficult to accept god can do something, but chooses not to.
http://www.bestgore.com/murder/dnepropetrovsk-maniacs-murder-guy-hammer-screwdriver-real-snuff-video/#
Now, if you have a weak stomach, or are simply squeamish, I cannot warn you enough, do not watch this video. Maybe just read the description on the page.
Do not watch the video if squeamish etc. You have been warned
But if you assert an all-xx.xx or an omnixxx being exists please watch it, try and make it to the end (~8 mins), then explain to me what a supposedly all-xx.xx was doing at the time. Note that this kind of stuff happens, via biological agents or not, to life all the time.
So basically, following your descriptions, allowing for free will (until neuroscience comes and eliminates that concept as well), you still accept he's all-good on faith as there very likely would be alternative, less evil ways to achieve his goals. There are very low odds of him being all-good, yes or no?

Reyginus: You were impressing me, but of a sudden, it all changed. Get it clearer now, intolerance just like persecution is a evidence of guilt. Again! Intolerance is Not persecution.

My whole existence is built around impressing you, thank you

lilcutie8916: Stop ur denial and accept the truth.

Where dis god dey na? He's giving you too much work defending him etc. Let him just show up on CNN and I'll consider it. Else, why in the hell do you expect us to just take your word, and ridiculously childish and ignorant posts/logic, as true?

thehomer: Then I hope you're not surprised that your ideas aren't accepted. If you won't accept something that doesn't make sense to you when told to you by a friend, why should someone else accept it from you?

THIS
They aren't supposed to make sense, you accept them on faith, so don't expect everyone else to just follow along, at all. Religionists constantly miss this and try to portray their beliefs as 'truth', therefore said beliefs must apply to everyone else.