"Made For Life"

[lucaspa]

No place to put heaven seems to me like among the least reasons to disbelieve it. Lack of any positive evidence seems a better one.

That's a really bad one. "Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence".

As a physicist, what is your position on tachyons or time travel? Do you disbelieve either? Both? Do you believe either? Both?

Christians say such a variety of things, but yes, I certainly have heard it suggested that "god' would be outside the universe.
Seems a bit facile, compared to you usual standards.

A bit of ad hom thrown in? An integral part of Judeo-Christianity is that Yahweh is outside the universe. It starts in Genesis 1 where God creates the universe as a separate thing. The claim is continued all thru the Bible.

These things are so far beyond anyone's ken! Which seems to me one of a good many reasons not to be assuming that we have detected the key to all reality; "god".

Ah. But according to theism, ultimate reality is trying to contact us.
"Science leads us to hope that complete understanding is potentially within the grasp of human collective reason, but science is not overly confident of finding it. 'I think I may find out 'how' but I'm not so optimistic of finding out 'why'. If I knew that, I would know everything important', says Stephen Hawking. John Barrow writes: 'There is no formula that can deliver all truth, all harmony, all simplicity. NO Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight. For, to see through everything would leave us seeing nothing at all.' But St. Paul wrote: 'Now we see but a poor relflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.' Religion is far more optimistic than science that in some manner beyond our present concept of human reason, we can know 'everything important'. Perhaps the most significant difference between science and religion is that science thinks that on this quest we are entirely on our own. Religion tells us that although we who seek the truth may ride imaginary horses, Truth also seeks *us*. K. Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pp 282-283.

Again, you seem off your feed; you usually do so much better than that.

That is what is known as a non-denial denial.

And then you mess ti up with the utterly odd notion that I'd try to convert you, which i wouldnt for a second try that.

I don't think you realize you are doing it. OTOH, when you follow this with the threat below:

Seriously here, when you concoct things out of thin air, it does nothing for your credibility in other areas..

And here you break out the Poisoning the Well fallacy. Perhaps you do know what you are doing. If you give out a reason that has no counter, that is absolutely valid, aren't you saying that reason is "proof"?

When you ventured "lack of any positive evidence", were you thinking that there may be positive evidence that you hadn't heard about, or that we haven't found yet? Or are you thinking like the Positivists that, if there is no positive evidence, then the entity doesn't exist? IOW, is that a reason or a "proof" in your mind?

To me, it sounds like you are using it as "proof". Whether you intend it or not, that is how it is coming off.

I was actually just asking you what you thought about the topic, not what you think of me.

Your original post wasn't directed at me, remember? It was directed to juvenissun. Now, are you saying that you wanted juvenissun to answer? Or did you think you had a question that juvenissun couldn't provide an answer to?

 

[Hespera]

That's a really bad one. "Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence".

As a physicist, what is your position on tachyons or time travel? Do you disbelieve either? Both? Do you believe either? Both?


A bit of ad hom thrown in? An integral part of Judeo-Christianity is that Yahweh is outside the universe. It starts in Genesis 1 where God creates the universe as a separate thing. The claim is continued all thru the Bible.



Ah. But according to theism, ultimate reality is trying to contact us.
"Science leads us to hope that complete understanding is potentially within the grasp of human collective reason, but science is not overly confident of finding it. 'I think I may find out 'how' but I'm not so optimistic of finding out 'why'. If I knew that, I would know everything important', says Stephen Hawking. John Barrow writes: 'There is no formula that can deliver all truth, all harmony, all simplicity. NO Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight. For, to see through everything would leave us seeing nothing at all.' But St. Paul wrote: 'Now we see but a poor relflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.' Religion is far more optimistic than science that in some manner beyond our present concept of human reason, we can know 'everything important'. Perhaps the most significant difference between science and religion is that science thinks that on this quest we are entirely on our own. Religion tells us that although we who seek the truth may ride imaginary horses, Truth also seeks *us*. K. Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pp 282-283.



That is what is known as a non-denial denial.



I don't think you realize you are doing it. OTOH, when you follow this with the threat below:



And here you break out the Poisoning the Well fallacy. Perhaps you do know what you are doing. If you give out a reason that has no counter, that is absolutely valid, aren't you saying that reason is "proof"?

When you ventured "lack of any positive evidence", were you thinking that there may be positive evidence that you hadn't heard about, or that we haven't found yet? Or are you thinking like the Positivists that, if there is no positive evidence, then the entity doesn't exist? IOW, is that a reason or a "proof" in your mind?

To me, it sounds like you are using it as "proof". Whether you intend it or not, that is how it is coming off.


Your original post wasn't directed at me, remember? It was directed to juvenissun. Now, are you saying that you wanted juvenissun to answer? Or did you think you had a question that juvenissun couldn't provide an answer to?

.

That's a really bad one. "Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence

A saying that applies sometimes and not others. so a person makes up something, then uses your saying to support it? Or to claim that dinosaurs still roam wyoming?

As a physicist, what is your position on tachyons or time travel? Do you disbelieve either? Both? Do you believe either? Both?

As a non-physicist, i dont have an opinion on those.

A bit of ad hom thrown in? An integral part of Judeo-Christianity is that Yahweh is outside the universe. It starts in Genesis 1 where God creates the universe as a separate thing. The claim is continued all thru the Bibl

Oh come now. Naming more "fallacies" as if they were there. its not an ad hom, its just an observation, that Christians do say any number of the oddest and most conflicting things! Some of them may well be right!
If you say that "outside the universe" is integral with Christianity, ok. You know better than I on that, I will accept it. For whatever value it has, of that Im not sure.

Ah. But according to theism, ultimate reality is trying to contact us

Ok, that is the conceit. I knew that, and really, I think a maker of the universe could come up with a way that would work. If it tried.

That is what is known as a non-denial denial.

i can name things too. You prefer that i say it straight, ok.. YOU GOT THIS WRONG, as you did with the other things you made up.

But, when you start putting out what seem to you to be excellent reasons for your belief, reasons that you think can't be answered, at that point you are trying to convert me .

I don't think you realize you are doing it. OTOH, when you follow this with the threat below:

You dont know me better than I know myself. And there is no "threat"; not even a menace. And the idea of trying to convert you? Honestly.

Hespera..

Seriously here, when you concoct things out of thin air, it does nothing for your credibility in other areas.

Where is the "threat"? i see you making up things about me, i have to wonder what else you make up. They do that in court, too.

You wont have any luck there saying ah that is a fallacy. in court, name it whatever fallacy you like, its legit, valid, and does bring doubt to bear on credibility.

Perhaps you do know what you are doing. If you give out a reason that has no counter, that is absolutely valid, aren't you saying that reason is "proof"?

Actually, I do. And no, I'm not such a limp wit as to think thats proof.

When you ventured "lack of any positive evidence", were you thinking that there may be positive evidence that you hadn't heard about, or that we haven't found ye

Sure, there could be. Who knows?

To me, it sounds like you are using it as "proof". Whether you intend it or not, that is how it is coming off

Well its not what I intend, maybe read it with it in mind that I may be a sensible and somewhat educated person, who wouldnt indulge in such nonsense.

Hespera
I was actually just asking you what you thought about the topic, not what you think of me

Your original post wasn't directed at me, remember? It was directed to juvenissun. Now, are you saying that you wanted juvenissun to answer? Or did you think you had a question that juvenissun couldn't provide an answer to?

Well I guess I remember, since i pointed out that i just asked YOU what you thought on the topic.
.
What's this "now are you saying"? i didnt change anything.


I dont expect any answer from Juv, one reason being that he near invariably 'answers" any question with a question of his own, often quite irrelevant to the topic.

But then seemed to indicate he had some sort of idea, and I wondered what it was.

 

[AV1611VET]

The earth would last after a coment or asteroid strike. We wouldn't.

Yes, we will.

Many Fundamentalists are convinced we are in the "last days", how did you come up with the 1,000 year figure, AV?

Here's the strike, which occurs during the Tribulation:

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
Revelation 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

Here is a populated earth, going through the 1000 year millennial reign:

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Here is the earth, fleeing from the presence of God at the Great White Throne Judgment:

Revelation 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

And finally, here is the earth being destroyed:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder what you and other fundamentalists would do if we got hit by a Gamma Ray Burst tomorrow. No rapture. No anti-Christ. No Beast. No battle at Armageddon. Would you give up on Dispensationism? Or Christianity in general? Just before we all die, of course.

That's why you have to wonder about it -- it'll never happen.

As I have said before, so shall I say again: anyone can make a prophecy; those are a dime a dozen -- but the real "trick" is to keep a prophecy from happening.

 

[lucaspa]

A saying that applies sometimes and not others. so a person makes up something, then uses your saying to support it? Or to claim that dinosaurs still roam wyoming?

Ah, but here we have evidence of absence. Why? Because we can search the entire search space. That is, we can look at all of Wyoming and find no dinosaurs. Thus, the hypothesis is falsified. BTW, this is also how unicorns get falsified.

Oh come now. Naming more "fallacies" as if they were there. its not an ad hom, its just an observation,

Sorry, but "Seems a bit facile, compared to you usual standards" is Appeal to Ridicule: Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule. You are calling the argument "facile", but not providing any counterargument or evidence at all.

that Christians do say any number of the oddest and most conflicting things! Some of them may well be right!

Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. There are independent sources to check to see just what Christianity says.

Ok, that is the conceit. I knew that, and really, I think a maker of the universe could come up with a way that would work. If it tried.

It has worked for most people. An alternative hypothesis is that the method doesn't work on you because of you, not deity

YOU GOT THIS WRONG,

So you are not trying to convince people to be atheist?

And there is no "threat"; not even a menace. And the idea of trying to convert you?

Where is the "threat"?

You seriously don't see it? "Seriously here, when you concoct things out of thin air, it does nothing for your credibility in other areas.."

This is classic Poisoning the Well fallacy. Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

i see you making up things about me, i have to wonder what else you make up. They do that in court, too.

And it's a fallacy in court, too. It's a good debating trick, but aren't we supposed to be concerned with the claims and evidence?

Sure, there could be. Who knows?

Thank you.

Well its not what I intend,

Thank you again. May I suggest in the future you say something like "I have not seen enough evidence to convince me" instead of "there is a lack of any positive evidence"? That will make your intent crystal clear to me and everyone else.

Well I guess I remember, since i pointed out that i just asked YOU what you thought on the topic.

You asked Juvenissun the question. I answered it uninvited by you, and you asked me to explain my answer.

I dont expect any answer from Juv, one reason being that he near invariably 'answers" any question with a question of his own, often quite irrelevant to the topic.

That's one reason. What are the others?

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, we will.

Here's the strike, which occurs during the Tribulation:

You seem to have skipped quite a bit going from Rev 8 to Rev 20. For instance, in Rev 12 there is war in heaven and Satan is cast out. Don't you think Satan is already cast out and not in heaven anymore? So don't you think the clock is already ticking?

Of course, from Rev 14 you also think that only 144,000 will be saved, right?

Just trying to get an idea of how literally you are reading Revelations.

Here is a populated earth, going through the 1000 year millennial reign:

Judging from what happens in Rev 8 to this point, that's not really a "populated" earth. Rather, it's a shattered remnant of survivors.

Here is the earth, fleeing from the presence of God at the Great White Throne Judgment:

Revelation 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

I'm curious what you think about verses 12-15, because those have people being judged on their works, not on their faith.

And finally, here is the earth being destroyed:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

That's not quite what Rev 21:1 says: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone. "

Nothing about noise or fire, just "disappeared". So why do you pick 2 Peter as the way the planet ends instead of Rev 21:1?

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to have skipped quite a bit going from Rev 8 to Rev 20. For instance, in Rev 12 there is war in heaven and Satan is cast out. Don't you think Satan is already cast out and not in heaven anymore? So don't you think the clock is already ticking?

Let's not change the focus, or we'll go 35 posts and not get anywhere.

The point I'm making, is that this earth is not going to be destroyed by something from space; it is going to be destroyed by a direct act of God after the next dispensation.

In the meantime, I don't care if Beltegeuse hits the earth -- it will still be here until God destroys it, Himself.

 

[lucaspa]

Let's not change the focus, or we'll go 35 posts and not get anywhere.

This is the focus. You claimed we had 1,000 years. I asked for your evidence. You provided Revelations. But Revelations seems to indicate that the clock has been ticking. There goes your 1,000 years. I can understand why you want to change the subject. The questions were a bit difficult to answer, weren't they?

The point I'm making, is that this earth is not going to be destroyed by something from space; it is going to be destroyed by a direct act of God after the next dispensation.

In the meantime, I don't care if Beltegeuse hits the earth -- it will still be here until God destroys it, Himself.

Well, that's what Revelations indicates. However, if Betegeuse hits earth, earth will be vaporized. Unless you think God is going to step in an miraculously let earth pass thru a star without being vaporized?

AV, there is a difference between the physical and logical consequences and whether an event will happen. You can't argue against the physical and logical consequences. The best you can argue is your belief that none of the possibilities will actually happen and that God will directly destroy the earth.

 

[Hespera]

Ah, but here we have evidence of absence. Why? Because we can search the entire search space. That is, we can look at all of Wyoming and find no dinosaurs. Thus, the hypothesis is falsified. BTW, this is also how unicorns get falsified.



Sorry, but "Seems a bit facile, compared to you usual standards" is Appeal to Ridicule: Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule. You are calling the argument "facile", but not providing any counterargument or evidence at all.



Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. There are independent sources to check to see just what Christianity says.



It has worked for most people. An alternative hypothesis is that the method doesn't work on you because of you, not deity



So you are not trying to convince people to be atheist?

And there is no "threat"; not even a menace. And the idea of trying to convert you?



You seriously don't see it? "Seriously here, when you concoct things out of thin air, it does nothing for your credibility in other areas.."

This is classic Poisoning the Well fallacy. Fallacy: Poisoning the Well



And it's a fallacy in court, too. It's a good debating trick, but aren't we supposed to be concerned with the claims and evidence?


Thank you.


Thank you again. May I suggest in the future you say something like "I have not seen enough evidence to convince me" instead of "there is a lack of any positive evidence"? That will make your intent crystal clear to me and everyone else.



You asked Juvenissun the question. I answered it uninvited by you, and you asked me to explain my answer.



That's one reason. What are the others?

Ah, but here we have evidence of absence. Why? Because we can search the entire search space. That is, we can look at all of Wyoming and find no dinosaurs. Thus, the hypothesis is falsified. BTW, this is also how unicorns get falsified

.

That makes sense, sure. But you cant falsify invisible unicorns.
My take is that there is a need for some sort of evidence before the topic is worth much consideration.

Sorry, but "Seems a bit facile, compared to you usual standards" is Appeal to Ridicule: Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule. You are calling the argument "facile", but not providing any counterargument or evidence at all.

You do so love to label things, as if attaching a label made it that thing.
Im not ridiculing you, actually i generally respect and am interested in what you have to say. i thought if you said something shallow, I could mention it and not have to write a treatise on it. if you are satisfied that you said something meaningful, be satisfied.

So you are not trying to convince people to be atheist"

Not at all. i dont think there is a god, but i respect people's choice to believe; how am i to know, any better than they, who is right?

With things like "how come there are still monkeys" I foolishly try to show people where they get things wrong. You are not in that category.

It absolutely would not cross my mind to try to get you to be an atheist, as i think i said some few times now; so can you just accept it?

You seriously don't see it? "Seriously here, when you concoct things out of thin air, it does nothing for your credibility in other areas.."

This is classic Poisoning the Well fallacy. Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

You seriously consider that a threat or a fallacy?

And as for court, poison or fallacy, IF you make up things and then state them as fact in court, you will be guilty of perjury and calling threat or fallacy wont help a bit.

Ok, that is the conceit. I knew that, and really, I think a maker of the universe could come up with a way that would work. If it tried.
​

It has worked for most people. An alternative hypothesis is that the method doesn't work on you because of you, not deity

hee hee I can think of a way more likely alternative than either of yours.

Thank you again. May I suggest in the future you say something like "I have not seen enough evidence to convince me" instead of "there is a lack of any positive evidence"? That will make your intent crystal clear to me and everyone else.

To my knowledge there is no evidence that any sort of god exists, nor anything supernatural of any sort. If you know of evidence that there is, then I would sincerely like to know what it is. i will stick with how I said it, or change it, accordingly.

Well I guess I remember, since i pointed out that i just asked YOU what you thought on the topic.
​

You asked Juvenissun the question. I answered it uninvited by you, and you asked me to explain my answer.

I dont expect any answer from Juv, one reason being that he near invariably 'answers" any question with a question of his own, often quite irrelevant to the topic.
​

That's one reason. What are the others?

yes, i did ask you to explain your answer, i dont know why you went off on so many personal remarks!

I dont like to have this kind of exchange with you; in the future, if its restricted to issues its gonna be smoother. Your impressions of me are welcome enough if you'd state them as impressions or questions not statements of fact!

i actually value the quality of most of your thoughts far beyond those of any other Christian on this forum.

I dont want to get into a senseless dispute.

Other reasons? Other reasons that i didnt expect any answer or a meaningful one from Juv?

If you want to know, I guess I can tell you but I dont much want to post more here about him.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, there is a difference between the physical and logical consequences and whether an event will happen. You can't argue against the physical and logical consequences. The best you can argue is your belief that none of the possibilities will actually happen and that God will directly destroy the earth.

Um ... I don't know if you realize this, but Jesus has another 225 prophecies concerning Himself yet to be fulfilled.

Daniel 9:24, for instance, tells us that the Tribulation/Millennial Reign will be for their fulfillment.

As an example, Isaiah 9 says:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Where has Jesus ever reigned with the 'government on His shoulder'?

When will He be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace?

Remember when He was here before? he was called a 'deceiver' by [prescient] Internet scientists, then crucified.

He was never even considered to be 'God'.

In His first advent, Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies concerning Himself -- mostly as the Isaiah 53 Suffering Servant.

When He comes back again, He will fulfill the other 225 prophecies, concerning Himself as the Isaiah 11 Reigning Monarch.

Please answer this with a YES or a NO:

Do you want me to believe that God is going to stand by and let some asteroid or some comet or whatever hit the earth and wipe out another 225 prophecies that are still pending?

Satan would have a field day come judgement time.

Note: you want to call me Omphalos? how about I call you Preterist?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

In His first advent, Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies concerning Himself -- mostly as the Isaiah 53 Suffering Servant.

Please highlight "Jesus." Please highlight "cross." Please highlight anything you feel demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that this passage indicates it is Jesus of Galilee.


Isaiah 53


1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[TerranceL]

Too pure, is it?

Too make believe.

 

[Supernaut]

I wonder what you and other fundamentalists would do if we got hit by a Gamma Ray Burst tomorrow. No rapture. No anti-Christ. No Beast. No battle at Armageddon. Would you give up on Dispensationism? Or Christianity in general? Just before we all die, of course.

No more fairy tales then? Oh noes!!!!!!

 

[Split Rock]

Does this mean that a God who made the earth for life could not have created the universe?

Or is He the one protecting us from the universe?

The question actually is, "why would God create a universe for, us that was so hostile to us?"

 

[Upisoft]

The question actually is, "why would God create a universe for, us that was so hostile to us?"

Ever played evil god in a computer game? It is fun, being good God is boring. So if something is good for God, it must be good for us (according to the morality theists have).

 

[AV1611VET]

The question actually is, "why would God create a universe for, us that was so hostile to us?"

He didn't.

 

[Split Rock]

Let's not change the focus, or we'll go 35 posts and not get anywhere.

The point I'm making, is that this earth is not going to be destroyed by something from space; it is going to be destroyed by a direct act of God after the next dispensation.

In the meantime, I don't care if Beltegeuse hits the earth -- it will still be here until God destroys it, Himself.

Why destroy his own creation? Why bother cleansing the earth with a flood, when he is going to destroy it later anyway? Why wait thousands of years before fixing his own fallen creation? Why shove Lucifer/Satan into a pit and then release him a thousand years later for a brief time? Is Lucifer/Satan God's attack dog? How does God expect us to not sin when he inflicted us with Lucifer/Satan in the first place? Even worse, he later inflicts us with the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Anti-Christ. How long should we expect an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect creator to not fix his botched creation before we stop calling him all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ever played evil god in a computer game? It is fun, being good God is boring.

I've heard that many times before.

They say, for instance, that D&D is just a game, yet it's interesting that most people choose to be evil characters over good ones.

There was a famous case out of Michigan when I was in my early 20's -- something about four Michigan college students committing suicide, I think.

 

[Split Rock]

He didn't.

Did you read the Cracked article? Are you denying the truth of Cracked magazine??

 

[Split Rock]

I've heard that many times before.

They say, for instance, that D&D is just a game, yet it's interesting that most people choose to be evil characters over good ones.

Yeah, if you look at WOW (which I myself don't play), all the more mature and experienced players play the "evil" side (the Hoard). Funny thing is, I would rather play the "good" side (Alliance)... who wants to be an orc, or ally themselves with orcs... seriously? I guess plenty of other people do, though.