Sparky where did I ever say it did? I merely pointed out that it would no longer be thanks to a god letting a devil run free to corrupt and make people evil. Not that evil would suddenly cease to exist.
I took your reclassification of a behaviour that is generally thought of as 'evil' into just the result of a mind-malfunction as agreeing that evil doesn't exist. If you think evil does exist, what is your evidence?
You use kiddy fiddling to make me say one thing, then go "oh wow, now I guess even chocolate, or anything totally minute is off the list, lord save me". Please stick to using a modicum of common sense or it comes across as ridiculous and pointless.
I didn't make you say anything. Your absolution of those who prey on children was all your own. And no, the point was not that something minute is off the list - it's that there is no list unless you can provide some evidence for why some behaviours should be classified as evil and others not. The point of using 'chocolate' is to show the implication of a worldview where all classification of behaviours is only the result of your own preferences and not a comparison to a standard that exists outside of your own mind.
I can't wait for the day that science is ready to fix that other pyschological 'weakness' you were talking about - the tendency to believe in the supernatural - that seems to afflict atheists in such large numbers.
Oh dear, yet another exaggeration.
How so? You have referred to the tendency to prey on children as the result of a problem (i.e. weakness) of the mind. You have also referred to the tendency to believe in superstition as a weakness (i.e. problem) of the mind. Why should one problem be fixed and not the other?
Let's hope the religious don't get hold of the science first or it might be you getting fixed! It's such a slippery slope to militancy isn't it?
And here it goes again "oh wow, she said science might fix kiddy fiddlers, she must want to get everyone fixed bit by bit"
Not at all. I was just assuming that you wanted problems to be fixed if they could. Don't you? I just wonder where you think your (rather amazing) faith in science to solve behavioural problems leaves human responsibility. You whole line of argument here very much validates the fact that you don't believe evil really exists at all - which of course is the logical result of your chosen worldview.
I was also hoping to highlight the danger of assuming that it will be only the behaviours that you don't like that will be fixed. It just depends on who has the power when it happens!
What an absurd world you live in.
It is an absurd world, full of people who make ridiculous slippery slope arguements to prevent even the smallest of changes, stuck in the mud people who want to praise the lord and wait for the flying spaghetti monster to come and save them rather than work to saving themselves.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. But I wonder if you have really faced the implications of your new-found worldview. Frankly, I think a world without good and evil really is absurd. In fact, I think you really think so too but just haven't considered that in ejecting God from the picture that's what you end up with.
Cheers,
sparky
Topic: Why the world makes more sense if you take god out of the equation.