The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

To you what defines evil?

persons that commit horrible evil acts against others for their sole purpose of enjoyment.

I try not to think in terms of good, bad, right, or wrong.
But, if I had to, I'd say that "evil" would be someone without morals or values. Someone able to commit disturbing acts without regret or second thought.

I'd say evil would be someone who takes from everything without giving anything in return. Many hideous acts can be seen as evil but there may be a reason for the crime committed. Example, a man steals money to get medicine for his dying daughter and in a panic kills someone in the process. The murder could be seen as evil until you see that his daughter's life is on the line. Then it's blurred whether the act was evil or not. But If the man had done the same act with the only intent being to build his own personal wealth, that could be seen a truly evil.

A person that causes harm, misery, suffering or misfortune to another without a care as to the consequences of their actions

actually thats just slightly evil and mostly greed and corruption,a truly evil one would kill people not for wealth but for enjoyment and sport.

Evil got nothin' on psyco-pathy.

actually evil is better because they are not always so sloppy or unstable to the point of being reckless,while the mentally unstable are impulsive and paranoid.

Looks like some here are equating amorality with evil. I kinda' see them as two different things. Evil is knowing that one can do wrong/harm, and does it for fun. Amorality, on the other hand, is doing the same acts for whatever reasons one deems neccessary, but not getting any enjoyment out of it.
My take on it anyway...I sorta' confused myself now - LOL!

whats so confusing about that? it makes perfect sense to me.

Psyco-paths are all about impulsive behavior, irrational, and they feel no remorse, they often do it just for a tickle of sensation.

Evil, is so generic.

not really,Evil comes in many forms and with different styles,while psychopaths are almost always impulsive and paranoid,Also evil is more clever and strategic in what it does,depending on person of course.

Face it Evil is a namby pamby catch-all phrase.

heh no i will not face it,Evil is the ultimate way to live,take what you want and do what you want.

psychopaths are slaves to their mental illness while evil can choose to be chaotic and unpredictable.

1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
2 a archaic : inferior b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive c : disagreeable
3 a : causing harm : pernicious b : marked by misfortune : unlucky


Evil is so subjective, it is the pet word of most theological systems.

While Psycopathy is accepted across the board by societies majority.

well of course psychopathy is accepted,its mental illness and the person with it can't help their selves.

Evil is not accepted because it is feared and hated and because the person does the deeds he/she does out of own free will.

Evil is someone who comes across as an individual who cares deeply for you . Someone who befriends you if only to cut down to others. They are the ones who get close enough to learn your secrets. Users. Evil in its purest form.

ah deception and manipulation two of my favourite tricks,and true they are used by evil people but also by the corrupt and even good sometimes but i agree that attacking a person mentally and emotionly is a very evil attack that has excellent results.

Evil is subjective. Actions are defined as good or evil by those who view them. Evil is a concept of the concious mind, and not one of nature. Besides all of the Chemical/psychological science, it is a product of enviroment. Nature vrs Nurture. We define what is good or evil based upon ourown personal experiances and what we have been raised to believe over the years. A concept stigmated by society. These actions are wrong or bad becasue we say so and anyone that commits these actions is automatically evil by default.

"Evil, is so generic". Do you mean that evil is carried in the gene of humans? If that is what you are saying, I don't agree. Evil, for some, is just having a fun time, can be killing or creating a mayhem. For others, mean, the one looking from the other side, evil is cruel and punishable with jail time or even death. My opinion, evil doesn't exist, just decease of the mind.

Evil is an action completed by an individual of individuals
that is outside the norms of society that end in some heinous event

''He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster, and when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.''' A quote by Friedrich Nietzsche

We don't have to look very far to encounter the reality of evil in our existence. I sometimes try to look back to when I first developed a concept of evil and realized that horrific things exist in the world. Go figure, I cannot. Evil is one of those things you just kind of know about, a timeless concept like goodness, life, or death. For years I've had a fascination with evil and the origin of all the horrible things individual humans and this race as a whole is capable of. Of course being an international relations major, in addition to my interest in history, has opened up a plethora of horrors about the limits of human morality and sanity.

But what is evil? An absolute, universal concept or something subjective? Where does it come from? Ourselves or a higher power or force? Is evil a preventable thing, or a tragic and intrinsic part of existence? Most contentiously, is evil truly bad or does it actually serve some sort of positive aim, such as defining what is good or keeping us united? Unsurprisingly, there are range of philosophical and theological theories regarding the nature and existence of evil.

In this point in time, in our world, there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of movies portraying the classic good versus evil struggle. But as I ponder on it, I start to wonder, is evil even real? Or is it a man made concept?

Let us look at a few points. We basically look at these things as evil. Murder, lying, rape, theft, and dishonesty.

If you narrow it down even more, it comes down to murder and dishonesty, because rape is a kind of theft, taking without consent and theft and lying are kinds of dishonesty.

But in society, murder is wrong. I am not saying society is wrong, because who has the right to take another person's life? I certainly don't believe anyone does. But in the practice of pragmatism, who is to say who is right or wrong?

In the absence of mankind, evil does not exist, for there is no one to perceive anything as bad, for the universe does not judge. It just is, and everything that we perceive as good and bad are in reality, just themselves, and not opposites of a black and white spectrum. There is no justification for anything because no one can tell you what the rules of the universe are. There are only the laws that make up what you can and can't physically do with your body. These are the only things dictating us in the end.

Society tries to make laws to dictate our lives, but nature enforces it's own.

What is Evil or good?
It all has to do with ones own personal perception.
Some use the term to describe people that harm for enjoyment
Some use it to describe people who act with out emotion for their own benefit
some use it to describe people that are merely playful and devious
There is no single answer to this question

What is evil to one, is holly to another. We all see life through a different set of eyes. Evil is everything that does not conform to our set of belief's.

Markus, I am not saying "Evil" is related to genes. I say generic.. I share your reasoning as well.

Evil is a brand people put on things to avoid any indepth observation, and analysis. It places the act, or person in a catigory of spiritual depravity.. a cope out word.

Their is also wicked, and I actually find wicked people to make intresting company.

Very well put Lovise.

In nature there exists no other spiecies that lives by the rule of good and evil. The actions of animals is not judged by good or evil. The Lion is not evil for eating the Gazelle. The Orca is not evil for eating the Seal. Even though they do tend to play with thier food before they eat it, so do Cats. Does that equate to torture and evilness? Are Orcas and Cats natural Sadists? Evil by Natural Design?

cats, "play" with their food.. only to disable the animal, to preserve it, for freshness, when they are ready to eat it. they often dislocate the legs.

Calling things evil can be seen as denial, denial of human nature at its worse, the desire to blame some spiritual force for behavior that shocks, or astonishes people.

There's a very obvious argument to say that evil is as subjective as anything else in the world. There are those universal evils that are such simply because nearly all societies agree that the deed is in fact evil. But some things seem to depend on cultural associations.

The men who drove two passenger planes full of citizens into the World Trade Towers are not considered evil by men of their faith. In fact, it is believed they have been greatly rewarded for their service to Allah.

New Yorkers have a different view on the matter...

I would suppose that evil is a matter of every man and woman's moral and ethical standpoints.

For me personally, I would say there is no evil only us. The greatest evils of the past couple centuries can be seen, from an intellectual point, as being entirely reasonable to a certain psyche.

The Holocaust as it concerns the Jews is a repercussion of the very point of the Judaic lifestyle. Centuries of creating a society that was entirely different and unique from any other culture. That can easily be viewed as elitism and, through the centuries create an almost subconscious aversion to practitioners of the Faith.

Thus they are excellent scape goats as history has proven time and time again. One could almost take the stand that it was evil for the Jews to so twist the truth of the Holocaust to make it seem it was directed solely at the Jews. How many students in the U.S.A know that the Holocaust was an overarching term for the pogroms against Jews, Slavs, and Gays as well as anyone else Hitler didn't like on that particular day?

I;m largely inclined to agree as far as subjectivity is concerned. One can also find universal evils as well. It's just that humans are most likely to make exceptions for everyone of them, making evil not so much nonexistent as malleable in definition.

To be clear, the events of 9/11 were supported as an act for God by a sect of Muslims, not the entire faith. I'm jsut saying, because I am making the point that according to that sect of the faith it was a completely justifiable and admirable action.

I like that, Mallable in Definition.

too often people will stamp "evil" on something, and feel that they properly addressed the matter. By not confronting the underlying issues, they leave a window for reoccurance.

then there are those who are out to shock people, and they enter into a contest of "how-evil-can-I-be-ism".

The WTC attacks were retaliatory attacks against Western (US) immorality and Evil. The rampant consumerism (Christmas), immorality (Tiger Woods), and Egocentricity (American Tourests,) are considered attacks against Islam and humanity. They see the US as an evil cancer that needs to be cleansed.

I agree with the theory of this, we are these things, we do need to look into ourselves and see why our culture is decaying from the inside.

The US does not see itself as evil because it has won most of it's wars. If it lost a few more, then they would not be writing their own history and points like 1.) slavery 2.) american prison camps 3.) the systematic bombing of civilian targets during wars, would be tried in internation courts of law, just as the Nazis were tried for thier crimes... their evil.

Good always triumphs over evil... because the winners determine that the opposing side was evil.

Humans has seen "evil" people through history. For some, they are just humans who commit horrendous crime. For others, they were just created by a flaw society. Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Nilsen, Jeffrey Dahmer, Angelo Buono, Kenneth Bianchi, Albert Desalvo and last, the famous Ted Bundy. Why did They do it? They have had their bodies probed by medical doctors and their mind picked apart by Psychiatrists. Writers have analyzed their childhoods and connected every trauma they ever experienced to their later becoming serial Killers. Well, a lot of people endure similar childhoods and trauma in their lives without becoming murderers. What made these individuals so horribly different? Evil possession? Who knows, I just know that humans are capable to hurt others without any emotions of feelings. That is what make us the more savage animal in the planet.

Lovise...Your are right when you talk about evil actions be subjective based upon the view of society. Not just in the acts done by hitler and the terrorists of 9/11. But in all cultures.
Examples

-Joshua- Hero of Judaism, Catholism, and Chirstianity.
Responcable for the wholesale slaughter of the entire city of Jehrico. Every Man, Woman, Child, and Animal. And it did not stop there.

-King Richard the "Lion Heart"- Hero of the Crusades. Just look at some of the acts he commited during this holy war.

-King Ying Zheng of the Qin Kingdom- Hero and unifier of China.

Or even in America with its "Manifest Destiny."

Or the creation and use of Atomic Weapons during World War II.

I think evil is anything that counter acts the greater good

I believe evil is in anyone or anything or any place

we have a choice in life in which path to choose.

''He who does not punish evil commands it to be done.'' A quote by Leonardo Da Vinci.

''Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?'' A quote by Epicurus.

Great imputs, but have you recall in ''The Exorcism of Emily Rose'', the Father said. ''Once you look into the darkness I believe you carry it with you always.'' Let's think about that for a second shall we? Once you have stared into the eyes of the Devil can you ever see your God in his full grace ever again? Is it not possible to be restored to your full purity again, and most of all is it worth it?

I do truly believe that if we are to make a difference and fight for true absolute justice we must sacrifice our own purities to do so. That must be a horrifying concept to most of the common folk, but it is an Inconvenient Truth. To be a champion for whatever you will, whether it be the Faith, the Law, or the fight against all evil, you must give up a part of yourself to continue on.

Allow me to explain, think of the human body as a casing, nothing more. Now whether you believe me or not, what you carry is the spirit and the soul. You are born pure, and if you live good and justly shall die pure. Sadly that's not in the human nature. For those who live like a normal human being they shall make mistakes, do things out of spite, and have an evil side. As scary of a thought that is I believe those who read this will know it to be true.

Now let's look at this from the standpoint of our champion. The champion fights for the rest of us whose either are too weak or don't care. It is their job to deal with the evils of our world for us, and most of them do their job with pride. Do you think that that can be the safest way to live? Constantly looking into the face of evil and pressing on? Though the casing we travel in can heal and survive the blackening of such courage, the soul, and the spirit aren't as lucky. Facing evil is more than a physical feat. To do so takes its toll upon the body, the mind, and the soul. To do so sacrifice our innocence and purity.

Faced with this many people run as fast as they possibly can and wouldn't turn around. It’s those who still stand in place that are our champions, and should be held with the highest respect. It's not a question of whether or not they fight without fear. I think that if evil doesn't scare you, you need to seek mental care. No doesn't matter if it's the demons of the Faith or the criminals of the Law, they should scare you for what they can do to us. But just because they scare you doesn't make you any less of a champion, it's what separates you from them. Just because you care for the wellbeing of yourself doesn't make you weak or a coward. It's the fact that even under the ever present eye of Darkness that you still stand tall and fight with honor.

That is what makes a champion. Now you need to ask yourself, is the hanging weight of darkness upon your soul worth the good that it does? The decision is yours.

Folks should be honest in all aspects of their life. If you're not wanting the evil, there's no sense in pretending in order to get what you actually do want.

Why do I always feel like I was forced to write for a scholarship based upon a topic given only two hours in advance? Excuse me for my critic opinion upon myself.

evil in my eyes is the opposite of good. but in the same token with out it the world would just simply spiral out of control and just fade in to nothingness.

in the old empires of old Japan there came the myth and the story and well the belief of the yin and the Yang for everything in life there is a balance. for one can not exist without the other.

for every evil act there is a small part of that act that had some sort of good. no matter the outcome of that act. and for ever good act in the world there is a small part of that act that is evil. the same goes for people. every evil or in many other terms a amoral person he or she has that small part of him that is good. and the same goes for all good people in this world there is that small part of them that must have evil.

People who are cruel, crude, and abusive to anyone or anything in anyway shape or form. They should be put to death in the same exact way they were cruel, crude or abusive towards.

People will concieve evil in their own way not everyone will see it all the same... I see it as. The horrify cruel acts that people do to others.

Evil is a word people made up to describe "undesireables" so to speak. Morality is one thing, good and evil though, they are relative to each person

i think oni has it right evil is a point of vew and that vew is always subject to change

"That is what make us the more savage animal in the planet."

No. Reasoning makes us the most savage because what animal regrets killing something? Does a lion lose sleep after killing a gazelle? Nope, well maybe beause of indigestion...

I think we are all evil in our own ways,people think im evil cause I'm German,well,half evil....German/Irish lol

Once something is labeled "evil" it is assumed that some religious intervention is needed. In actuallity it is often religious intrest that initiate conflict, that proliferates violent retaliation.

Hello,

What do I define as evil?

Someone who pushes themselves aside to follow the world around them instead of being true to who and what they really are, no matter what the consequence.
Someone who would risk losing themselves just to be apart of a world that will never truly matter anyway.

Evil to me is a person or persons who plot ways to inflict harm against humankind and actually carries them out. This person or persons does not give a shit about the consequences and possibly could actually get a rise out of any sort of execution dealt to them.

Extreme examples include Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Emperor Hirohito

Spiritually, there is no such thing as evil, because at our soul level, we are all perfect souls of light. BUT, we can choose to act in an "evil" way in this life, and from that we learn certain things. And from being that way, it affects others and they respond, and most likely they take that affect and touch another's life...the ripple effect. Hopefully there are fewer negative people in our lives, because the world is a direct result of each one of us and how we treat each other; how we think and what we put out there!!

In the spiritual scheme of things, you simple ARE.

Lovise what a fantastic quote you have used...lol

Ok Evil in my mind is when my wife takes the last beer from the fridge! Dam woman!!

Evil.... injustice.

evil is a concept a belieif. It starts of a biblical argument that blayd out to man and me been in the middle since.

The world in a nut shell, the truth in a bomb shell, the lies that form a transluscent veil which will only be seen when the realization of what actually is slaps one in the face. Such a horrible world we live in, full of so many wicked people.

No salvation without representation!
First, we burn the books. Then, we burn their writers.
We intend to live forever... So far, so good.

Blooddrain, I like what you've said.

It simplifies my opinion.

Evil is conformity.

Doing what is easy and convenient instead of what you believe you should [be/do]. I was just following orders. No one else stood up against it. Everyone was picking on her. If I helped, I might be in the same boat as them.

&c.

Evil is a manmade concept, there are just two poles...the left and right...

the light and dark...neither is correct.

Hence the argument...hell Gods would die of boredom otherwise...

I like fresh protein not kebab...so Yew would say I'm evil? perhaps not? I am a fierce protector.

There are no evil or good acts, just actions that are judged by individuals blinded by their bias opinions and belief's molded by their enculturation.

thank you Doru

Consistantly, when things are labeled evil, there seems to always be an implication that "God", or a "Divine Being" will deal with it (if the faithful invoke said deity). This gives a false security to devotees, and it turns into denial, when something "evil" happens to a religious/spiritual person "God" is said to be testing them. In context "evil" is a reference word (somewhat a generalization).

commiting an act that is conidered inhumaine by todays social norms?

Inhuman, is inhuman. It appalls even thoughs without theological allignment.

Reprehensible, to those who hold morals based on religious/spiritual indoctrination, perhaps.

While I don't personally see burning a church as 'evil", I as an atheistic leaning person can relate to the effect it would have on a sub community inferstructure.

though those that are of the faith affiliated with the church, and active members of the church, would be more then likely to call it evil.

This by no means makes their conclusion 'wrong" it does not make my assessment any less valued. it is two perspectives from relative positions. What also varies is the response options, the church may pray for the individual that comitted the act.. while respond in another matter.

As it been constantly pointed out evil is subjective and defined by your own point of view.

Perhaps we can say, universally speaking, that evil is an act that commits horrors on another living thing for no practical purpose other than personal pleasure.

put simply .. you get good and bad .. if taken too far, that bad would become evil.

Midnight redemtion, that is well stated.

Thanks Dabbler,

I think the danger here is that the question, while fairly straight forward can create very complicated answers. I think in this case it's best to keep things simple and straight to the point.

People want to forge into other concepts with applying the term evil, to do so they take liberty with the definition. making a complex matter, out of a general word. Evil has become a Buzz word, it has been for sometime.

.. the ability to redefine the word, to your ends.

or ~

.. ignoring social protocols, to subvert them.

or ~

.. choosing to do what you want, though you know it is not morally, or socially acceptable.

''Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" The problem of evil, usually quoted as being by Epicurus.

My response to this is to say that you have to know the character of God, spiritually through the Bible. The Bible's accuracy is nil either exceptionally modified at best. Which means to persist in the response above requires trust in God that the Bible is inerrant. To trust God you need to know he is trustworthy. Which means you need to know and judge the character of God.

Trust the Bible, which is inerrant, because God said, in the Bible, which is inerrant, because God said in the Bible that Circular logic works, because circular logic works because....?

Why does circular logic works?

I believe it is a chose.

We all can chose between good and evil and it is via our actions which shows which chose we have take. No one is born evil it is a chose they make. We all know the difference.

Evil can be many things, but all it boils down to is doing something that goes against what society believes.

for the balance of all things we need a difference. for example male and female, day and night. hence good and evil. if there was no evil then there wouldnt be good. evil is the opposite and like been stated is a chose that someone makes.

Aaahhhhh....but Lovise....God is Evil. It is as much apart of God's character as it is anyone elses.

It cannot be denied that if ever one were to seek the penultimate escape from the crucibles posed within a life undeterred by the fancies of romantics and idealism, death would most amply and humbly provide a refuge, and solace simply unattainable anywhere within the world. Truly it could be said that when the entirety of a life was philosophy that hailed only from the depths of the looking glass that such a life was hardly a life at all, so much as an existence festering in the shadows cast about by gods both living and dead. Such were the thoughts that clung to our subconscious, balanced precariously as we are upon the balcony's edge jutting. Our eyes betrayed no hesitance, our heartbeat steady, our hands unshaken, as our thoughts swayed between what yet we had more right to life or death.

What is a man? What is a woman? One who seeks the understanding of the world around us, the physical and even the metaphysical? Are we defined by the virtue of our deeds, or the sins that we bring home to our families when we have forgotten ourselves? What is our right, our reason to exist? Or even to not exist?

In my personal opinion. Evil is like Cold. Good is like Heat.

Cold cannot be measured. True Coldness, absolute Zero, is the complete, and total, lack of heat.

I believe Evil is much like cold. In the absence of Good, there is Evil. Evil is a constant, it will always happen unless there is Good.

Evil cannot be measured. What Evil truly is, in my opinion, is this. Lack of care.

The Universe, in a sense, is evil. It does what it wants, when it wants, how it wants to do it. It doesn't care who, or what it destroys in the process.

Evil is a constant thing. Everyone has Evil in their hearts, because we all have instincts. Our instincts are based on the world around us, the world is based in the Universe. The Universe is Evil. We are all inherently evil.

I think the real question we should be asking ourselves isn't what is Evil. What we really would be asking is this.

What is Good?

The problem with discussing the psyco path instead of the term evil is that psychopaths are in there nature mentally ill. How can what they do be their fault if it is result of a medical illness and with that in mind how can that be evil?

Evil is as evil does and is an act by a person who is of sound mind repulsive to the normal thought process of society, repugnant.

It does not always have to be heinous to be evil.

Not everyone can look through a psychologist eyes because not everyone is a psychologist, we draw conclusions based on our own experiences.

Exactly, I believe that people are making their answers to this question far too complicated and are over analysing and are in danger off going off topic

What defines evil? As i stated earlier it completely depends on a person's point of view but simply put pure evil is carrying out an act of perhaps random violence, verbal abuse, racial hatred etc for no other purpose than sheer enjoyment.

I agree M.R

Any one who would kill woman, and children. A abuser, or pedophile. and any one who would hurt a domestic animal.

evil is usually is contrasted by good and in the western cultures it's limited to harm or damage to an object or creature. and in many other cultures it's the same thing but on a broader spectrum.

some say i'm an evil monster for what i do but, i have to eat sometime

Evil to me is hurting people intentionally.
Lying, stealing, and hurting my loved ones are also evil.. Things which I may have done in the past.. Does that make me evil, just because I have done those things?

Everyone is evil in some way. We have done something that we should not of done. We cannot be good 24/7 no matter how we try. But just because we have doesnt mean we are evil through and through.

Besides what I believe to be evil doesnt mean the next person will see it the same way. Hence the question what we as individuals deem evil to be. Everyone has put down an opion and most are the same with some slight differences.

evil in my opinion doesnt have to be dramatic such as hurting another. when one doesnt care if ones actions harm another...when everything is for self graification, and others be damned....
that is evil.

~W~

Me, when I'm mad........

well, there that whole "my ex wife" thing, but i thought i wouldnt go there this time LOL
~W~

I agree with Count Wallaby,

in every person there is dark and there is light, such as the chinese yin and yang. The trick is choosing which half to nuture.

Isn't there a saying about a black dog and a white dog and whichever you feed the most will eventually eat the other. You have to have to control to direct your emotions such as anger, envy, greed etc into some usefull purpose or they will consume you.

Evil is just a contrast to what an individual may perceive as good. This thread alone proves that everyone sees Evil and its definition in a different way.

I like this thread and how opinion differs depending upon perspective and experience.

I will throw in my two pennies worth by defining Evil by how Evil feels.

It is calculating , manipulative, intensely logical and wrathful, it revels in your betrayal, hate, destruction and harm.
It will bathe in pain like water, both phsical and mental,
It loves your fear, loathing and disgust.
It seems to resonate in certain low frequencies.
It gets high on this fire, this power.
It is not insanity, it is the counter argument and it is incredibly difficult to control.

Evil is a feeling of dark persuasion to do things others find unjst.Perception is the key to its meaning.

Without the sun, there can be no shadows...
It is the same with God and evil.
Evil is the perspective of the person who turns away from God; just as a person who turns their back to the sun, sees their shadow.

Evil is what the government does to the country, what the judicial system does to the poor, and what McDonalds does to food!

All fast food chains are evil!

they conjour decpetive advertisements to suck you into there lies and deceit, they use propaganda to suck you into there lies and deceit

I forgot to add


I LOVE EVIL

Gordon brown is evil lol and is spending tax payer's money to fix up his house and sending our young soldiers off to die,like Tony Blair did.

Evil is in everyone and it it takes certain certain circumstances to bring it out of them,like being in a position of power.

Hence the term "power corrupts":D

For me Evil is any human that has no compassion or feeling for their fellow man or their environment. Someone so self involved that they care nothing for the consequences of their actions. Also people that have the charisma and power to influence others without regard for them or the things they influence them to do.

i believe everyone has something evil in them, together with something good. Some people just make the evil project more in their lives..Chose it more than being good. Total evils are those who don't care at all doing bad stuffs to others. and yeah, I believe in karma too.

This, is to restate my point on Evil.

This anecdote says what I would like to say, much, much better than the way that I say it.

Yes, you do have to read it all the way through, and yes, if you're an Atheist, you probably won't like it.

For the rest of you. Enjoy.

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.


"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

i believe evil is: being misunderstood by fellow pupils and society,if your different then people say your evil

Response to Catobates anecdote "God vs Science"

It is long, and I challenge you to read it all, you might not like it. Everyone else, I hope you find it informative.
Source Tiny Frog http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/i-get-email-god-vs-science/

Response to "God vs Science"

How many problems did you find? I’m sure I didn’t find all the problems. Here’s some of the issues that occurred to me as I read it:

Minor Issues:
- The story seems to be confused about whether he is a science professor (first sentence) or philosophy professor (third sentence). The argument is clearly more suited to a philosophy professor. But, making him a philosophy professor deprives Christians of the satisfaction of having a science professor be completely unable to defend evolution.
- The professor comes across as a smug know-it-all atheist who picks out a random Christian student from the class, makes him stand up and embarrasses him in front of the class. I guess they just want to make atheist academics as unlikeable as possible, but it seems like a pretty big stretch since any teacher should know better than to abuse a student in front of the class.

Major Issues:
- No decent science professor would argue that science is about things you detect with your five senses. For example, no one has seen a radio wave, or an electron. Ernest Rutherford determined the structure of an atom without ever seeing protons or electrons. No one has seen the tectonic plates, and even our detection of extra-solar planets involves not seeing the planet directly, but detecting its gravitational effects on its star. “We detect its effects” is a good way to know something exists — and that includes the existence of a professor’s brain. Theoretically, we could even detect the existence of psychic powers (without seeing psychic energy floating through the air) – if psychics could actually do better than chance at things like reading people’s minds or knowing future events. By using this narrow definition of science, much of science (including the structure of the atom) is deemed to be “unscientific”, and therefore on the same level as faith in God. It’s fallacious to put them on the same level.

Now, some Christians might try to argue that God’s effects can be detected – they feel His love, etc – but psychological effects are difficult to distinguish from placebo effects. Even worse, other people from other religions and cults might feel the same things. If they actually had more empirical effects (legitimate faith healing, knowing things when they shouldn’t, prophecy, etc) then they might have a point. The professor’s point about God not healing the sick is one example of an indirect effect of God’s existence that could be detected.

- Evolution – The student tries to argue that no one has seen evolution with their five senses, therefore, it’s “faith”, just like faith in God. (Actually, this is a pretty good description of what creationists think about evolution. They think that the idea of evolution was created when scientists weaved together conjecture with a need for an non-theistic explanation for life.) Apparently, in order for evolution to be elevated to science, you’d need to watch evolution happen over a period of tens or hundreds of millions of years AND prove that God didn’t interfere when you weren’t looking. And, if you pointed out observations of evolution in fruit flies and bacteria, they’d call that “micro-evolution”, which is “totally different” than primate to human “macro-evolution”. But, as I said earlier, science does not need to rely on direct observation. Ultimately, the argument fails because there’s so much information from paleontology, genetics, etc.

- The student makes the argument that good and evil are like hot and cold. The problems with the “evil is the absence of good” arguments are this:

First, I don’t think “good” can be can be compared to heat. The student talks about infinite heat, but is there such a thing as “infinite good”? I don’t think so. Sure, Christians might say God is infinitely good, but I’m not sure how that’s anything but words. I think it’s entirely valid to say “on a scale of 0 to 1, zero means maximum evil and one means maximum good”. The problem is that there is no ‘right’ answer because good and evil are mental concepts, not physical, measurable characteristics, like heat. Further, we could imagine a cold, lifeless planet. Is there good or evil there? If evil is simply the absence of good, then it must be somewhere on the continuum between absolute good and absolute evil. But, that doesn’t work because a cold, lifeless planet cannot be described as good or evil – it simply is. You could say that it is absent of both, but you could never say that it is absent of heat and cold, absent of light and darkness.

Second, he says evil is the absence of God. If “evil is the absence of God”, then the cure for evil is God. This suggests that more prayer, more Bible study, and more moral living is the cure for sickness, famine, predators, and natural disasters. Yet, none of those things seem to have any effect on the natural evil in the world. This gets even more confusing with the Biblical teaching that ‘wherever two or three are gathered, God will be there’. Why, then, are sick Christians still sick if they meet and pray with a few other Christians? Why does God withhold his healing power? Is it possible to be “infinitely good” if you aren’t doing things to save people? For example, if you avoid throwing a life-preserver to a drowning man or ignore a man trapped inside a well, can you still call yourself perfectly good?

Third, sickness, predators, and death existed long before humans existed. Are we supposed to believe that snakes have venom and fangs because God wasn’t visiting earth frequently enough millions of years ago? At the same time, they deny evolution, so a complex system like fangs and venom (which paralyzes muscle) must’ve been “intelligently designed”. Apparently, God is designing the evil – and he’s perfectly good, too. He’s such a mystery.

"First, I don’t think “good” can be can be compared to heat. The student talks about infinite heat, but is there such a thing as “infinite good”? I don’t think so. Sure, Christians might say God is infinitely good, but I’m not sure how that’s anything but words. I think it’s entirely valid to say “on a scale of 0 to 1, zero means maximum evil and one means maximum good”. The problem is that there is no ‘right’ answer because good and evil are mental concepts, not physical, measurable characteristics, like heat. Further, we could imagine a cold, lifeless planet. Is there good or evil there? If evil is simply the absence of good, then it must be somewhere on the continuum between absolute good and absolute evil. But, that doesn’t work because a cold, lifeless planet cannot be described as good or evil – it simply is. You could say that it is absent of both, but you could never say that it is absent of heat and cold, absent of light and darkness."

To this, I reply: Yes, I would consider that planet, an evil planet, though it would be considered benign in it's evil. If you stepped out onto that planet, it would be quite painful. The cold would almost certainly kill you, perhaps instantly, and it would not sustain life. One would think the planet quite evil, if one were to be upon it's surface. Earth, I would consider a good planet. It is suitable for life.

"Second, he says evil is the absence of God. If “evil is the absence of God”, then the cure for evil is God. This suggests that more prayer, more Bible study, and more moral living is the cure for sickness, famine, predators, and natural disasters. Yet, none of those things seem to have any effect on the natural evil in the world. This gets even more confusing with the Biblical teaching that ‘wherever two or three are gathered, God will be there’. Why, then, are sick Christians still sick if they meet and pray with a few other Christians? Why does God withhold his healing power? Is it possible to be “infinitely good” if you aren’t doing things to save people? For example, if you avoid throwing a life-preserver to a drowning man or ignore a man trapped inside a well, can you still call yourself perfectly good?"

I don't believe that a person can. I do believe that God can. Odd, I know. Why would God be able to get away with not saving people from ailments, while if a person does it, it's considered evil? Because God is an omnipotent being, he has more to consider than one individuals well being. Somewhat like the government, except on a larger, more moral scale. "Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart." All I can say, is if you have enough faith, anything is possible, if it goes without question, that you will be healed of your afflictions, or that you will be able to do something, then you will.

"Third, sickness, predators, and death existed long before humans existed. Are we supposed to believe that snakes have venom and fangs because God wasn’t visiting earth frequently enough millions of years ago? At the same time, they deny evolution, so a complex system like fangs and venom (which paralyzes muscle) must’ve been “intelligently designed”. Apparently, God is designing the evil – and he’s perfectly good, too. He’s such a mystery."

No, God definitely designed them to be that way. It is something meant to kill as well. It's definitely said, in the bible, that god created all creatures, big and small. *shrugs* Hey, you know, you could be right. Of course, you haven't actually stated your belief, though it does seem to be, "God doesn't exist," maybe you're right. Who knows? However, that was a better way to explain my post earlier, on how I think evil is a benign force in the universe. *shrugs* I wasn't asking to be heckled about my belief.

I also think you're taking this too literally. Evil and Cold are Similar. Not exactly the same, how could that be possible? Evil is a concept, cold is actual.

Anyway, thank you for your massive input, it was quite interesting.

Further, The opposite of "Evil" is Holy.

Good, and bad are simple Negative, and positive with no alignment to faith, or religion.

Holy, and Evil are exclusive to theistic docterine.

Sacred, and sacreligios.

Blessed, and Cursed

Is it any differnent when you heckle atheist? Regarding your smug prelude?

This is not an attack on your faith, or heckling your faith, it is simple critique on the article you posted.

I have this posted in my Journal, if you wish to continue discussing this.

Source: http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/professor/

-A Flawed Fable-


This little scenario is all very well and makes the Christians all smug and self-satisfied, because the second Christian really put the old atheist professor in his place.

But let me tell you something. The professor must have been only newly converted to atheism, because he gave all the wrong answers! It's a good thing he was a philosophy professor and not a science professor, (though it states both)because with answers like that he would have flunked high school!

Let's have a look at this then shall we? I'm not a professor of any kind, but I'm going to elaborate here on the things that I would have done differently.

First of all, I feel that it is extremely rude to attack someone's religious faith in this manner, regardless of what you feel about what is true or not. The professor, having recently lost his brother to cancer, is lashing back at the Christians in the class because he feels that he was betrayed by God, and he is being inexcusably rude about it, too. It is a classic transferrence of anger, and the poor professor needs grief counselling. So in the first place I would not have begun a philosphy class with the express purpose of trying to destroy other peoples' faith. Their faith is not my concern. When they publicly preach falsehood, I tend to want to speak up. In this case, neither of the Christians were publicly preaching falsehood. In fact the second Christian probably had a better grip on reality than the professor did.

OK, so let's see where the professor went wrong after this. Any science professor should know that cold is an absence of heat and darkness is an absence of light. I knew that in third grade. For all his upholding of scientific principles, this professor also should have known that science relies as much on deduction and scenario-modelling as it does on direct observation. If observation were all there was to it, then the entire scientific corpus would consist of only what any particular student observed. I did not observe Vesuvius erupting. According to the Christian in this story, that means that it didn't. But someone did. His name was Pliny the younger, and he wrote down what he saw. I trust an eyewitness account.

Now, in science, the emphasis is on experiment. You don't just write down what you observe. You contrive a set of circumstances to answer a particular question about something you observe. Then you write down the results of your experiment, and (this is the crucial bit) see whether anyone else observes the same thing.

So in essence, the argument about not observing evolution and not observing the professor's brain is flawed, because science does not solely rely on direct observation. Of course, observation is an important part of science, and the position that only what can be observed exists is called positivism. The professor in this story is obviously a positivist, and the second Christian points out the flaws in this philosophy quite effectively. But positivism is not science.

Okay, next bit. The professor "goes toxic" when someone questions his philosophical standpoint. This is in a philosophy class right? Isn't part of the point of philosophy to question one another's worldview? This professor shouldn't be in science, and if he "goes toxic" at the first sign that a student can think independently, then he doesn't belong in philosophy, either! For me, that student would be well on the way to an 'A'.

Then, after going toxic, he also bridles. "As a philosophical scientist," he says, "I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

Here his stance is also deeply flawed. He describes himself as a "philosophical scientist". This is a delusion. For reasons discussed above he cannot call himself a scientist in any sense of the word, philosophical or not. He claims to be a realist, but describes a positivist. He should also deny the existence of electrons and protons, because they are not observable either. Recently we have been able to observe atoms (with scanning tunneling electron microscopes), but never their constituents. However, the theory predicts certain things, and what can be observed supports the results that are predicted. The theory agrees with observation. To doubt the existence of electrons because they can't be observed casts doubt on a large number of scientific principles, some of which agree with observation to a startling degree.

Here's another way to look at it. Can you observe air? No. This doesn't mean that air doesn't exist. You can't smell sarin gas, either. But sarin gas can kill you.

So far I have been kind of supporting the Christian against the professor, because to me the Christian's stance makes more sense than the professor's. However, the Christian makes one major fundamental mistake, which tells me that he really has absolutely no understanding of what science is or what it is about. The professor's answer to this loaded question is wrong in every significant detail.

The Christian asks "Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

This is such a tired old argument that all Christians should know it by now if they didn't choose to see evolution in a flawed light. The 'correct' answer (which the professor failed to provide) is "No, I do not teach my students that they evolved from a monkey. I teach my students that they and monkeys had a common ancestor, which was neither a monkey nor a student. The observed evidence supports this."

But Christians (not all Christians mind you) do not accept the true definition of evolution, and continue to argue against the principle that people are descended from monkeys. They ask "if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

the Christian in the story asks "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" and again, the professor answers the question badly (as of course suits the Christian author of the scenario).

The 'correct' answer to this question is "Have you ever observed love with your own eyes? Have you ever observed faith? Have you ever observed the Resurrection with your own eyes? Just because we don't observe something with our own eyes doesn't mean that we can't accept evidence from other sources. Your Bible tells you that the Resurrection occurred. The fossil record, amongst other evidence, tells us that evolution occurred."

This will only get the Christian going though. If you ever answer this question in this way, be prepared to answer all of the other questions that invariably follow about transitional fossils, polystrate fossils, and if it gets that far down the track, radiometric dating.

The Christian in the story states "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena" then goes on to 'disprove' the existence of the professor's brain. The professor is dumbstruck in the light of the Christian's brilliant observation. Yet more evidence that he is not fit to be a science professor, since he doesn't have the answer to the obvious ploy which is provided as a clinching argument.

The 'correct' answer is: "Okay, so you hypothesise that my brain doesn't exist. How are you going to go about proving it? Hypothesis without experiment is not science. The best way to prove your hypothesis would be to open up my head and have a look. But that would in all likelihood kill me, which is against the law and against your Christian ethic. So you'll have to find another way to prove it. But before you spend a lot of time (and probably money) doing so, I might point out that in dissecting cadavers, surgeons and anatomy students have never opened up the head of a dead human and found no brain. So Occam's Razor tells us that your hypothesis is incorrect to the point of reasonable doubt. The counter-hypothesis that I do in fact have a brain fits the observed reality (that I am here, walking, talking, breathing and speaking to you) much better than your hypothesis does."

This clearly demonstrates that while science is correctly described as the study of observed phenomena, it doesn't work just to draw direct conclusions from what directly hits your senses. You have to question what you observe. Although science is the study of the observed phenomena, the Christian in the story stops at 'observed phenomena' and skips the 'study' part. If science could be reduced to a single question, it would not be "what?" as the Christian in the story seems to think. It would be "how?"

Science cannot disprove God. The mistake (or rather, one of the mistakes) that the professor made in the story is in assuming that because God cannot be observed, God doesn't exist. This is not a good basis for atheism, because as you can clearly see from this story, it is a very weak foundation. It is indeed a flawed philosophy. The basis for atheism is much more complex and subtle.

The Christian in the story falls into massive overgeneralisation by his statement "Science too is a premise which is flawed..." No. What is flawed is the professor's stance on science. The reason the professor's stance on science is flawed is that the whole story was written by a Christian, whose own stance on science was flawed. Just like the second Christian in the story, the author overgeneralises his/her own belief in science as the real thing, and sets up a massive strawman which of course is only too easy to defeat. It was designed to be argued against, so of course it is. If the author had understood science better, the story could never have been written in this form.

All of the characters in the story are reflections of the author's self. The first Christian is the author at a young age, looking for affirmation of his or her faith and not receiving it from an uncaring, antagonistic world.

The professor is the personification of all these doubts. He is the personification of the author's own flawed understanding of science and its purpose.

The second Christian is the author after going out and reading some books by Kent Hovind and Phillip Johnson. The author after reaffirming his/her faith, who now has all the answers. Unfortunately he only has the answers to the questions he himself poses. The professor knows no more about science than the author does - how could he? This is why the professor is ultimately humbled and embarrassed in front of the whole class. It is satisfying to Christians because they see their attacker fall and crumble like the walls of Jericho.

Perhaps the whole story is part autobiography, part wish-fulfillment. It is possible that the first half of the story actually happened to the author, and the second half is what the author would have said and done had he/she had the answers at that stage of life. Perhaps. If so, the two halves of the story probably occurred years apart in the author's life.

It seems more likely to me that it was a Christian trying to teach other Christians how to have more faith in their beliefs, despite having them attacked mercilessly. It does that, at the expense of flawed argument and flawed understanding. The purpose behind telling the story is sound - Christians should indeed be prepared to defend their faith and provide reasons for it. But the reasons given in the story are not good ones.

The story perpetuates the myth that science is bunk. That science is somehow contrary or opposed to faith. That all of science is built on a flawed philosophy.

The first thing that some Christians seem to be unable or unwilling to understand is that science cannot disprove anything. It can only prove things. And it can only prove things on a provisional basis. Nothing is final, because it's always possible for more evidence to come in.

Christians always try to attack science by asking for certain, definite proof that God doesn't exist. Science cannot provide that, and they then leap on that inability as evidence that science is flawed. Well, that's just comparing apples and oranges. It is like relying on the Bible to tell you how to service your car. The Bible can't show you how to change a spark plug? Aha! The Bible is built on a flawed premise!

They also leap on the incompleteness of science. Since science does not have all the answers, it can't possibly be right. The more amazing belief among some Christians I have encountered is the more epistemological view that science simply has it wrong. It asks the wrong questions and comes to the wrong conclusions. It makes a flawed basis for understanding the world because it is simply erroneous. This is totally weird to me, because at its basis, science is built upon finding verifiable explanations for observed phenomena. The Scientific Method is the closest we can come to finding the truth about something.

I hope you can see now why I don't like this story. It perpetuates a flawed and incorrect stereotype - that of the atheist who constantly attacks the faith of good Chrisians - and demonstrates an insufficient method of defence against it. It was written by a Christian for other Christians, but the author's understanding of the subject matter is so incomplete that all it does is perpetuate the incompleteness to others. It does not teach anything of worth, except for the fundamental purpose - to encourage Christians to be able to justify their faith.

The moral of the story - always have an understanding of what you are arguing against, or be prepared to accept when someone points out the flaws in the understanding you do have.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder

Thank you Mr. Dabbler. I enjoyed reading what you wrote, very much. I completely agree. I simply enjoyed the story, because it explained how I felt about Evil. But, I am glad you broke it down, in a lot of detail, because, it was a very good read. I agree with just about everything you said. I didn't put the story up, to somehow "show the scientists" the right way. Science, obviously, doesn't work like that. I didn't agree with that part of the story myself. Sorry to say that you were heckling me. It just felt like it, a bit. My apologies.

Thank you, again, Mr. Dabbler. Most people wouldn't put that much time, and effort into something, even if they cared about it. *hugs* I've enjoyed talking with you, quite a bit.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.