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?



Evil being real or a power does not mean you will understand it correctly or adequately. You understand that it is not exactly what it is. You cannot even understand a snowflake except a bit.

This lack of clarity gives the likes of the Catholic Church an opportunity to say that evil is just good that is abused but is not really anything in itself. That for all we know may be the only way we are purely evil, as in watering down pure evil.

No matter what evil is, if is vague, we have no reason to treat it as anything other than real. To be safe so that we don't underestimate the enemy, we have to make "evil is a power not just an evaluation" our working assumption.

Religion then is out. Its bad.

This takes us to God. Religion says God does not make evil.

The atheist raises eyebrows at that.

The atheist can use evil against God in two ways.

One, the atheist sees evil and argues it shows there is no God.

Two the atheist is talking about what believers think about God - is their view internally consistent? That by extension gives us number one.

It is inseparable ideas looked at from different angles. Two angles, they differ as in being the difference between the atheist thinking and the believer thinking.

Think about the evil in the universe. Atheist evil and Christian evil cannot mean the same thing.
The atheist is saying that evil is a real power and as a good God cannot make evil God is not God for being rivalled by evil or he is the maker of evil. The believer refuses to admit that evil may be a real power and calls it a lack of good. Now it does not need a maker and can be blamed on us choosing the wrong goods. We choose good things in the place of God and that is evil. Evil is redefined to fit God. Using evil that way is itself evil. You cannot decide what you want to believe and then change the meaning of something dangerous to get it to fit what you want to think. That is evil. It is caring about ideology not evil. And that is the kind of evil you like, ideology.

For the atheist, unjust suffering is just evil and is obviously pure evil. That is why it simply proves there is no God. Religion says that it is evil to believe in pure evil for God the cause of all things should not be met with accusatory implications such as, ďDid you make pure evil? Are you so useless that you canít tell us that evil always existed if you did not make it? What is the point of concentrating on you when evil has a mind and independence of its own?"

If evil is real then it is logically possible to know the evil and what it is. The doctrine that evil is not real or substantial but a non-substance or lack makes evil vague. You don't know exactly what it is in general or in any individual case. The reason is that you see it as a malfunctioning good so it is going to look reasonably good. Evil is parasitic because it manages to try to look good and reasonable. You are working with evil if you see it that way if you shouldn't see it that way.

Evil is felt to be bad as in something to be hated and you feel that reparation should be demanded of the bad person and penalties inflicted for some kind of inviolable standard or norm has been violated. It is impossible to see evil done by a person and willed by a person as being just good but not good enough. You have to see it is brutal and more frightening than just a failure or missing the mark.

Saying evil then is a lack of good or the wrong good is just to lie.

Religion talks a lot about conscience. Conscience is what recognises evil when it sees it and it is supposedly implanted by God. Is that saying that evil exists for conscience says so and conscience comes from God? Yes. If conscience is like eyesight and just sees that is fine. But if it is treated like a message from God, a divine computer in your head, then the premise is the conclusion. It assumes God gives you conscience so conscience is reliable.
The only real way to test conscience is just looking. It makes no sense to say that conscience tells you the truth for God validates it for that amounts to saying, "I believe in God and that he gave me this conscience therefore it is accurate." Belief in anything is not the same as knowing. Belief is often wrong. "I believe that 2 and 2 are 4", is a sign of doubt. You should just know. Why are you bringing belief in when it is less strong? Same idea. 2 and 2 are 4 does not need believing. It is just right period.  A conscience that gets its authority from the beliefs you construct is not a conscience at all.  It will corrupt.  It already is corrupt.

Let us take any case where morals apply. Each moral consideration is made up of components. Nothing is ever just about one moral issue or question. Nobody's event is simple. If morality is vague and you donít know exactly what is loving or just then each component is unclear too.

Take this example.

It seems simple that very ill Kate had an assisted suicide.  No matter how much this resembles Leanne's assisted suicide the fact remains that there are many factors and differences.  There are different persons involved.  Each part of it is a collective, it is full of differences itself.  It is full of things that to one degree or another are vague themselves.  Some things that are not very vague may seem very vague to us.

Did Kate really choose the right time to go?  What if she had waited a few hours? What if a lot of that time was good and a gift worth trying to live for.  There is so much to consider.  A lot of it cannot help with Leanne's case.  So comparing may not help much.  Similar is a deceiving word.

People find all the questions and facts and considerations hard to work with with.  This leads to making a choice that is largely made because it has to be made and not because all the data is thought about correctly.  People guess when they think they know enough.

If evil is a brute fact then what if it is vague? All this vagueness means we have no right to be so sure that evil is not a force.  Maybe we are the evil force that imposes the vagueness so that evil with thrive.

Can you call somebodyís suffering vague? If it is then you donít know if it is pure evil or not. Or as suffering is a collective, in other words, a collection of sufferings and pains and fears, it gets more complicated again.  You cannot really speak for somebody else's experience.  Your own suffering is vague to you.  It is going to more unclear for everybody else.  There is something evil about saying that somebody else is not experiencing pure evil.  If they are then God does not exist.  And you are using your ignorance of them to say that whatever they suffer does not disprove God.  It is even worse if you think pure evil can be made by God as long as he rewards you for enduring it!  If you see a husband beating his wife as evil but not pure evil even then you would not say that a reward for her enduring can make it right even a little.  Imagine then if it is pure evil.

Those who say evil or suffering is an illusion or a lack of good will not say that when they have the hernia from hell.  It is easily said about somebody else's suffering.  Such doctrines make you feel confident now but when the day comes that you suffer they will make your suffering worse. You will be so disappointed. You will have you eyes peeled by force.