Belief in a God figure vs. Belief in a Satan figure - a poll
Today i was thinking about how belief in a creator/father/mother supernatural "god" figure is different from belief in a hateful/evil/jealous supernatural "satan" figure. How these can be separate, as well.
It's said that for some conspiracy theorists, belief in the conspiracy replaces religion - even though it only provides a satan figure.
For the purposes of this poll, i'm referring strictly to supernatural beings, not evil humans. Also, Loki and other trickster gods don't count as a satan figure because they are neither jealous nor hateful.
Tell me about it. Welcome to the club.
Whatever
a. I believe in an extant sentient active extraspatiotemporal divine entity
b. at a slightly lower level of confidence I believe in an extant sentient evil spirit active in space time.
Odds are neither of them has horns. Ditto for Moses and Alexander. Dizzy Gillespie and Louis Armstrong did have horns.
it is funnier how is is.
see you at the barbeque.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
The other two options were supposed to be basically "I don't believe or don't care" and "other" just for the nit-pickers.
As for myself, my disbelief in a god-like supernatural entity is well understood here, and as for the other, I believe that if there is an entity in the universe causing pain and anguish, we need only look into a mirror to identify it.
You have to add a blank option to get your last option to show up. Not quite sure how you missed two options, but if you PM moderator Moog, he fixed another poll like this recently and will probably fix yours.
As to the topic question, no belief in the supernatural for me, just a natural that I may not fully comprehend as a human.
There is evidence for natural devils; and an effort to save them:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2011-06-27-tasmanian-devils-genetic-analysis_n.htm
Last edited by aghogday on 27 Jun 2011, 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As for myself, my disbelief in a god-like supernatural entity is well understood here, and as for the other, I believe that if there is an entity in the universe causing pain and anguish, we need only look into a mirror to identify it.
One can view Satan as God's excuse for His errors but, of course, assuming an omnipotent God, it doesn't really work.In reality, of course, there is no such thing as either good or evil. Natural forces are entirely neutral, merely the inter-reactions of matter and energy. And insofar as social relations are concerned, one man's good is another man's evil.
As for myself, my disbelief in a god-like supernatural entity is well understood here, and as for the other, I believe that if there is an entity in the universe causing pain and anguish, we need only look into a mirror to identify it.
One can view Satan as God's excuse for His errors but, of course, assuming an omnipotent God, it doesn't really work.In reality, of course, there is no such thing as either good or evil. Natural forces are entirely neutral, merely the inter-reactions of matter and energy. And insofar as social relations are concerned, one man's good is another man's evil.
Well i don't believe that any sane person - anyone not suffering from a severe personality disorder - is capable of villainy.
I think plenty of good exists among the works of mankind but i'm unsure of evil, because i'm not sure that symptoms of a disorder qualify as evil.
I'm not saying that that is ipso-facto, i'm not saying that evil works define insanity - I'm saying that people who understand the things that they do, do them because they understand them to be either good or necessary. Based on observation, anyway.
As for myself, my disbelief in a god-like supernatural entity is well understood here, and as for the other, I believe that if there is an entity in the universe causing pain and anguish, we need only look into a mirror to identify it.
One can view Satan as God's excuse for His errors but, of course, assuming an omnipotent God, it doesn't really work.In reality, of course, there is no such thing as either good or evil. Natural forces are entirely neutral, merely the inter-reactions of matter and energy. And insofar as social relations are concerned, one man's good is another man's evil.
Well i don't believe that any sane person - anyone not suffering from a severe personality disorder - is capable of villainy.
I think plenty of good exists among the works of mankind but i'm unsure of evil, because i'm not sure that symptoms of a disorder qualify as evil.
I'm not saying that that is ipso-facto, i'm not saying that evil works define insanity - I'm saying that people who understand the things that they do, do them because they understand them to be either good or necessary. Based on observation, anyway.
It's sort of like accusing a car with a flat tire as being evil. If one guy makes a healthy profit, the same act is good for one, bad for the other.
As for myself, my disbelief in a god-like supernatural entity is well understood here, and as for the other, I believe that if there is an entity in the universe causing pain and anguish, we need only look into a mirror to identify it.
One can view Satan as God's excuse for His errors but, of course, assuming an omnipotent God, it doesn't really work.In reality, of course, there is no such thing as either good or evil. Natural forces are entirely neutral, merely the inter-reactions of matter and energy. And insofar as social relations are concerned, one man's good is another man's evil.
Well i don't believe that any sane person - anyone not suffering from a severe personality disorder - is capable of villainy.
I think plenty of good exists among the works of mankind but i'm unsure of evil, because i'm not sure that symptoms of a disorder qualify as evil.
I'm not saying that that is ipso-facto, i'm not saying that evil works define insanity - I'm saying that people who understand the things that they do, do them because they understand them to be either good or necessary. Based on observation, anyway.
It's sort of like accusing a car with a flat tire as being evil. If one guy makes a healthy profit, the same act is good for one, bad for the other.
granted, some people have pretty sketchy morality, but lack of empathy doesn't make you evil.
I know a guy who grew up in a pawn shop in oklahoma. He literally believes that separating suckers from their money is the right thing to do. He's a bit twisted in that regard. Has a preternatural sense for when an item is being sold for less than he can get for it. I've been with him at a thrift store and seen him walk right past four aisles of used shoes, stop, go back two aisles, walk 15 feet down the aisle, and pull the one pair of $300 loafers out of the shelves full of garbage. It's just weird.
He is getting divorced right now and his soon-ex, while she has issues of her own, is getting the s**t end of that stick.
But his problem is that he doesn't care. It doesn't matter to him. The satan figure is presented to us, at least in christianity, as though he cares. And cheap fiction is full of these characters.
It's said that for some conspiracy theorists, belief in the conspiracy replaces religion - even though it only provides a satan figure.
For the purposes of this poll, i'm referring strictly to supernatural beings, not evil humans. Also, Loki and other trickster gods don't count as a satan figure because they are neither jealous nor hateful.
Do you differentiate between believing such an entity exists, and faith in following that entity? Christians believe that Satan exists, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who followed and placed his faith in Satan.
blauSamstag:
"Well I don't believe that any sane person - anyone not suffering from a severe personality disorder - is capable of villainy. "
The truth value of that statement [and if you in fact hold that I marvel at you] is dependent on your definition set.
First, of course, on what you define as "villainy".
Then on your definition of "sane".
If you presume that an evil act is prima facie evidence of insanity, then you are home free. But if you define sanity independently of evil, and evil independently of sanity, I think this statement is in trouble.
Me, it is a very ill-kept secret that I believe Truth is. It has not so much been mentioned that -unlike some who are or believe they are soggy robots [THAT sounds like a sanity criterion right there] - I believe Evil is and Good is - and not one as the absence of the other.
I have done Evil. No, I will NOT give details - but take it from me I have. Was I sane at the time? By the State's rules, yes. I have also done Good - including Good done at times when the State, had it been watching, might well have declared me unsane.
As for personality disordering, I suspect an independent objective evaluation would say that I was not MORE disordered when doing Evil than when doing Good, and that I was not all that differently disordered at some of those points.
"Well I don't believe that any sane person - anyone not suffering from a severe personality disorder - is capable of villainy. "
The truth value of that statement [and if you in fact hold that I marvel at you] is dependent on your definition set.
First, of course, on what you define as "villainy".
Then on your definition of "sane".
If you presume that an evil act is prima facie evidence of insanity, then you are home free. But if you define sanity independently of evil, and evil independently of sanity, I think this statement is in trouble.
Me, it is a very ill-kept secret that I believe Truth is. It has not so much been mentioned that -unlike some who are or believe they are soggy robots [THAT sounds like a sanity criterion right there] - I believe Evil is and Good is - and not one as the absence of the other.
I have done Evil. No, I will NOT give details - but take it from me I have. Was I sane at the time? By the State's rules, yes. I have also done Good - including Good done at times when the State, had it been watching, might well have declared me unsane.
As for personality disordering, I suspect an independent objective evaluation would say that I was not MORE disordered when doing Evil than when doing Good, and that I was not all that differently disordered at some of those points.
Lots of people believe all sorts of things. That's how they sell lotto tickets.
"Well I don't believe that any sane person - anyone not suffering from a severe personality disorder - is capable of villainy. "
The truth value of that statement [and if you in fact hold that I marvel at you] is dependent on your definition set.
First, of course, on what you define as "villainy".
Then on your definition of "sane".
If you presume that an evil act is prima facie evidence of insanity, then you are home free. But if you define sanity independently of evil, and evil independently of sanity, I think this statement is in trouble.
Me, it is a very ill-kept secret that I believe Truth is. It has not so much been mentioned that -unlike some who are or believe they are soggy robots [THAT sounds like a sanity criterion right there] - I believe Evil is and Good is - and not one as the absence of the other.
I have done Evil. No, I will NOT give details - but take it from me I have. Was I sane at the time? By the State's rules, yes. I have also done Good - including Good done at times when the State, had it been watching, might well have declared me unsane.
As for personality disordering, I suspect an independent objective evaluation would say that I was not MORE disordered when doing Evil than when doing Good, and that I was not all that differently disordered at some of those points.
Lots of people believe all sorts of things. That's how they sell lotto tickets.
Amen
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Donald Trump told to pay six-figure costs of firm he sued |
08 Mar 2024, 5:51 am |
San Francisco Garbage Can Signs Say "No Dumping"...Go Figure |
27 Feb 2024, 4:54 pm |
Casual sex poll |
16 Mar 2024, 10:39 pm |