dev·il    (dehv`@l)

      n.

1. often Devil In many religions, the major personified spirit of evil, ruler of Hell, and foe of God. Used with the.

     
2. A subordinate evil spirit; a demon.

     
3. A wicked or malevolent person.

     
4. A person: a handsome devil; the poor devil.

     
5. An energetic, mischievous, daring, or clever person.

     
6. Printing. A printer's devil.

     
7. A device or machine, especially one having teeth or spikes and used for tearing.

     
8. An outstanding example, especially of something difficult or bad: has a devil of a temper.

     
9. A severe reprimand or expression of anger: gave me the devil for cutting class.

     
10. Informal. Used as an intensive: Who the devil do you think you are?

     

1. To season (food)
        heavily.

     
2. To annoy, torment, or harass.

     
3. To tear up (cloth or rags) in a toothed machine.

     

Between two equally unacceptable choices.

Very energetic, mischievous,
     daring, or clever.

To give credit to a disagreeable or malevolent person.

1. To be
        unsuccessful; fail.

     
2. To become depraved.

     
3. Used in the imperative to express anger or impatience.

     

To upset or ruin.

Let each person follow self-interest, leaving others to fare as
     they may.

Trouble to be faced as a result of an action: There'll be the devil to pay if you allow the piglets inside the house.
     

Alrighty. It's obvious he's talking about the major personofied evil of the Christian religion, and not seasoning food with paprika, so we'll use the first definition of Devil. As far as the other one, this is where you ask what he means by "evil".

If...
     ...he says evil is like 9/11, or what happened at columbine, he's talking about the second and third definitions, and if he is trying to link them to this evil entity, the fourth as well
     ...he talks about sin, fornication, etc., he is talking about the first definition
     ...he talks about people not getting along, he is talking about the fifth definition

We'll go ahead and assume he's talking about 9/11 etc.

I realise getting most of the people in the room to stick to one definition is like pulling teeth, but it's important to make the distinction anyway. It takes care of the simple equivocation fallacy, that is to say, that Evil =/= Devil, or that acts that are infamous, harmful, and ill-intentioned are not superhuman deities of suffering with nifty superpowers such as immortality, collecting and housing displaced spirits, and mind control. If the point needs to be further hammered in, you can simply point out that kicking a dog will not endow you with said superpowers.

Now, on to the actual breakdown of the argument. The statement "evil exists, therefore the devil exists" can only be true if the Devil is the only possible cause of evil. This is then easily refuted.

-Biblically speaking, the Devil is not the sole cause of evil. Jeremiah 11:11: Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.
     Clearly, God himself is also capable of being a right bastard, by his own admission.

-Stating that the Devil is the sole cause of all evil directly contradicts any claims of Modern Psychiatry; since it is impossible for Man to be the primary cause of any evil, brainwashing, psychological warfare, and even simple name calling are all perfectly acceptable forms of behavior, and cannot cause anyone subjected to it to act in an evil manner. In other words, never in the history of man has a kid thrown a rock at another kid for calling him a name, should his claim be true. If he claims that the Devil influenced the name caller, simply point out that it doesn't matter, because the name caller can't cause evil in anyone else, as this is something only the devil can do.

-Finally, if he claims that the Devil is the primary cause of evil's existance, but breaks down and admits that he doesn't actively cause all evil in existance himself, you can point out that this is equivelant to saying that there is some sort of "universal evil" that can be "spread". Typically, if you point this out to him, he will agree that yes, he believes there is a universal ethical standard, and yes, the statements are equivelant. You can then use standard ethical arguments against this premise. If you ever end up with a lot of time on your hands, I reccoment this link. It's a good introduction, at any rate. However, the easiest way to go about it is to point out conflicts between the concept of harm (you shouldn't do things that hurt others), and the concept of law (you shouldn't do things that are illegal/harm society). Basically, any example you can think of that is legal but hurts others, or is illegal but helps others (the whole stealing bread to feed your family bit), you've got it made. It helps prove your point if you get them to agree that they shouldn't break laws before you get into this.

-And of course, the standard Occam's razor applies; there ARE a wide variety of simpler explanations for evil than "the devil".

Anyway, hope this helps. Appologies for the wordiness.

ph'nglui mglw'nafh cthulhu r'leyh wgah'nagl f'htagn

Follow Ups:

• Resident Evil exists, therefore zombies exist -nt- posted by Hunter [12.255.181.7 - 12-255-181-7.client.attbi.com] on 04 September 2002 at 20.18.18 ZuluTime (0)