A God that is love? Devil is evil?

[Eddie.Brooke]

My Fiance and i have come up with many questions between the two of us. and boy am i glad i found this forum.

ok here are the questions and i really don't want to start a whole lot of crap but i welcome it at the same time.

1. If God is supposed to be all love and forgiveness then how do you explain the following?
sodom and gammora (forgive my spelling), the FLOOD, his Only son, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, world war 1 and 2, war in Iraq, ok war in general.
now it would seem to me that if "God" is love then he would stop the pain and suffering that comes with death in general. as far as i can think of there have been more killings and deaths done in the name if "God" than any other label.

2. if Satan "Lucifer" the Devil what ever you want to name him / her. then why is it that people that pray/worship him / her are usually the nicest people you will ever meet. and are 9 times out of 10 the quiet ones that stay out of everyone else's business. and when was the last time that you heard in the news that a bunch of satanic people were burning down a church?

now just to add my a little bit of my own piece of mind. there are all these religious groups and or religious affiliated groups that do nothing but as a collective (not on the person to person level because not everyone within a label is as zealous as the label describes) seem to do nothing but get in trouble by doing things that are usually either deadly (lynching, church burning, genocide, ect.) illegal ( cross burnings, vandalism, ect.) and so on.

i feel like i am rambling here so i will leave it at this for now and if needed i will add as responses come. thanks in advance for any and all comments and questions.

[ChaosBorders]

But I personally favor the definition of evil being an absence of good. Though my beliefs are not dependent upon the bible, the metaphor used therein of light and darkness I find quite appealing. It also solves the problem of God 'creating' evil in a much more elegant manner, in my opinion.

Sorry, can't follow you on this whole evil is the absence of good thing. I've heard the analogies before: darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, etc. But I think that this analogy simply doesn't work.

Light and heat are measurable physical phenomena expressed as photons, kcal, or whatever. Light is the absence of photons in the area. Absolute zero is the absence of heat. But good is not matter or energy. There is no evidence of a particle or wave of good. One does not beam goodness into an area to increase the amount of good.

Good is a moral choice deemed positive by an individual, group, society, etc. The absence of a good moral choice is not an evil moral choice but a lack of choice or action. Likewise, evil is not a thing but a moral choice deemed negative by individual, groups, etc. The absence of evil is not good but simply the lack of evil action.

If I am just sitting around doing nothing, I'm not being either good or evil because I am not performing a moral act (unless you for some reason think sitting around is intrinsically good or evil.)

It largely depends on the definitions you use and the perspective you are viewing it from. If you take a more panentheistic (or even just pantheistic) approach, I think the analogy works just fine by plenty of definitions of the word good, particularly if good is defined as actually having an objective reality past our subjective ascriptions of what is good. By this approach, no matter what you do has some measure of good; it is just a matter of what form (think colors), to what degree (think intensity), (both of which are not likely knowable from our perspective even if this is the case), and how perceivable it is (think ultra-violet or color blindness). The only way to be completely and totally 'evil' in this perspective is to just not exist.

Okay, I've got to ask. Is there a reason to suppose that the concept of Good has an objective reality? How would we determine that it exists or what things characterize Objective Good?

Purely a matter of faith, and even then you could never know precisely what qualifies. I merely suggest it as a possible solution to the question asked, with no claims regarding its veracity.

My personal reasons for choosing to believe there is some objective good is that I find the idea of it beautiful and it keeps my thought patterns from falling into the sociopathic levels of moral nihilism I know I am otherwise prone to.

[Metatron]

But I personally favor the definition of evil being an absence of good. Though my beliefs are not dependent upon the bible, the metaphor used therein of light and darkness I find quite appealing. It also solves the problem of God 'creating' evil in a much more elegant manner, in my opinion.

Sorry, can't follow you on this whole evil is the absence of good thing. I've heard the analogies before: darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, etc. But I think that this analogy simply doesn't work.

Light and heat are measurable physical phenomena expressed as photons, kcal, or whatever. Light is the absence of photons in the area. Absolute zero is the absence of heat. But good is not matter or energy. There is no evidence of a particle or wave of good. One does not beam goodness into an area to increase the amount of good.

Good is a moral choice deemed positive by an individual, group, society, etc. The absence of a good moral choice is not an evil moral choice but a lack of choice or action. Likewise, evil is not a thing but a moral choice deemed negative by individual, groups, etc. The absence of evil is not good but simply the lack of evil action.

If I am just sitting around doing nothing, I'm not being either good or evil because I am not performing a moral act (unless you for some reason think sitting around is intrinsically good or evil.)

It largely depends on the definitions you use and the perspective you are viewing it from. If you take a more panentheistic (or even just pantheistic) approach, I think the analogy works just fine by plenty of definitions of the word good, particularly if good is defined as actually having an objective reality past our subjective ascriptions of what is good. By this approach, no matter what you do has some measure of good; it is just a matter of what form (think colors), to what degree (think intensity), (both of which are not likely knowable from our perspective even if this is the case), and how perceivable it is (think ultra-violet or color blindness). The only way to be completely and totally 'evil' in this perspective is to just not exist.

Okay, I've got to ask. Is there a reason to suppose that the concept of Good has an objective reality? How would we determine that it exists or what things characterize Objective Good?

Purely a matter of faith, and even then you could never know precisely what qualifies. I merely suggest it as a possible solution to the question asked, with no claims regarding its veracity.

My personal reasons for choosing to believe there is some objective good is that I find the idea of it beautiful and it keeps my thought patterns from falling into the sociopathic levels of moral nihilism I know I am otherwise prone to.

Sociopathic levels of moral nihilism? Yikes! Far be it from me to try to talk you out of believing in objective good if that's the alternative!!!

[ChaosBorders]

Sociopathic levels of moral nihilism? Yikes! Far be it from me to try to talk you out of believing in objective good if that's the alternative!!!

Yep. Fortunately the exact nature of my beliefs is non-falsifiable to an absurd degree, and I can think of no reason I would willingly give them up. So barring brain damage, I am not likely to revert.

[Metatron]

Sociopathic levels of moral nihilism? Yikes! Far be it from me to try to talk you out of believing in objective good if that's the alternative!!!

Yep. Fortunately the exact nature of my beliefs is non-falsifiable to an absurd degree, and I can think of no reason I would willingly give them up. So barring brain damage, I am not likely to revert.

Well, that's a relief.

[BwhoUR]

Most religions attempt to teach it's members that good deeds are not enough to get on god's good side. You have to worship, you have to suffer for your god, you have to prove yourself worthy of his love, you have to go against your better instincts and logic because you can't be trusted to make your own decisions. Hence, people take the bible and look for ways of proving that they are believers. This leads to things as repulsive to human nature as "witch" burning, child sacrifice, refusal of medical intervention in favor of prayer, allowing suffering of self or others in god's name, repressing of natural instincts, sex hangups, fighting other religons for supremacy, and attempts to stop scientific advances in favor of basking in the ignorance of miracles and fairy tales.

As a believer (Jehova's Witness), I too, lived this way. Then I turned 11.

As an Athiest, I look at what people do and why they do it, to define myself and others. The most laughable question from religious people is how can an Athiest be a moral person. As if it's hard to be a good person and not commit murder, rape, and incest. As if religion and morality are the same thing. They forget, that the first thing THEY are taught is that being a good person isn't enough. They forget that RELIGION has told them that they were born sinners.

Will some religious people become criminals, drug addicts, sex fiends, and child molesters if they leave their religion? Maybe, but maybe that's because they have been taught that the only thing keeping them from this abhorent behavior is religion. Maybe they were already those things to begin with.

Or maybe it will be a short learning curve and, after having a few meaningless one night stands or puking their guts out from too much alcohol or drugs, or whatever it was they thought they always wanted to do, they will eventually find a moral compass, which I believe happens in most cases since you don't hear about a lot of Athiest's molesting deaf children or burning down churches.

[ChaosBorders]

Or maybe it will be a short learning curve and, after having a few meaningless one night stands or puking their guts out from too much alcohol or drugs, or whatever it was they thought they always wanted to do, they will eventually find a moral compass, which I believe happens in most cases since you don't hear about a lot of Athiest's molesting deaf children or burning down churches.

Strictly speaking, you don't hear a lot about atheists in general. There just aren't that many of them comparatively. And even if they do something, it is not as shocking, so not as likely to make the news as a priest doing it or some such.

But I kind of worry what any of this has to do with the OP?

[BwhoUR]

Or maybe it will be a short learning curve and, after having a few meaningless one night stands or puking their guts out from too much alcohol or drugs, or whatever it was they thought they always wanted to do, they will eventually find a moral compass, which I believe happens in most cases since you don't hear about a lot of Athiest's molesting deaf children or burning down churches.

Strictly speaking, you don't hear a lot about atheists in general. There just aren't that many of them comparatively. And even if they do something, it is not as shocking, so not as likely to make the news as a priest doing it or some such.

But I kind of worry what any of this has to do with the OP?

I think I was just trying to acknowledge that not all Athiests are nice people, that they are infallible just as religious people are. Reminding myself I guess.

[McCulloch]

Strictly speaking, you don't hear a lot about atheists in general.

But you do hear a lot about people where religion is not mentioned or relevant. Guess what? Some of those would be atheists. We do not all wear our atheism on our sleeve.

There just aren't that many of them comparatively.

Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist. You might even know a few.

Atheists have been intimidated and discriminated against for many centuries. Enough already! There is no need for us to remain hidden. Atheist OUT campaign.

[BwhoUR]

Strictly speaking, you don't hear a lot about atheists in general.

But you do hear a lot about people where religion is not mentioned or relevant. Guess what? Some of those would be atheists. We do not all wear our atheism on our sleeve.

There just aren't that many of them comparatively.

Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist. You might even know a few.

Atheists have been intimidated and discriminated against for many centuries. Enough already! There is no need for us to remain hidden. Atheist OUT campaign.

If Chaosborders was implying that Athiests' immoral rampages are just not televised much, I missed it. Whoops. No, I don't believe that at all.

[ChaosBorders]

Strictly speaking, you don't hear a lot about atheists in general.

But you do hear a lot about people where religion is not mentioned or relevant. Guess what? Some of those would be atheists. We do not all wear our atheism on our sleeve.

I am aware. I think I misread sukka's statement in that I thought he was making an implication of atheists not committing crimes while making a reference to theists who do, but he was actually acknowledging that atheists do also make mistakes and emphasizing that most of them aren't as bad as some are portrayed.

My apologies on that, I was rushing more than I should have been. I now see my comment is not actually relevant to this particular conversation.

There just aren't that many of them comparatively.

Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist. You might even know a few.

Atheists have been intimidated and discriminated against for many centuries. Enough already! There is no need for us to remain hidden. Atheist OUT campaign.

I know quite a few actually. My best friend from high school is, as well as most of the crowd he hangs out with. Unfortunately, he has given over to full blown alcoholism since we started college, which I wish were not the case given that sober he is one of the most interesting people I know. Drunk...not so much.