It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why does Satan seem cool and God seem like a jerk?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by JesusisTruth

Yeah, that part of the comment wasn't directed at you, I hit the wrong button.
Anywho...dude, I've noticed that christians in general are essentially control freaks...mostly because in being "lambs", they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, while dictating what other people should be doing with their lives.

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:41 PM
Well I met alot of christians like that and I agree. They aint living how God wants them too.

no problem.


posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:06 PM
wait a minute. I re read the OP and the underline slipped my view.

OP I apologize if it wasn't an attack.


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:00 AM
The reality is that Satanism is not as glamorous as many people might think.

Satanism often acts as a magnet for the far right, pedophiles and generally sleazy people.

Have a look at the blog in this post:

It contains many links that examine the lives of long term Satanists - its not a pretty sight! Most of the people involved are interested in manipulating other people to do their dirty work i.e. racial violence, homophobic assaults and so on.

I am not a particularly religious person, but I just don't see the connection between Satan and hedonism.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by darpaint5]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:21 AM
why would you pick the loosing side?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:33 AM
I don't know which 'side' you see as the losing one.

On the evidence of this:

it would seem that satanists are masters of self deception. There is no real support for their madness and after decades of trying, they still have no political power.

One of these losers even lies about his height on the internet - he is VERY VERY SHORT!

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:41 AM
You do realize how bigoted that makes you seem, don't you? That would be like me talking about Fred Phelps and saying all Christians are like him and his family. Absolutely ridiculous and utterly offensive.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:31 PM
because if there truly is a spiritual battle between Goood and evil. God and Satan. God wins in the end. satan just isnt that apealing. hes a dick lol

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by the illuminator

But...what if there isn't?
What if there is no spiritual battle?
What if it's all just a human-created struggle to give our lives some kind of meaning in this vast universe that, I would imagine, hardly even notices our puny existence?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by Matthew Dark

if there isnt any meaning for our lives...whats the point? if what you say is true then what is Good and what is Evil? who has the authority to decide? hitler could have done all these evil things but who cares. its not Good or Evil we are just following our instincts

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by the illuminator

That is exactly my point.
Humans created the concepts of a god determining good and evil because it's not for us to determine.
It's just nature, doing as it always has.
christians have no more right to force their concepts of good and evil on people than anyone else.
If you have your beliefs, then great.
But don't force them on people and threaten them with eternal damnation if they don't comply...that is something many people would consider "evil".
Humans, by nature, are loving, compassionate, destructive, passionate and inquisitive.
Any system of belief that inhibits that or tries to channel it to suit it's own gains should be, by all intents and purposes, considered "evil".

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:49 PM
do you believe in Good and Evil?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by the illuminator

I believe in sentient life acting according to it's individual nature.
I like the idea of good and evil, of balance, but I think that those concepts are rapidly becoming antiquated.
I believe in others viewing others as good or evil, hence my "Evilutionist" title.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:00 PM
so you feel no guilt for anything you do?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by the illuminator

For the most part, no.
I believe that guilt is for suckers.
I know what I consider right and wrong, and I attempt to not engage in behaviors that I consider wrong.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:08 PM
so just to clarify there are no absolute moral truths?

is that what u believe?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by the illuminator

I didn't say that, did I?
Morality is subjective.
If someone does something that they believe is the right thing to do, but others question the morality of it, it becomes subjective.
I'm a big comic book nerd, so I'll use an example from that...
In Watchmen, Ozymandias kills a lot of people to prevent the entire world from entering a nuclear war.
What he did would be considered "morally wrong" by a lot of people.
Yet, he truly believed in what he was doing was the right thing for all of humanity.
He was a believer, and that was enough for him.
His actions would be considered by some to be morally abhorrent, but to someone like myself, who understands that mindset, it was the right thing to do.
Morality is subjective.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
ok sure.

but issues like abortion?


cold blooded murder?

are there moral issues that are objectively wrong?

Moral relativism (ethical truths are Subjective and depend on the individual or group who hold them)

Moral absolutism (ethical rules are Objective and universally binding in all similar cases)

the question is which is true? they both cant be true?

why is this important?

1. because moral relativism cheapens human life.

How would the world be if everyone lived by moral relativism?

2. with moral relativism anything goes!

3. moral relativism creates moral cowards

there are 4 problems!

1. if moral relativism is true then society can not have moral reformers

(corrie ten boom, william wilberforce , Dr. martin luther king

whatever a society believes its true for that society so a moral reformer cannot stand outside and tell them they need to change!.
the person who would be immoral would be the moral reformer.

dont we know there was moral reformers in history?

if it was true we'd have to throw out all moral reformers out of history books

2. moral relativist cannot improve there morality.

you can only improve on something if there is a standard outside of you that you gain more accuracy according too.

you can change your morality but cant improve it.

so all the things that moral reformers have done for the world wasnt an improvement. it was just a change.

dont we just know that there have been moral improvements?? isnt that an obvious fact!

3. moral relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil

4. Moral relativism is UNLIVABLE

so i could come over to your house and rape you girlfriend, wife, sister or whatever. and you cant do a damn thing about it coz you cant get ruffled at me coz i live in a relativist moral world and thats what i believe is right

we cant live like its true. its impossible.

we know what people believe not by what they say, but how they want to be treated.

peace brother

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by the illuminator

I think that we have to differentiate between an obvious "no no", and a cultural/religiously endorsed or created "no no"...

I.E :

1. Adultery/polygamy... Christians believe it's wrong, Islam believes it's wrong... but from a biological standpoint it's right and ensures genetic diversity for the species...

2. Murder (not in self defense of course)... No matter which way you look at it, it's considered wrong. Defining murder is a cultural/religious thing (when it comes to abortion and such)

3. Sex before age 18... A MAJOR sticking point... Women are at their prime at or near the beginning of their menstrual life. This is why before the 20th century, women were commonly married by the age of 16 and already had many children. The idea of waiting for women to mature is a cultural one (mostly North American/European)...

This idea of right and wrong is extremely subjective and is a product of cultural and religious teachings/upbringings... There is no absolute right or wrong, just as there is no absolute freedom to do what we want. Extremes are dangerous no matter which way you put them...


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:03 PM
you have got to be kidding. there is no absolute right or wrong?

you cant possibly think that. what would the world be like if that was true???

so there is no absolute right or wrong?

is that statement right?

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in