Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof That Evil Does Not Exist!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
evil is a figment of the oppressive lords imagination. if he did not create evil then he would have no reason to comdemn non believers to eternal damnation nor would he be very busy proclaiming that he must be worshiped in order for his underlings to remain righteous and holy.



the whole thing in the old testament about sacrifices is proof enough for me that those who claimed to be god where not. lords yes. creators yes. governors well ofcourse. more intelligent and seemingly all powerful undoubtedly. so bring the goods for the BBQ and let me feast or pay the consequece.(sounds like the old testament god to me)


the annunaki and or elohim of the old testament had everyone slaughtering and bringing them the best of their flocks and herds and crops for barbecues and feast.

bring us your best lamb for th BBQ for i am Jehovah


also ever read the scripture where jehovah crashes his spaceship on the mountain then comes down and takes his erroneous navigational skills out on the poor people of the bible. I JEHOVAH cook me some grub and give to me your virgins!

or else you will remain UNCLEAN!!!

and furthermore for all yall bible quoten' freaks. does not the bible say that fresh water and salt water cannot flow from the same spring, in reference to good and evil cannot come from the same being?

oh yea i think someone has already shown us, with all the quotes and all the correct interpretations from the ancient text that in the original bilbes that there is no real lucifer anyway?








[Edited on 4/15/2004 by panchovilla]

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
don't completely understand the arguement but you say,
"if he did not create evil", evil has been created and can be by who ever chooses to, so it exists



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by panchovilla
evil is a figment of the oppressive lords imagination. if he did not create evil then he would have no reason to comdemn non believers to eternal damnation nor would he be very busy proclaiming that he must be worshiped in order for his underlings to remain righteous and holy.



the whole thing in the old testament about sacrifices is proof enough for me that those who claimed to be god where not. lords yes. creators yes. governors well ofcourse. more intelligent and seemingly all powerful undoubtedly. so bring the goods for the BBQ and let me feast or pay the consequece.(sounds like the old testament god to me)


the annunaki and or elohim of the old testament had everyone slaughtering and bringing them the best of their flocks and herds and crops for barbecues and feast.

bring us your best lamb for th BBQ for i am Jehovah


also ever read the scripture where jehovah crashes his spaceship on the mountain then comes down and takes his erroneous navigational skills out on the poor people of the bible. I JEHOVAH cook me some grub and give to me your virgins!

or else you will remain UNCLEAN!!!

and furthermore for all yall bible quoten' freaks. does not the bible say that fresh water and salt water cannot flow from the same spring, in reference to good and evil cannot come from the same being?

oh yea i think someone has already shown us, with all the quotes and all the correct interpretations from the ancient text that in the original bilbes that there is no real lucifer anyway?


A great, and courageous post, but with one minor flaw. Really, just one very small problem...

Lucifer had existed, and his Sumerian name was Enki, his Aramaic name was Adonai (explains why Jesus's dad was portrayed as a figure of the dead in "the passion", doesn't it?) . His half-brother, Enlil, was also called Yahweh, and was also called Satian. The lesser of the two, I have read, is Satan as Lucifer seemed to have been the more powerful one.

from:
www.soulinvitation.com...
"It is important to keep in mind, when reading the following- that Enlil is the person also called Yalweh ­ God of the Jews, Michael the 'Archangel' by Christians, and Michabo- God of many native tribes.
.And LEVITE or Snake God by the Aboriginal Australians. (Also ­ almost certainly the person called ENCODER in Bible Code 2). In each case the recognizeable finderprint ­ is an attempt to prevent further genetic freedom, to prevent self-empowered bliss ­ and essentially ­ to create a kingdom of obedience to a plan to create immortality by soul harvesting ­ for the (medium grade interventionist ­ and lost soul ­Nephilim) 'God"- Enlil. ( And his political party called ELOHIM as in Keys of Enoch ­ whose ruler is the central hive computer for the borg mind ­ASHTAR).It is important to keep in mind, when reading the following- that Enlil is the person also called Yalweh ­ God of the Jews, Michael the 'Archangel' by Christians, and Michabo- God of many native tribes.
.And LEVITE or Snake God by the Aboriginal Australians. (Also ­ almost certainly the person called ENCODER in Bible Code 2). In each case the recognizeable finderprint ­ is an attempt to prevent further genetic freedom, to prevent self-empowered bliss ­ and essentially ­ to create a kingdom of obedience to a plan to create immortality by soul harvesting ­ for the (medium grade interventionist ­ and lost soul ­Nephilim) 'God"- Enlil. ( And his political party called ELOHIM as in Keys of Enoch ­ whose ruler is the central hive computer for the borg mind ­ASHTAR)."



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Omega, lucifer never existed. It was added to the bible after it was written. nice concept but wrong name.
Panchovilla, that whole saltwater and freshwater example. That sounds like something in the Enuma Elish.
Apsu represented freshwater and Tiamat represented saltwater. From the comingling of the two, the first gods were born. I think thats how it went, its been awhile since I've read it, perhaps there's a connection.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Evil does not exist nor does good. It is all just a way to validate our actions to ourselves. There is only perception.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Is no one willing to concede that stupidity, raw crass idiocy, is the reason for more deaths than all the abstract "evil," that religion too often exploits as a theology, to promote a vertical hierarchy in all its whims which are mostly sub moronic. For example economics without ecology. War without an exit strategy. Such things are now a coercive "policy," one of marginalized knowledge, and selective applied research.

True contrition would work, if it were universal, not just what you want the "enemy," to do in order to "submit," to you. But how does a stupid man who doesn't even have a clue to his own actions, or pretends not to know "repent?"

The kind of stupidity we are talking about here is more like selective blindness, rather than anything to do with the IQ. Wisdom is a key, putting it all together the advantaging a relentless self improvement for all. Substitution of overspecialized knowledge is not sustainable, and yes it is the kind of stupidity that results from a topheavy arrogance in viewing the world. Sadly the general populace too often agrees with it, and that is when our sense of right and wrong is challenged.

One could agree that a notion of good vs evil is quite binary, and usually refers to "other nations," and basically to our own prejudgments. If on the other hand we use the term as adjunct to universal repentence of all evils, stupidities, then we do ourselves a service.

On a sidebar, I don't know how many of you have had to take orders from someone who "just doesn't get it," but I think you see the point. We are swimming in a world of stupidity, but worse it "profits a man," to "destroy the whole world," far too often in a cumulative system of banality masquerading as a prevailing view.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I believe that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and you are certainly free to express your belief or opinion that evil does not exist. However, your post does not provide any actual "proof" that evil does not exist. It merely points out that the concept of evil has, at times, been abused by certain people for their own personal gain at the expense of others and that there are people who were/are in a position to benefit from people's belief in the existence of evil. The fact that people have manipulated people's perceptions of evil for selfish reasons is not "proof" that evil does not exist. Using the same logic you used to "prove" that evil does not exist, one could "prove" that money, governments, physical strength, weaponry, and a whole host of other such things do not exist, but clearly they do exist. The fact that people have abused something does not automatically "prove" that it does not exist. If you can demonstrate that certain people could have benefitted from making something up, that may be evidence of a possibility that something might not exist, but simply showing evidence that somebody had a motive to make something up (which is all you really showed in your post) is nowhere near sufficient to conclusively prove that it does not exist. By the way, like I said, I respect your right to free thought and am not trying to be hostile - just pointing out a flaw in your logic and offering my own viewpoint.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrishack14
I believe that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and you are certainly free to express your belief or opinion that evil does not exist. However, your post does not provide any actual "proof" that evil does not exist.


Alright, I'll bite! In order for anything to be true in an absolute sense then it must never be false. Simple enough right? This is where the illusions generated by perception comes into play. If I kill and eat one of your family members would you not consider this an 'evil act' because murder is considered as such? However if I had done this because it was the only way to provide food for myself and my starving family then it would be considered a nessesary act by myself and my family. I know that this is an extreme case, but think about it; it happens in the animal kingdom every second and we never consider those animals evil even though it is the same exact act.

Point being that the act of good/evil depends on your perception and since different view points can see the act as both good and evil at the same time it shows that evil is not a concept that exists in an absolute sense because it can be both true and untrue at the same time. Hence, there is no True evil.

Further more, evil tends to be considered an action or concept that harms us or our ideas on what should be allowed and what should not. Again you see the problem that since different people have different ideas on what is evil according to their ideals, there is no fixed subject/action of evilness. Thus if it is not always true then it is untrue.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Yes I agree Good / Evil is in the eyes of the beholder.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Meh , It can be, but true evil does exist, just because some can percieve actions differently , that doesn't mean that they are both right, I mean I might think its ok to kill of your family members, but you won't, does that mean we are bothe right, or the right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder all the time. Evil is evil, plane and simple, once you have had somthing.....

Knock you binder off your desk, then watch your bed go down right in front of you as if someone is sitting on the edge, and yet there is no physical form, then have your sheets pulled over you throat and tuck you in harshly. That is freaking evil, this has happend to me. I was 17, not drinking , not doing drugs, alone and scared. Evil exist, if you choose to deny it , it just makes it all that easier for it to go unoticed.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by infovacume

Knock you binder off your desk, then watch your bed go down right in front of you as if someone is sitting on the edge, and yet there is no physical form, then have your sheets pulled over you throat and tuck you in harshly. That is freaking evil, this has happend to me. I was 17, not drinking , not doing drugs, alone and scared. Evil exist, if you choose to deny it , it just makes it all that easier for it to go unoticed.

But if you had perceived it as an exciting encounter with the supernatural, as opposed to actions by an evil presence, would it still have been evil. Why? or Why not?



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I think the motive that one has in taking an action tells us whether it is an evil act or not. Malicious acts full of hatred and revenge are evil acts in my book.

The physical acts are not the indicator of evil; it is the intent within the emotions and thoughts of the doer.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Evil doesn't exist?
Define evil. It's impossible to say that something doesn't exist if you don't know what it is.

In my opinion, evil is the absence of love. And it certainly does exist.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
There is no " Evil " only ignorance.

I never have believed in GoodandEvil simply, IgnorantandAwake.

My 2 rupees.

Deep



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I think the best way to explain it is.

Is it evil to kill?

If so what of the casualities in Iraq?

Can good intent overide evil acts?

Does that make who gave the orders to do it evil?

Does the child with the leg blown off think the act was evil?


Good / Evil is in the eyes of the beholder.

Sometimes what we consider Evil in any other case, is not, when the outcome is good, likewise things that are done that are good can have an evil or damageing result, it then becomes a blur. Good intentions can become evil acts to some, Evil intentions can sometimes have a good result for some down the line where the original evil blurs.

Example is a bank robber that kills all of the people in a bank gets away with billions. His decendents down the line 5 generations not knowing where the money originally came from donate the money to charity. Was the act evil? was the result good? Would the good result have happened without the evil act.

Its all in the eyes of the beholder at the time.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
One mans good is another mans evil. Hitler thought it good to rid the world of Jews by murdering six million of them. I think he was evil. Some people think George Bush is good because of his war in Iraq. I think the war is unjust and he is evil. There is no good and no evil, there are just actions and reactions.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
This is absurd. Nothing can be clearer. Yes, we have “good” and “evil” in this world. The only question is the degree of the action.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   


This is absurd. Nothing can be clearer. Yes, we have “good” and “evil” in this world. The only question is the degree of the action.


I disagree. People are either awake or ignorant. Its through our hubris and ignorance that leads us to tread a certain path of destruction upon ourselves and others.

Deep



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The title of this post itself tells me your full of crap. Good cannot exist without evil. No matter what you belive in, thats still relevant.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Okay, well now at least the argument makes sense to me, panchovilla. If you define evil the way you did in response to my post, then yes I would have to agree with your assessment. However, I think the definition you're using here kind of oversimplifies the matter a little. Most people, when they say that they believe in evil, are not saying that they believe that any action, even taken out of the context in which it was contemplated and performed, is always going to be either good or evil. Most people who believe in evil don't see it as such a black and white issue. I tend to agree with Leveller, who defined evil as "the absence of love." When most people consider whether something is good or evil, they take into consideration more than just the act itself - they also look at intentions, motivation, extenuating circumstances, a person's state of mind, and any number of other factors as well as the act itself. No, I don't think you can just take some broad category of actions such as "taking another person's property" and say that all actions that fall into that category are automatically either good or evil. One evil action and one good action can both fall under the same category of actions, but that doesn't mean that the same action is both good and evil at the same time. Therefore, I don't really think the "it always has to be true or it's never true" argument works too well in this case.

One other thing - you also argued the second time around that evil cannot exist because different people perceive it differently. To me, this is not that much different from your original argument in the first post, but oh well. Seriously, think about the implications of saying that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, good and evil. That means there was nothing wrong or evil about the holocaust, that there is nothing wrong or evil about mass murder, that there is nothing wrong or evil about ANYTHING. For that matter, while we're at it, let's try to be perfectly consistent here. Since you think that evil is just something made up for selfish reasons to deceive the masses, it would follow from your argument that there was nothing wrong or evil about that. Do you agree? Is it really logical to condemn their action as a wrongful deed and then a couple sentences later, using that same condemnation itself, say that the very moral standards you used to make said condemnation do not even exist? If you want to say that good and evil don't exist or are entirely subjective, that's your right to do so, but at least be consistent. If you believe that right and wrong don't exist, don't say that you do things right or that other people do things that are wrong.

Of course, you could just say that you are free to set your own definition of evil as the one you gave in your second post, in which case this whole debate would be kind of a mute point. But then again, that would also mean that all you really "disproved" was a definition of a word that most people probably don't even accept...

Anyway, looking back over this post, I've noticed that parts of it might come across as hostile. I hope it didn't come across that way. I think this is turning out to be an interesting debate, and I'm eager to hear what y'all's take on all this is. Thanks for reading.

-chrishack14

EDIT: After looking back over the previous posts, I realized that the person whose post I was responding to in this post was, in fact, not panchovilla. So I am sorry to have directed my arguments at the wrong person. I should have been referring to Jonna, I believe, not panchovilla. Please take that into consideration and ignore parts of the post that probably do not make sense in light of this observation. Sorry for any confusion this might cause - it's very early in the morning, and I guess my brain is falling asleep before the rest of me is.

-chrishack14

[Edited on 18-4-2004 by chrishack14]









 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join