Because they will be living in a society that no longer considers "FAITH!/Because!" a valid justification for beliefs or actions and would be, at best, ostracized if they continued to behave in such a manner.
It's the hypothetical world in which religion is no longer existent or accepted in the mainstream and seen for what it is. I never said anything about killing anyone. Social engineering could accomplish this goal.
It costs no money, barely any effort, and only as much time as you wish to spend to sit down and stare at a sunset, spend casual time with a friend, or listen to music being played on a city block. These, I have found, are much more reliable and pure forms of enjoyment than can be provided by material pleasures.
Unless it wasn't an insult and just a descriptive word. But it sounded slightly malicious. And mean.
See above.(which, based on my actual definition, I don't) Then I would say, "Cool, God is evil!" which I presume is contrary to what you are trying to say by labeling him thus.
We live in a world owned and run by massive and evil corporations. Living a happy life without a fair deal of money is extremely difficult.First, I said outside of necessary food, protection from the elements, and health. Loss of any of those three can and will severly hinder that person's potential for enjoyment. Second, I never said liking things was bad. I said material REQUIREMENTS. When people lose their ability to enjoy life without some sort of mandatory material aid, they become far more vulnerable. The best way (<<< opinion) to be happy is to enjoy life itself. I.e. enjoy images, sounds, feelings, smells, tastes, memories, and also the various of intangibles.
One must work long and hard to sustain a reasonable lifestyle. That limits the time one can spend enjoying the arts and leisure time. Money does not equal happiness, but it does provide one with the time in which to seek happiness.It costs no money, barely any effort, and only as much time as you wish to spend to sit down and stare at a sunset, spend casual time with a friend, or listen to music being played on a city block. These, I have found, are much more reliable and pure forms of enjoyment than can be provided by material pleasures.
I didn't.Digression aside, it was still mean to call DemonKaiser a retard. Don't be mean. It's not nice.
No. What you consider evil is subjective. That evil is bad is objectively part of the definition. My logical proof works for literally any standard of good and evil. Again, it's like murder. What you consider murder may vary, but murder is by definition wrong. It's a word that means "wrongful killing." You cannot have a justified murder. The only room for variability is whether or not a specific killing is murder. Once you agree it is murder you agree it is evil. Likewise evil is by definition bad and wrong. Once you agree something is evil you automatically agree it is bad and wrong.
No it is not. It's a massive fucking difference. Can you really not see how the literal definition of a term and what things can be described by that term are different? It's like saying whether or not "red" means "a color" or "food made with chicken" and whether or not my hair is red are the same thing.