Belief in both dieties

[cheezgrits]

Been a while, things have certainly been calm and peaceful on this board. But was having a thinking session during my daily walk and a thought came through concerning religion and belief. Not starting an argument, but just a discussion. I don't see a right or wrong here nor do I see a concrete explanation, just a potential conversation.

If one believes faithfully and fully in the power of a god, benevolent or not, but a god or creator of a good or virtuous nature, then does one automatically have to validate the existence of an evil deity with opposite yet equal power? In other words, if you believe in "god" do you have to believe in the "devil"?

And for those that are atheist or agnostic, is there also an automatic standard to not believe in a opposite deity?

Would it or is it possible that there is no duality, just a single figure or concept that is the duality and we just cannot comprehend that so we have been taught based on a comprehensible and understandable "good vs bad" battle?

Just thoughts...

 

[TheLibertonian]

Been a while, things have certainly been calm and peaceful on this board. But was having a thinking session during my daily walk and a thought came through concerning religion and belief. Not starting an argument, but just a discussion. I don't see a right or wrong here nor do I see a concrete explanation, just a potential conversation.

If one believes faithfully and fully in the power of a god, benevolent or not, but a god or creator of a good or virtuous nature, then does one automatically have to validate the existence of an evil deity with opposite yet equal power? In other words, if you believe in "god" do you have to believe in the "devil"?

And for those that are atheist or agnostic, is there also an automatic standard to not believe in a opposite deity?

Would it or is it possible that there is no duality, just a single figure or concept that is the duality and we just cannot comprehend that so we have been taught based on a comprehensible and understandable "good vs bad" battle?

Just thoughts...

For atheism, generally not merely anti-Christianity, then supernatural beliefs is kind of rejected as a whole. But, the beginning of wisdom is acknowledging you don't know. Although as someone once pointed out, what we call the supernatural may be the natural we don't understand yet.

There are, also I believe, religions that don't feature a Satan equivalent. In other cases the "Evil" deity is clearly weaker or even already defeated. I think the hindus cosmology has their "evil" deity also as a "good" deity. They believe their main god to have three aspects, the creator, the destroyer, and the maintainer.

Mind you Hinduism is also incredibly complex and varied, but you get the idea.

 

[This_person]

Been a while, things have certainly been calm and peaceful on this board. But was having a thinking session during my daily walk and a thought came through concerning religion and belief. Not starting an argument, but just a discussion. I don't see a right or wrong here nor do I see a concrete explanation, just a potential conversation.

If one believes faithfully and fully in the power of a god, benevolent or not, but a god or creator of a good or virtuous nature, then does one automatically have to validate the existence of an evil deity with opposite yet equal power? In other words, if you believe in "god" do you have to believe in the "devil"?

And for those that are atheist or agnostic, is there also an automatic standard to not believe in a opposite deity?

Would it or is it possible that there is no duality, just a single figure or concept that is the duality and we just cannot comprehend that so we have been taught based on a comprehensible and understandable "good vs bad" battle?

Just thoughts...

The issue on a philosophical level for me (not related to my specific religious beliefs, but for discussion purposes) is that there is no dark without light, there is no wet without dry, there is no good without bad/evil. There is no way to comprehend a direction in one way without also comprehending either the absence or the direction must be able to go both ways (which, in effect, is the exact same thing). Wherever there is more than one dimension there must be, by definition, at least two dimensions and therefore a scale upon which labels can be placed.

Atheists and people critical of religious beliefs (but, alas, I repeat myself) will tell you that no religion is needed for there to be "good" people. When asked for a standard of what "good" means, they agree (the honest ones) that there is no such standard, but pretty much all humans can comprehend that (at least as individuals) we all have a scale of "good" and "bad" or "evil". That's because there are a range of actions and perceptions of those actions. We can't label what we can't perceive, leaving us with no scale to judge.

 

[PsyOps]

We do know there is good and evil. If you believe in the God Yahweh, you know this God created everything, to include good and evil. Why would He do this? Because he knew in this nature of things, you cannot distinguish this ‘good’ without its opposite. Just as, how can you call something on the right if there was no left?

Validating the two concepts isn’t even necessary since we know by the mere nature of things, they both exist because we experience it.

When you apply this to actual beings (God and the Devil), I think that’s where you need validation. Are there actually beings that exist in this other realm (a spiritual realm); one representing good and the other representing evil; both capable of influencing the world? For Christians, we are told they are actual spiritual beings with immense power. Not of equal power. We know one loses to the other in the end.

My question has long been, once this battle between good and evil – between God and the Devil – is over and good has won, and we exist in a world with no evil, how do we distinguish what is good? Or will it even be necessary?

The other point I want to raise here is what is meant by ‘believe in’. I might be getting more in the weeds than you intended cheez, but for Christians it is natural to acknowledge the existence of good and evil (in terms of these spiritual beings); but we only ‘believe in’ one that represents life, and this life in paradise. ‘Believe in’ in this sense means to commit to; not simply acknowledge the existence of. So, while Christians are committed to God, we acknowledge the existence of ‘the beast’. It’s been said often that even the Devil admits the existence of God and Jesus.

 

[PsyOps]

Atheists and people critical of religious beliefs (but, alas, I repeat myself) will tell you that no religion is needed for there to be "good" people. When asked for a standard of what "good" means, they agree (the honest ones) that there is no such standard, but pretty much all humans can comprehend that (at least as individuals) we all have a scale of "good" and "bad" or "evil". That's because there are a range of actions and perceptions of those actions. We can't label what we can't perceive, leaving us with no scale to judge.

And do we just discuss this topically; only from the standpoint of saying there is good and bad/evil through the prism of what people do (help others = good / murder = evil); or do we get more into the spiritual aspects of what is meant by good (the absence of evil) and evil (the absence of good).

That’s why Christians will argue (errr… discuss) that no one is truly good, or “all have sinned and fall short…” We, as humans, can never truly be completely devoid of evil. We can’t even claim to understand what that means. That’s why our actions (deeds) can never earn our way into heaven; we can never obtain that purity of ‘good’. And this is why Christians hold to the concept of love the sinner and hate the sin. Those who commit evil acts (like murder) cannot be completely evil (completely devoid of any good).

 

[This_person]

And do we just discuss this topically; only from the standpoint of saying there is good and bad/evil through the prism of what people do (help others = good / murder = evil); or do we get more into the spiritual aspects of what is meant by good (the absence of evil) and evil (the absence of good).

That’s why Christians will argue (errr… discuss) that no one is truly good, or “all have sinned and fall short…” We, as humans, can never truly be completely devoid of evil. We can’t even claim to understand what that means. That’s why our actions (deeds) can never earn our way into heaven; we can never obtain that purity of ‘good’. And this is why Christians hold to the concept of love the sinner and hate the sin. Those who commit evil acts (like murder) cannot be completely evil (completely devoid of any good).

^^

 

[TheLibertonian]

And do we just discuss this topically; only from the standpoint of saying there is good and bad/evil through the prism of what people do (help others = good / murder = evil); or do we get more into the spiritual aspects of what is meant by good (the absence of evil) and evil (the absence of good).

That’s why Christians will argue (errr… discuss) that no one is truly good, or “all have sinned and fall short…” We, as humans, can never truly be completely devoid of evil. We can’t even claim to understand what that means. That’s why our actions (deeds) can never earn our way into heaven; we can never obtain that purity of ‘good’. And this is why Christians hold to the concept of love the sinner and hate the sin. Those who commit evil acts (like murder) cannot be completely evil (completely devoid of any good).

Not to mention the very nature of original sin. No one was born innocent if you're a Christian.

However, that's also getting into salvation by grace and good works, and salvation by grace alone. Which is its own discussion.

For those of us outside the religious faiths, it's not like we don't think there are "bad" and "good" things, it's just that we make that call based on what we believe individually. There's no overarching morality to decide what is good and what is bad, not yet anyway, though some people might say there is.

 

[cheezgrits]

Thank you all, wonderful discussion. Many,many good points to ponder and reflect on. (Not to say the discussion is over by any means, just acknowledging your great responses).

 

[cheezgrits]

For atheism, generally not merely anti-Christianity, then supernatural beliefs is kind of rejected as a whole. But, the beginning of wisdom is acknowledging you don't know. Although as someone once pointed out, what we call the supernatural may be the natural we don't understand yet.

There are, also I believe, religions that don't feature a Satan equivalent. In other cases the "Evil" deity is clearly weaker or even already defeated. I think the hindus cosmology has their "evil" deity also as a "good" deity. They believe their main god to have three aspects, the creator, the destroyer, and the maintainer.

Mind you Hinduism is also incredibly complex and varied, but you get the idea.

That is a good point, I need to research some other religions a little further.

 

[cheezgrits]

The issue on a philosophical level for me (not related to my specific religious beliefs, but for discussion purposes) is that there is no dark without light, there is no wet without dry, there is no good without bad/evil. There is no way to comprehend a direction in one way without also comprehending either the absence or the direction must be able to go both ways (which, in effect, is the exact same thing). Wherever there is more than one dimension there must be, by definition, at least two dimensions and therefore a scale upon which labels can be placed.

Atheists and people critical of religious beliefs (but, alas, I repeat myself) will tell you that no religion is needed for there to be "good" people. When asked for a standard of what "good" means, they agree (the honest ones) that there is no such standard, but pretty much all humans can comprehend that (at least as individuals) we all have a scale of "good" and "bad" or "evil". That's because there are a range of actions and perceptions of those actions. We can't label what we can't perceive, leaving us with no scale to judge.

I see your point, it reminds me of the Yin/Yang. Now I wonder if by design or fate, flaw, chance, whatever...that there is an inherent requirement for a balance of all things. And if so, what happens when one of those go away, if they ever will.

 

[PsyOps]

Not to mention the very nature of original sin. No one was born innocent if you're a Christian.

However, that's also getting into salvation by grace and good works, and salvation by grace alone. Which is its own discussion.

For those of us outside the religious faiths, it's not like we don't think there are "bad" and "good" things, it's just that we make that call based on what we believe individually. There's no overarching morality to decide what is good and what is bad, not yet anyway, though some people might say there is.

I think you will agree that there are some ‘evil’ things that humans do that have long been recognized as evil: murder, stealing, adultery… The list is pretty long. Some view smoking pot or drinking alcohol as evil. Those are things we can certain agree it's a matter of opinion to the individual. I don't think we want to get that deep into the weeds, do we?

I think it’s a failed argument to deny these things are recognized as bad because we have some very common morals – religion or not. But, as I mentioned, these are THINGS we do that are evil. Because someone commits murder (an evil act), does this make the person evil (devoid of any good at all)? My thought is they are not an evil person for committing an evil act. That’s why God decided to say “for all have SINNED, and fall short of the glory of God”, rather than “for all are EVIL…” In God’s eyes, we are dirty (sinful) and can be cleaned. Something evil cannot be cleaned.

I guess we just have to decide if we’re going to discuss this from an ‘act’ (what we do as evil or good) standpoint or from a spiritual standpoint of the spiritual concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. My belief is both exist in this world. We all do evil things through the course of our lives and there are these two diametrically opposed spiritual forces that exist in this world: good and evil. Those forces are what cause us to commit acts of good or evil.

 

[TheLibertonian]

I think you will agree that there are some ‘evil’ things that humans do that have long been recognized as evil: murder, stealing, adultery… The list is pretty long. Some view smoking pot or drinking alcohol as evil. Those are things we can certain agree it's a matter of opinion to the individual. I don't think we want to get that deep into the weeds, do we?

I think it’s a failed argument to deny these things are recognized as bad because we have some very common morals – religion or not. But, as I mentioned, these are THINGS we do that are evil. Because someone commits murder (an evil act), does this make the person evil (devoid of any good at all)? My thought is they are not an evil person for committing an evil act. That’s why God decided to say “for all have SINNED, and fall short of the glory of God”, rather than “for all are EVIL…” In God’s eyes, we are dirty (sinful) and can be cleaned. Something evil cannot be cleaned.

I guess we just have to decide if we’re going to discuss this from an ‘act’ (what we do as evil or good) standpoint or from a spiritual standpoint of the spiritual concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. My belief is both exist in this world. We all do evil things through the course of our lives and there are these two diametrically opposed spiritual forces that exist in this world: good and evil. Those forces are what cause us to commit acts of good or evil.

There's a philosophical school called reductionism in which all things must attempt to reduce to their smallest part. Basically, you just keep asking "why is this?" Murder is bad. Why. Because someone dies. Why is that bad. Because they aren't alive. Why is that bad? So on. Obviously it's on a practical level absurdist, but it's not designed to answer questions so much as make us aware of the nature of our beliefs. It's why atheism who deny raw belief in my eyes are being unwise. We're built on belief.

When it comes to good and evil, yes, most atheist will say they exist on some way, but it's a matter of definition and where you get it from.

 

[Amused_despair]

The definition of "good" and "bad" is also dependent on the society in question. Saving life is good in some but killing all who are infidels is good in others. Sex is bad in the Abrahamic religions (Hebrew, Islam, Christianity) but not in Eastern religions. To quote. Pontius Pilate in Jesus Christ Superstar: "What is truth? Some unchanging law? We both have truths. Is mine the same as yours?"

 

[PsyOps]

There's a philosophical school called reductionism in which all things must attempt to reduce to their smallest part. Basically, you just keep asking "why is this?" Murder is bad. Why. Because someone dies. Why is that bad. Because they aren't alive. Why is that bad? So on. Obviously it's on a practical level absurdist, but it's not designed to answer questions so much as make us aware of the nature of our beliefs. It's why atheism who deny raw belief in my eyes are being unwise. We're built on belief.

When it comes to good and evil, yes, most atheist will say they exist on some way, but it's a matter of definition and where you get it from.

You have to get to a point where the reality of morals within humans just is. We have, as a so-called ‘civilized species’ decided – because we have perceptive minds – that harming someone else is bad. If you want to remove God from that equation, then you will always play the game of ‘why’. But you will agree, that if you murder someone, in our society it is wrong, and asking ‘why’ is moot and will not keep you from paying for that crime.

We both believe murder is wrong. Given I believe in a God and you don’t, there is still a common place where we agree that murder is wrong, and that there is a ‘thing’ we attach to that to better define the enormity of it – and that thing is called ‘evil’. Whether you believe ‘evil’ is a force consciously at work in this world, or just something that exists by the nature of our being, evil is there and it causes people to do harm to others. Asking ‘why’ is moot. It just is.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

And for those that are atheist or agnostic, is there also an automatic standard to not believe in a opposite deity?

Would it or is it possible that there is no duality, just a single figure or concept that is the duality and we just cannot comprehend that so we have been taught based on a comprehensible and understandable "good vs bad" battle?

Just thoughts...

The best term I've found so far for my views is 'anti-theist'. Agnostics just don't know, one way or the other. That's what I used to think I was. However, when you say "I just don't know" you're saying 'I do not believe' so, may as well take the next step and say "I do not THINK there is" which is NOT to say "I know there is not".

Atheists say they KNOW there is no god. They can't say that. While there is no basis for saying, declaratively, that there IS god, you can't rule it out, however slim. All you can say is that the proof and evidence strongly suggest that there is not and then you can believe to varying degrees that you THINK we'll ultimately find proof one way or the other or never will or what have you.

I'm anti theist because I don't think the evidence supports there being A god and I think that's good and that is because if there is A god, the god of one of the three great monotheistic religions then we live as subordinates, as slaves, an all knowing boss constantly reigning over us and I don't think that is to the net good of us all and that is where the whole thing boils down to;

Either you believe we can't be good, moral, decent human beings absent a celestial boss OR you believe we can and not only can but did and did so long before religion.

Religion does much good. It makes some people behave. It could make things better in some ways, in some places and it has also done much terrible bad and continues to do so. In many ways we're dependent on religion for our individual moral codes. We either can't or won't behave absent it. Did we lose our way or did we choose to lose it?

In any event, thinking there is not nearly enough evidence to support the existence of god, I say without hesitation that the same goes for the devil. Both are, in my view, superstition.