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?

 


WHEN IMMORALITY IS SEEN AS A NEAR-GOOD

Atheists and believers can hold that the values of love, compassion, mercy and justice are real and that bad deeds are just deeds that refuse to be as good as they can be. So evil is a lack of good and is not a power in its own right.

CALLING GOOD A PROBLEM INSULTS IT

Believers incidentally say, "To say like atheists do that there cannot be a God when there is such great suffering and evil makes no sense. The problem of so much evil and suffering happening under God's care does not justify abandoning God but justifies turning to him. Atheists are stuck with an insoluble problem of good. The problem of good reminds us that an atheist cannot account for why he calls say happiness good and suffering bad. Evil becomes an opinion rather than anything of real significance."

This shows that they see good in evil and evil is just damaging for it won't be good enough.
Believers insult good by describing it as a problem if there is no God. They don't know what good is when they can say that. They don't know that good will exist whether there is a God or not, whether there is anything or not. Imagine there is nothing at all. The rule not to murder still applies even though there are no people about to murder. The evil person has a warped sense of good that blinds him or her to what good is. That is what makes her or him bad. The God belief is making believers evil.

The argument that design and goodness in the universe and in people shows there must be a God to make the good is to be rejected for it insults good in the way we have shown. Christians sometimes say that God made all things and designed all things without intending it to be an argument for God. But argument or not, they are saying wicked things. If he did not intend the marks he left to be evidence they are still marks of goodness and show something of him. But we have a problem: we cannot understand that as real goodness. It is still assuming good and evil are to be weaponised for faith in God!

GOD HAS NO RIGHT TO ALLOW EVIL WHEN HE HAS NO FREE WILL

God has no freedom to sin and yet he is perfect so how can he have the right to make us as free agents who can sin? If he can do without the ability to sin why can't we?

The notion that God gives us free will is about trying to say that God loves us so much that he respects our free choice. But to respect our free choice is not the same as respecting us. You are not respecting a person if you freely let them freely do something very dangerous and bad.

AN ACTION IS REALLY A SUM OF ACTIONS

There is big picture to worry about all the time.

It is evil just to look at what "wrong" somebody has done. An action entails many direct actions and indirect ones. It entails many intentions. Not all the actions that compose an action are really intended. Judging then is a problem. You would need

Wanting to see evil is a sign you are evil so this says to avoid seeing evil or judging anybody as evil unless you cannot avoid doing so for the evidence is so clear.


THE DOCTRINE OF EVIL BEING HOSTILE

Evil is hostile to good and what is real. To say evil is the negation of good is to call it in some way hostile and intrinsically malevolent.

Saying evil is maladapted good is to say that it can make you love it and you can make yourself love it. Both things must happen before evil can be done.

The problem is that you are not really loving evil but what you wrongly think good is!

The accusation of loving evil proves that religious people and moralists slander you in the name of good.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THINKING EVIL IS A POWER?

If evil is a a power then it is stronger than God or can hold its own and thus should be assumed to be permanent.

If evil is permanent it will want us to assume it can burn out. Why can't evil be a power that will burn out? We cannot be sure of that. Evil afflicting some area and then vanishing means it may have gone elsewhere.

The notion that evil is an uncreated power means it is permanent and you can be permanently evil and it will never be overcome. It means there are many evils which there is no point in battling.

One reason why people are such inconsistent hypocrites is that they assume many people in need cannot be helped as if evil has them in its grip and evil is a power. They make that assumption against groups they feel nothing for.

The notion that evil is a power and the fact that evil does burn out implies that you should do evil just to use up the power so that it will be gone for good. Then those affected can move on. This inspires people to use the evil against their enemies or the worst people in society so that it is directed at them instead of being allowed to strike innocent people and maybe children.

Whether it burns out or not makes no difference to the harm done by seeing it as a real power.

Observations:

People rightly or wrongly do see evil as just that a power.

Many will not admit it.

Those who see some evil they encounter or find in themselves as permanent will believe the power is there so there is no option but to go along with it.

People probably are lying when they say they think good masters evil every time.

PARASITE OBJECTION IS ALL THEY HAVE GOT

The doctrine that good is real and evil is not real for it is a lack says evil is parasitic on good.

The logic is

Evil needs good

Evil is just a distortion of good

Evil is a parasite

Therefore that is all it is and it is not real.

This is not logical at all.

Imagine evil is a power as much as good is. That does not mean that it cannot pretend to be good and be a parasite. You can present that tempting glass of water as water when it is poison. Real evil will have to target real good by trying to pollute it. So whether real or unreal, evil is parasitic on good.

If evil is not real but is parasitic on good then in a sense it is worse than real evil. Good being corrupted is worse than good being good and evil being evil and separate.

If evil is real then in another but equally dangerous way it is worse than evil being a mere lack.

By the way, a lack does not have to be a gap but a power. It is not necessarily a vacuum. So evil can be a power and also a lack.

If evil is a power or possible power then hate for evil people will be inevitable as there is a power to be feared. And if evil is a mere lack and not a power fear still happens period. Hate will still happen for the idea that evil is a form of good does nothing to make you more endearing to others if you are doing wrong.

GOD USING EVIL TO DO GOOD SEEMS TO JUSTIFY IT AT LEAST A LITTLE

Religion says, "God using evil to do good does nothing to justify the evil even a little. It emphasises the condemnation. It is still totally inexcusable. So if evil is bad anyway it is worse in how it has to be fought with good."

Evil whatever it is uses good to cloak itself. So you may say that God tolerates a baby suffering terribly for he has found a way to inject good into it. But that is the point. Evil always uses the good purpose to promote itself. It needs the God idea to do that. So religion is wrong.

FORGIVENESS AND EVIL AS NEAR-GOOD

The person who forgives will reason, "That person hurts me for he sees me as a danger. He hates his perception of me and not me and so I forgive. I understand and understanding is necessary for forgiving."

In fact a person who has warped perception is worse than the person who sees you as you are and hates you for it. That person is more dangerous. It is more rational to forgive the person who hates you because he knows you. Whether it is the perception of you that is hated or you, you will still bleed from the knife in your back. It follows then that Christian goodness is not as good as it pretends to be.

THE NOTION THAT EVIL IS NOT EVIL BUT NEAR-GOOD

The notion that evil is not real but is merely good that is not good enough leads to some interesting things. What if a person is a cynical malicious gossip? His friends may say, "You tell it as you see it!" That is saying, "You are to be praised for being a gossip." It does not make their condemnations of cynicism and gossip sincere. If you love the person you will be forced to praise what good they do even if it is the good of evil. That you condemn proves that you do not. To view a person as dangerous and harmful makes you hate and that is what hate is all about.

FINALLY

An atheist might see evil as good in the wrong place just like a believer in God does. But at least the atheist is not at risk of seeing it as more good than the believer is. The believer sees God in it.

The believer has no coherent idea of what evil is and should just say, "This murder is good but..."

The believer cannot ask anybody to believe they do not hate sinners.

The believer is the friend of evil for they are devoid of any ability to tell us why evil is not real. They have to lie instead that evil is a parasite and that is the answer! The rage and disgust that a sin gets shows that the believers are lying when they make out the sin to them is a nearly good thing.