When you deny the existence of God, you effectively deny the existence of evil. Evil becomes a word that describes an action or event perpetrated by a sentient being.

I think man is more than capable of working evil without any outside help. Not that throwing the evolutionary-blanket over it qualifies as an explanation for its existence [in my mind at least]. Evil, in large part, is a consequence of man choosing evil over good. Of course, this begs the question of why he would choose good at all, if Darwin was right.

You asked me if I’ve ever "seen evil". This is an interesting question. Have I ever seen good? How could I know one and not know the other?

At any rate, the dillemma from your position is, what do you do with evil? If evil has no existential nature, then why not call it orange or blue?

Brian

• Sources - stormcrow - June 11, 2001 - 03:26 UTC
  • Definitions - crowslayer - June 11, 2001 - 19:08 UTC
    • There is no room for evel or god in nature-what to argue about? - alexander - June 12, 2001 - 21:55 UTC
      • But nature is fundamentally evil - yanniru - June 12, 2001 - 23:16 UTC
        • Eat or be eaten. - alexander - June 12, 2001 - 23:48 UTC
        • If nature is fundamentally evil, where is a benevolent God? - stormcrow - June 13, 2001 - 02:21 UTC
          • humans are not automatons - isaiaha41 - June 13, 2001 - 13:31 UTC
            • Too much StarWars! - crowslayer - June 14, 2001 - 06:13 UTC
  • cause and effect - isaiaha41 - June 13, 2001 - 13:23 UTC
    • Read Tenacious' post - stormcrow - June 13, 2001 - 18:25 UTC