God and Devil
 

The pain and suffering which world endures can only exist in retaliation to something excessively good and pure. We feel the pain because we know state of no pain. First we are given gospel of truth and then thrown into lies. who attested those truths? Is he who opposes god a devil? Then he opposes no more than what god tells us to oppose, evil. God and devil are no different but mere conception of human mind. Both are same. Nothing has hurt mankind more than its god. He who is born out of ashes can rise no above.

I think mankind and it's interpretation of God, their gospels of truth, etc. hurts mankind more than God does.

God and devil are no different but mere conception of human mind. Both are same. Nothing has hurt mankind more than its god. He who is born out of ashes can rise no above.

Seriously, philosophy is dead.

What is this crap.


BE MORE COHERENT

Funny, I was thinking that this was one of mystic's better posts. He uses punctuation, upper and lower case letters, and makes some interesting philosophical points.

Okay, okay...I'm Mystic Rythm. Sorry to put you all through this...carry on.

You filthy, unwashed, stinky liar!

Look man, it's only been 3 days since my last shower.

I will then come back as BannedSycamore, call you all a bunch of fucking idiots™ and photoshop something mean-spirited involving you.

I think that everything has an opposite.

Therefore if there is a God that represents love, creation, truth, compassion and justice, there is an opposite force (a "devil") that represents hate, destruction, lies, indifference and injustice.

In the Christian mindset, the devil is not as powerful as God, because Lucifer was once an angel, created by God. This means that ultimately, Good will triumph over Evil, as good is (in the long run) more powerful than evil. This is then further ensured by Jesus' sacrifice and ascension, enabling him to come back to earth and meet Lucifer face to face, and subduing him.

Other pantheons have similar concepts in different forms, but the idea in most is centered on good vs. evil. If you do good, you will advance, be rewarded. If you do evil, you will not advance, be punished.

It is the timeless struggle.

Or just bollocks.

IIRC, this argument is an official Catholic heresy. Watch out for Spaniards with lighted brands.

You know how sometimes you get a thought so uncomfortable you banish it before it has a chance to root.

I just wondered the opposite of your point.

I think I will choose to banish that opposite thought.

Better resonate one's own personality: good or bad, weak or strong!

What the hell does that mean?

I knew sycamore was just joshin'! There's no way he could be that incoherent.

I've seen the man drunk.

He just can't do it.

The devil is Ned Flanders....

Let us confess it: evil strides the world." Voltaire

"The world has always been ruled by Lucifer. The world is evil call his name, my love. Call the name of lucifer." Ritual of Evil"

If religion is a delusion due to wishes (Freud) Or bad society(marx) can't the same be said for atheism"?

Some may say the symbolism of christianity is a wonderful thing. However, trying to make it a philosophical system seems to me absurd.

I know this is off the subject, but I like the word resident denizin. The definition of a denizon and I am paraprasing; is one who inhabits a certain location. Therfore, I am a denizon of the philosophy site, not only for the occasionally intellectual converasations but also because I find more humor and arrogance than on any other site.

You probably mean denizen. I think 'converasations' is actually a pretty creative variation. I think I have done this before when I was choosing between two words and ended up combining them.

.

What a load of crap.

Seconded

3rd

It's great that you think it's a load of crap.

Mind saying WHY you think it's a load of crap?

Or try this: remove the phrase "they can't believe in God because" and re-read it. I don't think it's crap.

[/irony]

It's not so much a load of crap as it is meaningless.

People in general, atheist or no, are rarely involved in stopping the world's suffering.
People in general, world-suffering-healers or no, rarely talk like that. Most people are religious in some form or another.
The only way the concluding sentences can be tied to the first two parts is to associate self involvement with atheism, and feeling wonderful to being religious, which look more like the opinion of an unimaginative religious person than a meaningful statement.

Actually, in my discussions with people who don't believe in God, say one of the reasons is that "There is so much death and suffering in the world, how could a loving God allow that?"

Many of those people do nothing to help the people in the world (or even their own community) that are homeless, starving, need clothes or even a kind word. Why?

Because if there is no God, then we're all here by random chance, decended from animals, nothing more than a higher functioning ape. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, only the strong survive. There are haves and have-nots. If you have not, and can't get, then you die. End of problem.

What do you call two non sequitors in a row?

The "haves vs have-nots" view of the world is a completely different axis to the religious/nonreligious view. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're religious, you just say that the way things are is the will of God. If you don't want to help less fortunate people, and you're not religious, you just make that social darwinism argument (Or, in either case, you can just admit you're selfish and/or lazy). If you're generous, you can either say that you are carrying out the will of God, or that you have empathy.

The view that the only reason to help the less fortunate is because God says so is a very simplistic ethical system. Your characterization of nonreligious people wanting to let the weak die to increase the strength of the species is one of the confusions you are succeptible to when you equate evolution with religion. Evolution is something that happens, not something to worship.

But that's not what the quote was about.

The quote was about people, in their argument against believing in God, say they don't believe in him because there is suffering in the world.

Those same people (the majority of them) do NOT help the suffering.

I would say many people of faith (whatever faith it is, usually) do help suffering people more than atheists or humanists. Whether they do it because God said so or becaue they are good people is open to debate.

But the fact remains that more often, the people who help people in need are people of faith.

Of course, people can always make up excuses not to help people, (or simply say "I don't want to help people"). So I do see your point that not all religious people help, and not all atheists or agnostics don't help. But I would say generally, it's rare that people who do help suffering people complain that they don't believe in God because people are suffering.

It's a load of crap because it buys into that strange phenomenon I've noticed a few times, the notion that Christianity has some kind of monopoly (patent pending!) on morals and ideals that happen to be contained in Christian teachings. HM is dead on.

No. It doesn't remain. It never was, it's a figment of your fucking worldview without the slimmest shred of evidence or logic behind it. In fact, it's a big fucking insult to a lot of very hard working, dedicated people that don't feel that they need some deity looking over their shoulder to make some serious sacrifices for the good of others.

I've seen plenty of self-proclaimed Christians who do nothing to help the less fortunate. Most people do fuck all to help others, irrespective of religion. I've also met both religious and non-religious people that do dedicate their lives to helping others. Religion really has little or nothing to do with it. Except that most if not all Christian aid 'charities' make sure that that daily bread only comes after your prayers whereas others are more worried about helping than indoctrinating desperate, deeply vunerable people with their agenda.

And What I was saying is that there is no reason to believe that. The majority of ALL people don't help the suffering. You have nothing more than your general feeling to justify your claim that the rate is different based on faith.
And the fact also remains that more often, the people who DON'T help people in need are people of faith - there are just more people of faith.

I don't think morals and beliefs like "Do unto others" is only able to be practiced by Christians.

I don't have any figures, but I don't know any people who are Christian that think that way.

Now there is an argument that can be made about western culture and the notion of right and wrong and western morals being heavily influenced by Christian thought, especially the United States, which began as a fundamentalist Christian society. But that's another thread... :)

And why do you think that is?

Woah!

I never said that only people who help people have a particular faith, or believe in a diety. In fact, I said the opposite.

Calm down, Jag.

In my opinion? Most people are raised religious, and feel no need to upset the boat.

No. That's the point. You don't have any figures. You're making up stuff that fits your very specific worldview. Period. There is absolutely zero evidence that people of faith help other people more or less than atheists. Nada. Null. Zip. Zero. That's the point. I don't think it's rare at all, most of the people I know that have done work in some truly horrible hellholes are very certain that god clearly has taken one serious hiatus or must utterly love suffering.

I'll post your a friend's anthropology dissertation if you want. People used to think storms were when the gods were angry too. Religion evaporates as society progresses.

I would say that ignorance evaporates as society progresses. Ignorance being that which can be disproven. And I think most would agree that disentangling ignorance from religion can only be good.

I'll disagree in advance with any assertion (not aimed at any single poster) that religion = ignorance.

Religion is a symptom of ignorance*.






*It's a symptom of schizophrenia as well, but we'll save that one for another thread.

ok, TS - that sounds very pseudo-intellectual. let me make sure i understand the logic trail here. you find no value in faith because it has never been made clear to you. i'm ok with that so far. but then you make the leap that only the ignorant can have a religious faith? tell me how this works.

Religion in the context I stated is simply a psychological structure (ideology) upon which inexplicable events are given rationale.

The issue I was not addressing:

Faith is the belief that something will, or will not, has or has not occured because of a given (revelatory) premise.

You're right. I can't quite articulate it correctly, that brush was a little too broad.

I would say ignorant people are more likely to be religious but that doesn't mean religious people are ignorant.

However on a broader sociological scale religion is on the decline and has been as science and technology have progressed. The only places religion seems to be growing are either stagnant or going backwards. Before you denounce me, show me a vibrant, forward looking economically growing society that is becoming *more* religious.

Not entirely sure about these statistics, but it does show a growing trend.

Boy, Confucius better keep his day job.

Oh, and thanks for bolding the important part. I was really scratchin' my head till I saw the bold part.

oh please.

Such as evolutionistic origins?

A swing and a miss...

1) I don't believe that there is enough information to point to what, if any, evolutionistic origins that you so demonize exist,
2) I specified revelatory information, not derived or theoretical.

and look at the places Islam is on the rise......I rest my case.

No, evolution is based on deriving a theory from evidence using scientific method.

I'm sensing sarcasm may be near, I better be wary...

OC & pro-religionists:

There is a very simple way to explain the conclusion that religion = load of crap.

There is more than one religion. (Bold, underline, highlight, etc.)

If there is more than one religion, how can any one be right? Clearly we have just created stories to help us make sense of the world, and I'm not saying this is wrong - it is much more pleasant than facing the realities of life. Still, the truth will out, and when something terrible happens to you, you will doubt your mischievous god. Either that or you will blame yourself, think it happened to 'teach you' something and throw yourself deeper into an ignorant faith that prevents you from seeing the real cause of your distress.

I hope I made that clear. We are all the same, us people. One species. No emotional, fear-led story can detract from that.

Easily, by the rest being wrong.

Look, we keep going in circles on this. I believe what I believe because of my experiences, not because I am delusional. I asked, God answered, I believe. Atheists don't ask, don't want to believe, wouldn't believe even if they had irrefutable evidence. Why? Because they hate the idea of God. If God exists, that means there is someone out there more important than them, which utterly demolishes their worldview. Satan pees his pants laughing every time an atheist utters their "free thought" nonsense.

We're all the same, Christian, atheist, Buddhist. Believing in Christ doesn't make me better than TS, DanaC, Catwoman or anyone else. In fact, they and any other number of people are probably better than me in most if not all ways. But I recognize my sin, realize who it's offending, and ask forgiveness from him. How is that "throwing myself deeper into an ignorant faith that prevents me from seeing the real cause of my distress?" The cause of my distress is sin - you can't get any simpler or more fundamental than that.

This business of being a Christian to keep from going to our imaginary hell.....stow it. I will save us all alot more rambling posts by saying this once - believing in Christ is what gives me peace and eliminates my fear. The difference between you and me is, I admit I *have* fear, that I don't have all the answers and need help from God.



:P on a short fuse this a.m...spent all last night dreaming that I was running back and forth from the airport terminal to the parking garage. I kept forgetting stuff. Never did get on the plane.

Completely circular but correct on so many levels.

The only problem with that is deciding how to differentiate an unsubstantiated aural hallucination from the Voice of God(tm).

That's a rather cavalier handling of someone's opinion on deity and personal worth don't you think?

So what you're saying is that the only reason you believe in Jesus is because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Anybody want to start a thread where everybody tells about their running dream?

Maybe. As cavalier as "pfft. Anyone who believes in something that I haven't personally experienced is 'ignorant'"

I rarely, if ever, feel warm and fuzzy. You'll have to reread what I've said about why I believe, but what I get out of it is peace in the face of hard times. When something happens that I have no control over, I don't ask big bubba Jesus to come in and kick ass for me, I ask for the wisdom to react correctly and the peace to get me through it in as good a shape as possible.

I've never heard the Voice(tm). I've been strongly led by conscience to do certain things, even when they seem illogical at the time. That 'conscience' is what I believe to be the holy spirit. It's different than the normal conscience we think of that tells us "you shouldn't run that stop sign, that's against the law." It's more along the line of intuition, but with a deeper subtext - this so-called voice never tells you to do anything that's against the word of God, and your immediate instinct is to ignore it, because it almost always requires you to do something that you selfishly don't want to do.

It has nothing to do with self-validation or comfort, everything to do with doing what God wants. When a Christian does what God wants, they get peace. It's a good trade.

You will note that I have omitted 'from God' from your quote, Mr Noodle. Because until you said that, you were bang on.

People are afraid. That's why they have religion and relationships and children and war and suicide, etc etc etc. First step is to acknowledge the fear, which you have done. Second step is to accept it and go a little deeper into it. Almost no one gets to this stage (it's too scary). Third step is to realise it's empty - there's nothing here, which is very hard to accept. Final step is to accept there is nothing. THEN you can start to enjoy your life, and not be afraid.

Religion etc. fills the gap because it is a distraction, but it's not actually addressing your fear (if your fear was truly elimintated, you wouldn't need your religion).

You don't need help from 'god' or anyone else. You have all the answers already. The voices you hear are your own.

TS has adressed all my other points.

and still we argue the unproveable.

cat - do you realise that your scenario could be just as much an invention of a mind that doesn't want to believe a higher power than themselves exists?

that is not very different than what you are sure those with faith do - pick an ending (there is a higher power) and then choose or create a scenario to reach that conclusion.

you can't prove yours, noodle can't prove his.

one thing i notice *zips up flame retardent suit* those who are sure religion is for the birds are generally more insulting in explaining their logic than those who believe in God. to me it seems that Mrnoodle should be more emotionally entangled in his defense - he has his eternal soul on the block, after all. you and TS have absolutely nothing at risk if you are right, so why do you care so much if someone believes otherwise?

Yes, yes, but I'm talking about a real relationship with a real being whom I have experienced not physically or emotionally, but spiritually. This is the disconnect for us. You deny the existence of something that I utterly know to be real. I vouch for something that you have absolutely no grounds for belief in.

Therefore you see that the notion that "religion fills the gap because it's a distraction...the voices you hear are your own" has no reality for me, because I know it to be patently false. I don't wish it were false, I don't think it's false, I know it. Of course, you can say that's just a sign of how deeply deluded I am, but consider this: the only argument you have to offer is *lack* of experience. Atheists have an easy time of it in these arguments - they don't have to defend anything, they just have to poke and prod. "Show me" doesn't work unless you're willing to see.

I don't hate the idea of God, I just find it somewhat silly. On the other hand I know that there are many people out there who need no magic to be more important than me.

that's a start :thumbsup: