I did try to reason the question from the atheistic point of view. Because the question was from an atheist.

It doesn't make sense for an atheist to form a question using something from the Bible (which he doesn't believe already) when he has no knowledge or has limited knowledge on the subject. The question is based around the existence of evil. Obviously the question being given must first assume that evil is real and does exist in this world. Do you agree?

Hence, it is from that reason why I am questioning an atheist such as you as why do you believe that evil exist when you do not believe God exist?

Where do you based your moral from? Is it based on the current government laws? Do they hold the highest moral standard? As you know each country has their own laws. Which of the country in this world has the highest moral standard? Do we based our moral on their standard? What about Hitler's government called Nazi? Are their laws evil or good? Can you define what is evil from the book of Atheism?

Hi Hi, in your last rebuttal, you couldn't provide me where you got your unqualified statistic, never mind, i take it, you don't know, you just blabbered nonsensically.

Here's another question (which I would like to see your answer). Where does evil and good come from if it wasn't define by God? what's your measuring stick? 

ps: and no, you can't use the Bible, "do ut des"

lol.

Where is do ut des based from?

Such irony. Take a good look at what you did in denying others in here and rethink what you said about nice. 

Well now that you know, you can't tell others of your own hypocrisy, that's good.

Don't talk about nice when you're not being nice at all. 

BUT Erm, here is the point. You don't realize how much of an irony you are of yourself.

what is BS to you may not be BS to others (example believe in God). for you to do that is rude.

So, you don't get to tell others to be nice to you, because to DO THAT, makes you a hypocrite.

Says the guy who can't back up his unqualified "statistic".

lol..ha ha ha....so much irony there.

I was being nice to you when I asked you nicely where did you get your statistic of 0.001% from?

I said, statistic is a big word to use...you countered otherwise, saying it's a simple word..yet...you could not explain.

That's not very nice of you. 

You don't simply barge in here attacking what theist believe (denying others of their testimony...that is RUDE!) and when asked to explain how you derived that figure...you just buat "don't know".

So you hold your own moral standard. Doesn't mean other follow your standard. What if someone hurt you one day and he justifies his action because he saw you as an evil person. Some will support and side with him, even if you suffer more. You cannot correctly say you are good and he is evil. Because everyone has their own moral standard and no one is trully good.

Same applies to countries. If our nation goes to war with say, Singapore, who can say for sure which country is evil here? When we don't know for sure, then evil should not be a sure and real thing. If we aren't really sure what evil really means and who represents it, then why do you want to use it as an argument to question the existence of God when its not really well defined from your book of atheism?

Just stop your emo and answer the questions. 

Where did you get the 0.001% from? how did you derive that figure? show everyone here your calculation

Where do ut des came from?

I don't really care where you pull it from but when you make a claim, you prove it, that's all. (Hey just using atheist rhetoric here)

Cannot answer but can blabber....ok no problem, at least we know what sort of person you are.

I am not interested in what atheism stands for. For me atheism stands for foolishness.

If you can't realy tell who represents evil and if it really exist to you then the question from [C] will remain stupid to me. Makes no sense at all.

p.s. I will stop here. I agree with UW I don't want to mess and dirty this thread to answer a nonsensical question from an unbeliever. Forgive me.

I saw it, and it wasn't convincing. Unlike you who didn't bother to read, so there.

Is that the best you've got? LOL

I like to read the philosophical/theological debates regarding Epicurus ... one could never learn enough.
But could we do without the name callings and angry replies?  Cool minds produce wittier rhetoric, no?

I don't know much, but I always believe that until human beings understand our brain 100%, our method of communication through language is limited; and any discourse will only be best of effort.  Let's say we don't use English to debate among us, if there's a language that's not ambiguous, wouldn't it be clearer? (mute point here, since this is forum using mainly English language)

And until we could define the metaphysics of God or the higher being who created us, all our understanding of the nature related to God will just be approximation to what our brain could perceive.

sounds like an atheist version of Sylar we have here.

Some say the greatest mistake God made was religion....

Each to his own I guess....

Erroneous. The origin of the differences is due to the fall.

To begin to address these questions, one must consider what is meant by the word 'evil' here? Most people have a general idea of what evil is but what are some specific things that are evil? Is murder evil? Most would agree that it is. What about stealing? What about lying? What about “little” things like viewing pornography, drinking, gambling, or smoking? When we start identifying things as evil, we begin to realize that we are evil. The Bible says there are none that does good (Psalm 14:3). If we want God to do “something” about evil, we must realize that we are asking Him to deal with each one of us personally.

What exactly then do we want God to do about evil? Should He immediately remove anyone that commits an evil act? That might have sounded appealing a few minutes ago but if each of us were to be included, then it suddenly doesn't sound so appealing anymore.

Of course, there are those people who excuse their own vices as “not so bad” and only want God to deal with the “really bad” things. I guess that means that something like telling “white lies” is OK but the “bold faced” liars get zapped. This is a sort of special pleading by some people who want some degree of evil to be acceptable – just enough for them to get by. They want God to deal with evil but not their evil. They are saying, “Zap everyone else, God, just don't zap me!” You can see how this doesn't really solve anything because everyone wants to excuse their own sin. The Bible says that everyone is right in his own eyes but the Lord ponders the heart (Proverbs 21:2).

If anyone wants God to deal with evil by removing it, it's an all or nothing proposition.

A second alternative is to restrain people from doing evil. That is, God should simply not allow anyone to do evil. The problem with this is that evil is a free will issue. If we were to use the 10 Commandments as a standard of understanding what is right and wrong, there are some points everyone would agree on. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), for example, would be one of those things that most people would agree is wrong. We wouldn't have a problem if God took away our desire or ability to kill. But what about the commandment that says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)? Would the critic be agreeable if God forced everyone to worship Him? Somehow I think he wouldn't like this option. It's a similar dilemma to the one above where we want God to deal with the evil in everyone else, but we want God to let us continue in our own evil.

To be fair to the critic, though, I wouldn't like this option too much either. If God eliminates our ability to do evil, He also eliminates our ability to choose to do good. I want to worship God. I don't want to be a robot who only performs a task because that what it's programmed to do and it doesn't know anything else. Perhaps God too doesn't want this because He has obviously decided not to deal with evil this way.

A third option is this: give people the free will to decide to do good or evil. Everyone chooses to do evil, of course, and the unrepentant will reap the just punishment for their actions. However, God could make a way of forgiveness available to those who repent of their evil. This is the option that God has chosen. God made this option available at a great personal cost to Himself. In doing so, He has demonstrated that He is both able and willing to do something about evil. He has also demonstrated another characteristic that Epicurus did not mention in his riddle; besides being omnipotent and merciful, God is also just.

https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/07/epic...em-of-evil.html

The suposed riddle is based on false premises in the first place. What is evil? To Greeks like Epicurus, perhaps infanticide is not evil.