Would you agree that an adequate definition of a just god is a god who doles out the appropriate punishment for a particular crime?

If so, humans are not immortal. They have a finite amount of time in which to sin, ergo, upon their death, they have committed a finite number of sins no matter how evil they were.

Hell is widely represented as a place of infinite punishment, and additionally, the punishment is the same for every offense, from jealousy to genocide. How can finite wrongdoings, regardless of severity, ever merit infinite punishment? Especially considering that if we had not been created exactly as God intended us to be, with free will, we would not have the ability to sin.

The sieve was created to sort small rocks from big rocks in the first place. Selection happens because something decided to selcet or as you argue shake tue sieve. It doesn't shake itself and it didn't create itself. I don't believe there is random selection it seems like that would contradict itself would it not?

The sieve represents selection, and as selection is a process and not a physical manmade item like an actual sieve, it does not need to be 'created', nor does it need an external force to make it happen. It is simply the natural result of life. However, selection is blind, but it is not random, so while 'random selection' is not exactly an oxymoron, it does not apply. The organisms best suited to their survival, the ones who can go without food for the longest, the fastest, the best breeders, etc. are the ones that get to pass on more of their superior genetics to the next generation. It is simple and elegant, and there is no other way it can be. Getting it not to happen would be the truly impressive feat.

Of course it takes more intelligence to create in the first place. Dna is a code and therefore could not be random.

Again, there is an element of randomness of evolution, but it is expressed as mutations, and is only one mechanism for evolution. The things that work get to live, and the things that don't will die. This is not random, this is simply mechanics. No one is suggesting DNA evolved randomly. Perhaps that is how it came into being in the first place, but evolution does not care about the origin of life, only what came after, and what came after was the gradual evolution of chains of acids into something that resembled DNA.

The computer analogy actually has some relevance. In the first place how was the computer made? The parts were brought together.

No, it doesn't. As an argument for creationism or ID, the comparison of machines to humans is a poor one, because it begs the question of creationism. The computer was assembled as is from preexisting parts; it has no history of genetic ancestors that, over millions of years, adapted to something like its modern form. For humans, the opposite is true; humans, as individuals and as a species, were not assembled fully-formed from a box of organs and limbs. We gradually evolved from a simple organism into a complex one.

In my opinion dna proves intelligence. Not to say it is intelligent. Again I am under the impression that species were coded to stay the same in the first place. If nature was truly random and things fromed randomly in the first place, there would be nothing to say that something that starts as a tiger would not breed a lion or an ant or any other thing because their dna could randomly turn into that thing. Could it not?

You seem to have strange ideas about what role randomness plays in evolution. It is impossible for the genes of one species to recombine into the genes of a completely different species; this is not a miracle, or a work of some intelligent force, it is just another thing that could be no other way. You can't use the recipe for an apple pie to make a chocolate cake.

If two tigers mated and gave birth to an ant...well, that would be the most convincing evidence for ID that I have ever seen, and everything we know about evolution and genetics would be shot to hell.

Does selection not imply intelligence or consciousness?

No. If there are rocks in a sieve, and the sieve is shaken so that the small rocks fall out, do you say that the sieve has intelligence or consciousness, because it sorted the rocks by size?

And does variation not imply creativity?

Also no. Variation is a result of a combination of chance, genetics, and natural selection.

Further, replication implies some sort of intelligence as well otherwise one species would not stay the same (it couldn't be replicated).

Are you saying that, because DNA is capable of copying itself, it must be intelligent?

Disregarding that that is impossible on the level you appear to implying, do you not think it requires more 'intelligence' to create an original rather than simply replicating existing material?

Of course the computer didn't form on its own, it formed because a worker or machine could replicate it on an assembly line, it could select the right parts to put in the right places and it can make new models based on those selections an variations. None of which, however, occur randomly.

Exactly. This is why it a poor analogy for evolution.

Arguments like "If God exists, then why..." are pointless, because they presuppose the existence of a supernatural being, and if a being like that existed, I believe it would be futile to guess at their intentions. I do not entertain that train of thought because the only argument I need is that there is no proof of God.

And again, you are not describing evil, you are describing abnormality. If we went with your definition, a burnt cake or a broken lamp would be evil.

When beings live in a community and need to cooperate, a code of morals will develop. When early humans began to hunt big game and develop pair bonds, it became necessary for them to be on friendly terms with their groupmates. Any early human with a natural predisposition to break these morals (killing, mate stealing) would probably have been killed or expelled from the group, which also meant death. Early humans with a special affinity for cooperation (food-sharing, physical protection) would have done well and thus passed their altruistic genes on. These simple moral codes evolved as civilization did, expanding and changing depending on the social climate of the time.

In other social animals we see a rudimentary code of conduct that is followed more often and not for the sake of group cohesiveness. Chimps, our closest relative, especially display a fairly complex social structure in which altruism and cooperation are rewarded, and bad behaviour such as attacking infants is punished.

In conclusion, social animals would destroy each other without some kind of ingrained moral code. Do you really think that, before the Bible was written, people had no idea that murder, rape, adultery, and thievery were wrong? There is no way we, as a civilized race, would have survived if that was the case.

Society has constructed it. Some of the morals we see in play just reinforce natural instincts, such as don't kill each other, and others have been invented by fear or hatred, such as homosexuality is bad.

Humans invented the concept of evil so yes, I would say we can comprehend evil, but the evil each individual person comprehends is the evil of their own individual definition.

Edit: Also I forgot to ask, what does the definition of evil have to do with whether or not atheism is logical? Shouldn't we instead be defining logic?

Someone who subscribes to a religion does not know what happens after death, they only believe they do. As an atheist, I also have a belief concerning what happens after death: nothing. To me, this is the only logical conclusion, because nothing I have ever experienced has led me to believe otherwise.

However, as I have no proof of my beliefs, I would never try to argue that oblivion after death is a fact, or that oblivion is more valid than any other afterlife. I think it is only fair to ask for the same intellectual honesty from everyone. Evidence concerning life after death is impossible to attain, and people of all religions need to admit that to themselves and learn to distinguish belief from fact and faith from knowledge.

Evil is a slippery concept, but what you have described is not evil, it is abnormality. Abnormality is not necessarily evil. As for things being what they 'ought to be', that changes greatly from age to age and culture to culture, and as a group we pretty much arbitrarily decide the way things should be.

There is no definitive meaning of evil that will fit everyone, as I would define 'evil' as a transgression on a constructed moral code and morals are also differ from person to person, decade to decade. Most people would agree that child molesters and serial killers could fit the definition of evil, but some people also put gays, women, blacks, politicians, etc. into that category.

The idea of being alone in the universe can be scary. It is comforting to think that there is someone looking out for us, loving us, telling us how to live good lives, saving a place for us after we die, and it is convenient to have an explanation for all the overwhelmingly confusing origins and mechanics of life and nature. I write this specifically with Christianity in mind, but most religions give varying answers to the important questions of how we got here, why we are here, and what happens next. The concept of powerful supernatural being/beings is a very convenient way to allay all those curiosities and keep people from having to think too hard about them.

So for me, it makes sense that the invention of God/gods is just a defense mechanism against confusion and spiritual crises. But the fact is that, despite a diversity of beliefs and 'true paths', no one on this earth knows better than anyone else what the truth is.