Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


Addition is a thing subtraction isn't - the logic of evil being a mere lower level (lack) of good

 

If an atheist rejects God for he sees suffering as useless and anything that deliberately allows it to happen like a God is worthy only of scorn and condemnation that is good.  He has the compassion to react that way.  To see suffering as something you would fight regardless of what God thought about it good or bad is even better.  To reject God as an atheist is to rise to being something better than the concept of God.  The atheist who is so enraged at suffering that he would lash out even at God and who is driven by it to do heroic things is to be admired above all the Mother Teresa's.  The rage is to be encouraged for though it is nice to be happy, being happy when others suffer is not acceptable.  You should be upset by it.

 

There is no such thing as suffering bringing out good in a person.  The person must have the good in them in the first place to be able to respond to suffering that way.  Suffering is useless in itself.  We praise the person for being good through suffering simply BECAUSE we see suffering as useless.

 

So far we seen that far from showing evil fits God, God itself is an evil doctrine.

 

Suffering needs to be defined accurately. To see it as just being unpleasantness is a form of objectifying the victim for it is more than that. It is the degradation of the victim by violently objectifying them – violence acts on them like object, makes them feel like objects. Depression for example makes you the same as if you were an object. That is the secret of its destructiveness.  For that reason, rejecting God should be seen as a duty.  No good purpose can justify suffering. 

 

Surely enough, Christianity says different!  It even goes as far as to say that Jesus chose to be murdered on a cross for our sins to show us that he sees value in suffering.  The value is never in the suffering but in the person.

 

Is evil a power?  Religion says it is not a thing at all - its just an absence of what should be there and is not there.  For example, the person who has hate in their heart is lacking love.  Hate in a sense is emptiness not a thing.

The doctrine tells you to think of evil as subtraction. It is good with something missing. For that reason evil is not the opposite of good. It is nothing and according to most is less than nothing. Nothing evil is a subtraction. It is not the opposite of goodness, and, if goodness were a sweater, evil would be like a moth eating holes in it.  Evil is nothing and worse than nothing.

So what if we ask where evil came from?  The doctrine says our question is not that but should be, “How does something that is less than nothing originate?” Answer: It does not; it has always been. Evil, like The Truth, exists on its own without the need for creation.

If good is addition and evil is subtraction then how do you know the good really is good? How do you know that there isn’t something missing so its just another evil but a better one?

A killer virus is good if it does what viruses do. Vesuvius was good for it destroyed all around it like good volcanoes do. This presupposes that the purpose for these things is do these things. If a virus is not made by any God but just appears naturally then you can decide that no purpose counts but what purpose it makes for itself and you don't care.  You will wipe it out with its purpose.  You are not saying, "It existed for a purpose and then God decided this purpose was no more which is why he gave me the purpose of destroying it."  That is total defiance and a refusal to say, "It was okay to have the virus as long as God gave it its purpose."  Such a view is fanatical - people suffer.  Nobody has the right to condone anything like that.

Religion says that, "People can use their free will in a way that diminishes them and blocks their potential to be what they should be."  So how could person x be equal to person y if person x is in some way managing to diminish herself as a person?  She is more "nothing" than y is.  The failure of love the sinner and hate the sin is apparent here.

Why can free will only allowing you to do reasonable good or perfect good not be considered real free will? Why can't it be a paradox? It is a paradox only if evil is totally non-good.

Good and evil and suffering and happiness need each other if this is the best possible universe and if there is a God. God will not let evil just happen for nothing even if it is just tolerated for the sake of us having free will. Tolerance