Atheist Bible

[BNguyen]

Erm... as the theophobes are so fond of saying... prove it. Prove that life comes from nothing. Test it in a lab and then get back to us, or else you have just another belief system, same as anyone else.

\

Aspects of this have been tested actually, one was done by Carl Sagan as I recall, actual life has yet to be created from "nothing" but you can create the building blocks of life with just a few elements and some electricity.

Not saying that life DID form in that manner, but it certainly COULD form from "nothing".

Anyway that's all I have to say, everyone here knows where I stand on these issues, I weighed in on Page 1.

maybe you could form the building bloacks of life with a few elements but that does not mean that it would actually have life. It is like, I can build a human body from the building blocks of life but in the end, it would not actually live, because life requires something more, something we have yet to understand.

 

[BNguyen]

Funny how Atheists accuse Christian's of "believing in the Bible without proof" and yet will believe a scientist's "proof" even though they were not physically there to validate their findings and as such are merely taking their word for it, just as Christian's do with the Bible.

another terrible argument that i hear all the time. look, the difference is that if you wanted to and had the tools, everything in science is tracable and repeatable. i've never seen my blood cells, but i know if i busted out a microscope, there they'd be.

but christianity and religion as a whole is NOT repeatable or testable. "This guy walked on water once." okay, so it's possible, do it again!

"jesus was ressurrected!" really? i sure could use some of that!

it's rediculous! show me one modern biblical miracle. and don't link me to the grilled cheese christ please....

It wasn't an argument and you are missing my point.

I did not say that science is not testable. I said that blindly believing in somebody you never met because they have a PHD is no better than believing in a book written by people who were alive thousdands of years before you.

It's still blind faith until you get thet microscope and test it for yourself.

Oh, and do not make the assumption that I am a Christian, just because I do not support Atheism.

but you're missing MY point. you don't have to blindly follow the PhD'd person to get scientific facts. you are completely capable of doing it on your own. if you're blindly following scientific facts, its just because you don't feel the need to verify for yourself, but the option IS there. whereas religion just tells you something, and you have no way of verifying or denying it, you've got no choice but to blindly follow.

But, what if that PhD understood something that no one else did and that he knew where to acquire the necessary items and how to accomplish it, and he took that secret to the grave. Well then you have something just like Jesus, only he could accomplish those things because only he knew how to do so. You cannot replicate what you do not know no matter how hard you try.

 

[Hookman]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

I find it truly hard to respect anyone who does not respect me on the same level.
If you've read this persons posts, they continuously go against what they said just a minute ago and sometimes in the same post the go against the point that they are trying to make, I was just pointing that out, that this person continues to say that he/she has proof, but then that there is essentially no proof at all for any answer. I just find it hard to respect those who think of themselves as all-knowing but then say that there is no evidence of data to prove that I know it all.

I'm sorry but,thats the same thing you have been doing.

 

[BNguyen]

*snip*

*snip*

It wasn't an argument and you are missing my point.

I did not say that science is not testable. I said that blindly believing in somebody you never met because they have a PHD is no better than believing in a book written by people who were alive thousdands of years before you.

It's still blind faith until you get thet microscope and test it for yourself.

Oh, and do not make the assumption that I am a Christian, just because I do not support Atheism.

but you're missing MY point. you don't have to blindly follow the PhD'd person to get scientific facts. you are completely capable of doing it on your own. if you're blindly following scientific facts, its just because you don't feel the need to verify for yourself, but the option IS there. whereas religion just tells you something, and you have no way of verifying or denying it, you've got no choice but to blindly follow.

Actually I wasn't missing your point at all. Hence the sentence in bold.

Atheism is not blind faith for those that actually do test these things. The vast majority do not so however, they are following as blindly as any religion based on books written thousands of years ago.

Maybe the option is there, but until you test it you are just as blind so it does not matter if the option is there or not.

i guess we're at an empasse then, because now were just talking about two differing, valid perspectives on the situation.

i believe that because the information is testable and repeatable, it's not faith, even if you choose not to prove it yourself. it's still possible to be done, therefor doesn't need to be.

whereas you feel that unless you yourself test scientific theories, you're placing blind faith into it.

my problem with that is that all of science is based on taking for granted the discoveries of the past. an astrophysicist doesn't need to prove that the earth is round, someone already did, so he goes with that scientific assumption to do his astrophysizing, figuring out orbits and whatnot.

Its a web of trust. The trust standards in religion are uniformly low. I know dozens of scientists, I know how they operate, I trust them to have high evidential standards and not make things up. I also know dozens of preachers and evangelists. I know how they operate. I don't trust them to have high evidential standards and not make things up. I know the Bible. I know how it was made. I know how it was translated, edited, canonized. I know history. I know what people were like. I've seen cults before. I don't trust it not to make things up. I have what I think is a highly coherent view of my environment. I can make predictions on the validity of claims that are largely borne out with additional observations.

Was I there when the Bible was made? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. The universe could have appeared 5 minutes ago with the appearance of great age. These sort of skeptical arguments are pointless, because in truth, no one can be certain of anything. However, in the absence of certainty we need to make good guesses, and I'd rather trust people that I can shake hands with, who have colleagues constantly checking their work, studying things that I can observe myself if I have the inclination, and who are constantly cross-referencing and checking for consistency, than the alternative; namely, people who take issue with every other religion (all religions are wrong but mine, I'm absolutely sure) and in the absence of any evidence, any consistency, declare themselves to know the answers to these untestable existential questions. There is no trust in that relationship.

If God wants me to know Him, He knows where I live.

If you were God, do you think that you would need to prove yourself to someone when there is evidence all around them? If you were God, don't you think that someone would acknowledge you for the life you live, your friends and family, the food you eat, the clothes on your back and the shelter over your head. Without God, none of this would even be. God worked the world into such a way so that you could exist. You exist because he desired you to exist. So why not thank somebody for your existence this day, and it really can't be your parents because think of the chances that it could not of been you to be born.

 

[deadly.by.design]

It's about as ridiculous as Atheist Sunday School. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html]

 

[NeverAiling]

Before I get any more into this insanity that i already am, let me make 3 quick points.

First, you are misunderstanding me on purpose, there is no way a rational person would interpret my comments as proporting to relate the quantitative value of observation to facts as if they were inches and miles. I was making a qualitative comparison based in order to illustrate a point that you ALSO purposefully misconstrued. That it is possible to observe that a period of time, in which no degree of life exists, directly proceeds the present.

Second, I am sick and tired of religious apologetic that want to go back and 'reinterpret' the bible. You either ask us to treat it as a transcendent text, or to care how highly motivated, highly biased people contemporarily interpret it. This fails because the bible is a work of many authors, aggregated and modified over many years, like any other large work. Its history, and the non-canonical works of its authors offer non-biased insights into the intended interpretation and they rarely support the "symbolic" "non-literal" view point, although I will concede that in the instance of the creation examples I provided, they have somtimes supported symbolic views.

And finally, don't talk about straw man attacks if you don't understand the logical arguments and fallacies that the name refers to. I was not using a logical argument at all, because I was directly describing the assertions of the bible. I did not state "Study B suggest Christians are dumn, therefor the bible is false."

I stated, the bible asserts a. A is not true. If you want to contest the validity of a, or my interpretation of the assertion, see above.

Goodbye.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

But where is our moral tome, our compendium of all that we believe?

Dr. Seuss

 

[BNguyen]

Not really, no. I have degrees of belief in things based on how well they fit my observations. Its only when I have no observations that questions cannot be answered. There is always some probability that the answer will be wrong, but we can make that probability arbitrarily small by having lots of evidence. It doesn't ever go to 0, because that would require perfect knowledge about the universe which is unobtainable from within the universe.


We can only believe that we are making the probability small because we believe that our systems are correct. We invented these systems so it is correct in assuming that they are highly probable to be incorrect. No system can be sure of itself because we only base them from observations and not actual truths, we can't understand the truth because we did not create those truths.

 

[Legion]

If you were God, do you think that you would need to prove yourself to someone when there is evidence all around them?

What evidence? Suffering, starvation, rape, torture, mutilation, suicide bombings, public executions, Holy Wars?

Of course there is good in the world, but there is just as much cruelty and hatred. Not at all "evidence" of a benevolent God.

If you were God, don't you think that someone would acknowledge you for the life you live, your friends and family, the food you eat, the clothes on your back and the shelter over your head. Without God, none of this would even be.

According to your beliefs.

I will not be so rude as to ask you to "prove it" but you cannot claim it as absolute fact either.

God worked the world into such a way so that you could exist. You exist because he desired you to exist. So why not thank somebody for your existence this day, and it really can't be your parents because think of the chances that it could not of been you to be born.

If God is all knowing and powerful then he created me knowing I would not be thankful to him for the life I was given. Therefore I cannot be expected to be so.

If God is all knowing and all powerful then free will cannot exist. Otherwise how could God know what people will do?

Either:

God is powerful and knows a lot, but cannot see the future so free will exists.

or

God is all powerful and knowing and it does not.

 

[kaziard]

I'm make a guess that wikipedia is probably the densest, best organized, collection of human knowledge. But in a sense, any scientific text is a bible. The only difference is that it is true.

....you really want a flame war dont you?

 

[BNguyen]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

I find it truly hard to respect anyone who does not respect me on the same level.
If you've read this persons posts, they continuously go against what they said just a minute ago and sometimes in the same post the go against the point that they are trying to make, I was just pointing that out, that this person continues to say that he/she has proof, but then that there is essentially no proof at all for any answer. I just find it hard to respect those who think of themselves as all-knowing but then say that there is no evidence of data to prove that I know it all.

I'm sorry but,thats the same thing you have been doing.

I never really gave any proof to what I said and went against it by saying that there is no proof. I never considered myself all-knowing in any way shape or form. I don't have any such evidence to prove anything and I will not say that there is evidence to support this or that as fact.

 

[caross73]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

I find it truly hard to respect anyone who does not respect me on the same level.
If you've read this persons posts, they continuously go against what they said just a minute ago and sometimes in the same post the go against the point that they are trying to make, I was just pointing that out, that this person continues to say that he/she has proof, but then that there is essentially no proof at all for any answer. I just find it hard to respect those who think of themselves as all-knowing but then say that there is no evidence of data to prove that I know it all.

Ummm.. I respect YOU. I just think your ideas are dumb.

 

[BNguyen]

If you were God, do you think that you would need to prove yourself to someone when there is evidence all around them?

What evidence? Suffering, starvation, rape, torture, mutilation, suicide bombings, public executions, Holy Wars?

Of course there is good in the world, but there is just as much cruelty and hatred. Not at all "evidence" of a benevolent God.

If you were God, don't you think that someone would acknowledge you for the life you live, your friends and family, the food you eat, the clothes on your back and the shelter over your head. Without God, none of this would even be.

According to your beliefs.

I will not be so rude as to ask you to "prove it" but you cannot claim it as absolute fact either.

God worked the world into such a way so that you could exist. You exist because he desired you to exist. So why not thank somebody for your existence this day, and it really can't be your parents because think of the chances that it could not of been you to be born.

If God is all knowing and powerful then he created me knowing I would not be thankful to him for the life I was given. Therefore I cannot be expected to be so.

If God is all knowing and all powerful then free will cannot exist. Otherwise how could God know what people will do?

Either:

God is powerful and knows a lot, but cannot see the future so free will exists.

or

God is all powerful and knowing and it does not.

God is all powerful and planned the world to act in such a way, we are all simply beings with free-will that act during these events and he observes us as we act. So God is all-knowing and all powerful but lets us act individually, besides, if he truly is all-knowing and all powerful then you would not now have the freedom to act against me and would most likely do nothing. We cannot abandon the possibility that both an all powerful all knowing God exist alongside free-will.

 

[BNguyen]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

I find it truly hard to respect anyone who does not respect me on the same level.
If you've read this persons posts, they continuously go against what they said just a minute ago and sometimes in the same post the go against the point that they are trying to make, I was just pointing that out, that this person continues to say that he/she has proof, but then that there is essentially no proof at all for any answer. I just find it hard to respect those who think of themselves as all-knowing but then say that there is no evidence of data to prove that I know it all.

Ummm.. I respect YOU. I just think your ideas are dumb.

And I respect you and think that there is the possibility that your ideas may be true. Don't you think that there might be the possibility that you or I might be false or my ideas might be correct. Respect possibility alongside the person.

 

[Legion]

God is all powerful and planned the world to act in such a way, we are all simply beings with free-will that act during these events and he observes us as we act. So God is all-knowing and all powerful but lets us act individually, besides, if he truly is all-knowing and all powerful then you would not now have the freedom to act against me and would most likely do nothing. We cannot abandon the possibility that both an all powerful all knowing God exist alongside free-will.

If God knows what I am going to say before I even say it then how can I have free will?

God created Hitler KNOWING the monstrosities he would cause, and yet he created him nonetheless. How can he be punished when God was the one who created him? If God didn't create him then he wouldn't have done it and therefore wouldn't need to be punished for it.

It's like me breeding a dog to create puppies, training them to kill humans on sight knowing that the next human they saw would be killed, and then having the dogs put down as punishment for doing something so vicious.

It doesn't make any sense.

 

[caross73]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

I find it truly hard to respect anyone who does not respect me on the same level.
If you've read this persons posts, they continuously go against what they said just a minute ago and sometimes in the same post the go against the point that they are trying to make, I was just pointing that out, that this person continues to say that he/she has proof, but then that there is essentially no proof at all for any answer. I just find it hard to respect those who think of themselves as all-knowing but then say that there is no evidence of data to prove that I know it all.

Ummm.. I respect YOU. I just think your ideas are dumb.

And I respect you and think that there is the possibility that your ideas may be true. Don't you think that there might be the possibility that you or I might be false or my ideas might be correct. Respect possibility alongside the person.

If I didn't have SOME respect for your ideas, I wouldn't bother debating them. You'll notice I don't reply to many of your posts, such as why would God deign to give us proof of his existence, and why same invisible God deserves thanks for Malaria and Cancer.

Come on. No, I don't think there is the slightest chance you are correct. I could be wrong, that doesn't mean you are right.

 

[Kandon Arc]

God is all powerful and planned the world to act in such a way, we are all simply beings with free-will that act during these events and he observes us as we act. So God is all-knowing and all powerful but lets us act individually, besides, if he truly is all-knowing and all powerful then you would not now have the freedom to act against me and would most likely do nothing. We cannot abandon the possibility that both an all powerful all knowing God exist alongside free-will.

If God knows what I am going to say before I even say it then how can I have free will?

God created Hitler KNOWING the monstrosities he would cause, and yet he created him nonetheless. How can he be punished when God was the one who created him? If God didn't create him then he wouldn't have done it and therefore wouldn't need to be punished for it.

It's like me breeding a dog to create puppies, training them to kill humans on sight knowing that the next human they saw would be killed, and then having the dogs put down as punishment for doing something so vicious.

It doesn't make any sense.

Why should it?

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Well I'm an atheist humanist, and I'd state the principles of humanism as my "bible". According to this philosophy human life is, for want of a better word, sacred. Individuals have a responsibility to act in the best interests of others as well as themselves. My principles are based on acting in a way that has a positive effect on those around me - whatever that way may be.

I do NOT believe that it is justified to arbitrarily take life out of misguided principles of revenge; or that I have the right to stop people from acting as they see fit, provided that in doing so they're not destroying or negatively affecting the lives of others unreasonably.

(One has, of course, to define "unreasonably", but in the end it's difficult to make moral absolutes when it comes to personal circumstances. You have to make the best judgement possible given the information that you have. If you live your life trying to affect the people and society around you in a positive way, and not deny their rights or freedoms, I would consider you a moral person.)

I don't believe in a God, but I would never deny someone's right to preach or practice religion, unless by doing so they're hurting others.

 

[BNguyen]

God is all powerful and planned the world to act in such a way, we are all simply beings with free-will that act during these events and he observes us as we act. So God is all-knowing and all powerful but lets us act individually, besides, if he truly is all-knowing and all powerful then you would not now have the freedom to act against me and would most likely do nothing. We cannot abandon the possibility that both an all powerful all knowing God exist alongside free-will.

If God knows what I am going to say before I even say it then how can I have free will?

God created Hitler KNOWING the monstrosities he would cause, and yet he created him nonetheless. How can he be punished when God was the one who created him? If God didn't create him then he wouldn't have done it and therefore wouldn't need to be punished for it.

It's like me breeding a dog to create puppies, training them to kill humans on sight knowing that the next human they saw would be killed, and then having the dogs put down as punishment for doing something so vicious.

It doesn't make any sense.

He knows what you will say but that doesn't mean that you don't have free will. He just simply knows that doesn't mean that he is controlling.
God created Hitler, but he knew Hitler would turn out this way, but all through life he gave him the chance to change his ways yet he did not, he did not control him. Hitler refused to ask for another chance to mend his ways and so was punished.
For your dogs statement, you trained them to be that way but the dogs attacked independently from your will, killing a person, so you punished them because you wanted them to be something better but instead they turned out to be something else.

If you created someone, gave them free will, and they acted bad, would you give them one more chance to mend their ways? Everyone deserves a second chance, but when someone doesn't use that chance, then they deserve punishment.

 

[BNguyen]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

I find it truly hard to respect anyone who does not respect me on the same level.
If you've read this persons posts, they continuously go against what they said just a minute ago and sometimes in the same post the go against the point that they are trying to make, I was just pointing that out, that this person continues to say that he/she has proof, but then that there is essentially no proof at all for any answer. I just find it hard to respect those who think of themselves as all-knowing but then say that there is no evidence of data to prove that I know it all.

Ummm.. I respect YOU. I just think your ideas are dumb.

And I respect you and think that there is the possibility that your ideas may be true. Don't you think that there might be the possibility that you or I might be false or my ideas might be correct. Respect possibility alongside the person.

If I didn't have SOME respect for your ideas, I wouldn't bother debating them. You'll notice I don't reply to many of your posts, such as why would God deign to give us proof of his existence, and why same invisible God deserves thanks for Malaria and Cancer.

Come on. No, I don't think there is the slightest chance you are correct. I could be wrong, that doesn't mean you are right.

So according to you, only you are actually correct in any sense and that there is absolutely zero chance of anybody even having the possibility of being correct.
You might be wrong, I might be wrong, you might be right or I might be right, we have no way of knowing until after we die. This means that I have as equal a chance as anybody of being correct.
And think about this, maybe Malaria or Cancer are just tests sent by God to test us and see our reactions. Read the Book of Job, the devil wanted to test a man's faith in God and so put these plagues upon him. Cancer and Malaria are tests of our faith, but we have the ability to prevent these plagues from reaching everyone.