The Good vs. Evil Paradigm

From the time you were born, your elders told you a story of good and evil. Almost all religions say that all good stems from their god, and all evil from the devil. Movies usually portray one side as good (and usually the victim), and the other as evil (and usually crazy). Its easy to identify the 'good guys', they look good, and usually dress in white or bright colors. The 'bad guys' generally sport black or gray and look ugly, perhaps scarred or handicapped.
As a child, you might have become confused whenever you began watching movies where the line between good and evil wasn't clearly defined. You became scared and had to ask your parents "Those are the good guys, right?"; and then your parents would comfortingly respond either yes or no, and you would relax again.
As you aged, you may have begun to realize that there are very few things that are black and white, and almost no absolute good or bad guys. Black and white faded into dark gray and light gray, but you still believed one side was somehow morally in the right, and life went on.
As much as we may not like to admit it, perceptions from childhood are painful and nearly impossible to subconciously break away from. So when confronted with the situation of evil vs. evil; we will still always choose one side as "good". Since there is no real objective good and evil, our perception chooses its own personal "good", usually the lesser of two evils.
This to me explains why many will still vote for one of the two main political parties, or support our wars because of an us vs. them mentality. Its a hard trap to break free from. You are told that we are the good guys (whoever you are), and then they play on your ideas leftover from childhood by showing your side as attractive ,strong, and simple but reasonable, and the other as ugly, weak, and crazy but intelligent (sometimes...). Combine ths with whatever method of propaganda you inevitably get hit with and it makes it nearly impossible to overcome. Sometimes you have to realize that the situation is evil vs. evil, or very rarely, good vs. good. But you have to base your definition of 'good' on logic rather than emotion or conditioning.
The only thing that can free you from lies and propaganda is by having a calm, logical, non-judgemental process of evaluating information. They control you largely by playing on instinct and emotion. The strongest control is trauma, which induces fear. . .
The problem even when you decide to "leave the herd", is that you can fall into the trap of pulling a complete ideological 180 just because of your emotional reaction to new information.
Take 9/11 truth for example (no insults here), many become disillusioned and highly emotional when confronted with information that destroys their worldview and forces them to re-evaluate "reality". They may go from a blind patriot to a blind hater of everything America was and is, and they may hate government. But they are STILL basing their views on emotion rather than logic, still on spin rather than truth.
My point being, LOGIC>emotion, Truth>sensationalism. Free yourself from the BS on every side. Take emotion and conditioning out of the equation, do your own research.
I know I'm sort of preaching to the choir here on ATS, but I thought this was important enough to post.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by time91]

reply to post by time91


Villains always held a greater appeal to me than heroes.
Villains believe that what they're doing is right.
Villains dedicate themselves to a cause they feel is their best course of action.
Villains tend to be more resourceful.
Villains are passionate in their ideals.
Villains always seem to have more fun.

I know I'm sort of preaching to the choir here on ATS, but I thought this was important enough to post.

You would think that but its not always true. Still at this point some people are awake, but still in a sleep state. I think that though we may have been taught the difference between good and evil, we don't fully realize it, till we are confronted with it.

Its sort of an excuse. I do not think that we have free will until we are taught about good and evil, the biggest lie is that we have free will. What if the free will is the acknowledgment, and then the decision?

Our lives are surrounded by good and evil. Its because we have been taught the difference, but knowing that we have been taught and not used our own intuition is what bothers me.

What if no one raised you with the knowledge of good and evil? Do you think you would know what was right and what was wrong? On your own? Its still an answer to be determined by the individual.

But religion teaches us that we don't know, they have to tell us. So what to do? I think this is what makes the difference in religions and sects that have decided to separate themselves from "their" flock.

Its a personal decision, and to me one of the hardest to make, so good journey.

Peace to you...

reply to post by time91


It's what we're breed to think. Competetion is a big part of that beleive it or not. That's why the trick is to see all as one and stay on your toes man...

Its best not to deal in absolutes evil will do good if its in its best interests likewise good can also do evil.Im a situational ethisist nothing is necessarily absolutely right or wrong it depends on the situation.

reply to post by anglodemonicmatrix

Im a situational ethisist nothing is necessarily absolutely right or wrong it depends on the situation.

Well said, Anglodemonicmatrix.

Personally I have to agree. Sometime the best intentions create terrible consequences, and vis versa. The terms 'good' and 'evil' are just terms used to easily define acceptable behaviours in whatever society you live in.

Intentions can indicate what the person wanted to happen from an action, but the actual action can never be truly defined as either 'good' or 'evil'

Cheers
Shane

Originally posted by time91
But they are STILL basing their views on emotion rather than logic, still on spin rather than truth.
My point being, LOGIC>emotion, Truth>sensationalism. Free yourself from the BS on every side. Take emotion and conditioning out of the equation, do your own research.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by time91]

Ok, I will give you a few views here.

Firstly - there is no universal truth (that exists in practical reality), and given that nothing is true - logic is always going to be flawed.

Generally what happens is this. Each person has a look at the evidence, then they make a decision whether or not it is true. Once they decide it is true, then they 'believe' it.

In science, as any scientist will attest - there is no 'true'. You simply run tests, perhaps they are simple as pass or fail, and then you draw conclusions based on the data. You normally use whats is called a confidence interval to give your conclusions credibility. What this means is you might say, its 95% chance that my conclusion is correct, or perhaps 99%.

You can never say, 'its a scientific fact' - because that contradicts what science is.

When you apply logic, you have to have binary data - that is you need true and false data in order for logic to work. So you change all the incoming data from 'unknown' into true and false values.

If you have made the wrong decision on any single piece of data, the entire logical process is destroyed - it gives a wrong answer. Just like a computer - its simply garbage in, garbage out.

My point is - don't get too carried away by the value of logic, and don't think anything (as it applies to practical reality) is true.

Truth exists only as a concept - as a possibility, it inhabits the same space as God - its possible, but we can never detect it.

Of course, emotion and sensationalism are absolutely worthless to discern the right course of action.

I suggest a holistic mode of thinking, get all the evidence - put it into a model, and try to discern the meaning of it. When you find meaning - then you don't need right and wrong, you have understanding instead.

The Question i was hoping you would raise is: What is the current good vs evil (or evil vs evil) war that is going on right now?
Is there two sides fighting for power over the masses? If so, is one less evil than the other? Does one do what it thinks it has to to protect humanity, whilst the other does what it does for control?

The answer to that would be interesting i think.

reply to post by Amagnon


Great post. I have to agree with you that there is no absolute truth, but only varying probabilities. I think that there is a limit to probability though. What I'm saying is that it is far easier to confuse people by playing on their emotions rather than logical reasoning, because flaws in their argument will be more apparent.
Have you read the black swan?
If you haven't, here is what a black swan is:

the "Black Swan Theory" (capitalized) refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger role than regular occurrences.

Identifying a black swan event
Based on the author's criteria:

1.The event is a surprise (to the observer).
2.The event has a major impact.
3.After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight, as if it had been expected.

So, a highly improbable or unexpected event that has a huge impact, bigger than everyday events. I've been wondering about an even bigger event, the blackest swan. An event that makes every previous conclusion and thought process flawed or irrelevant. For instance, we learn that the laws of the universe actually go through rapid changes every few trillion years. Might not be a great example, but you understand my point.
So while we may not "know" anything, we can say that in the small or medium picture we have evidence that leads to a high enough probability that we consider it true.

reply to post by shamus78


I was actually thinking about writing a thread on this but I'll just comment on it here. Whats the old saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Thats the problem with revolutionary movements and groups trying to take over, as well as visionaries. They will usually adopt a means to an end philosophy and the problem is 9,999/10,000 they don't succeed. So you have 9,999 movements that create more violence and problems and the 1 that does succeed will always be at war with the others.
Hitler and the nazis thought they were building heaven on earth, after they killed off a lot of people and took over, everything would be a paradise for the so-called 'master race'. But, like communism, they failed.
Although neither of these ideologies is dead...

reply to post by Gabearch


Its rare that anyone wants to conciously do evil. They will rationalize whatever they are doing. I'd say that the most dangerous people are ultra-rich ultra-arrogant old money types. There is no shortage of powerful groups that want to exploit everyone, and obviously some secretive groups that only seek to advance their goals (whatever they are). But, there are benevolent people and then there are sociopaths in every group. So, its hard to really say how high up the ladder goes or which side is better, because you have to take into account the humans within the group who influence it.
For instance, communism and fascism are (IMO) great evils that suposedly hate each other and are mortal enemies. However, are the people controlling each ideology and promoting it connected or the same? Giving people the choice between two evils that both lead to the same thing? Sort of like Bush/Obama. His administration is destroying constitutional law and the country at about the same rate at W's, just with a socialist undertone to offset the spread of fascism. Corporations and government are merging like never before, and the media is slowly being brought under complete control. Bankers are, as always, ultra powerful. So thesis=communism, antithesis=fascism...synthesis= merger of corporations, government, and banks worldwide. Slow global takeover.

Now, who started the nazi party? The occult thule society. Nazi ideology was based on their occult ideas. Who funded all sides of WWII and who profited? Central banks and corporations. Who were the original bankers that gained more power than royalty? The knights templar, with some strange occult (just means 'hidden') religious practices and beliefs. Corporations that ran drugs with the help of their government and could be said started "fascism"(also called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporation)? Companies like John Titor co. and the Dutch East-India co. that ran opium to China and effectively ruled the region for many decades. So you have the Roman Empire, that created the RC church, that spawned the knights templar through the crusades. The Roman Empire officially fell apart and the British empire took over (though not as much) and spawned the first multinational corporations, and spawned the american republic, which has turned into an empire, all financed by powerful banking cartels. Its a slow but traceable evolution of ideas and practices that have slowly merged. According to the occult's so called 'luciferian philosophy': There are no gods and no devil, but humans can become gods over time through perfecting their own intelligence. Obviously, they don't want everyone to be god's, just them. Who was the original power behind the throne's in ancient times (Sumeria, Babylon, and earlier)? The priesthood, in any society they are always the leaders, even in tribes in the middle of the jungle.
IMO, scientists are just the new priests, except their knowledge and discoveries are more in the open than ever before, and more advanced than before. But are there still hidden tecnologies? I'd say so. Where did hidden knowlede, power, the occult, secret societies, and technology originate? Mystery religions of babylon, although probably much earlier.
Just some things to consider, obviously I don't know everything.

I never pretend to know what exactly is good or evil. Other people can decide whether they think I'm good or evil; as for me, I don't want to go there.

I've simply adopted a general set of principles that probably won't change much as I mature. I try to: respect everyone's personhood and self-ownership (maybe fetuses too, but I'm not commenting on that); not traumatize people; not do or say things out of ignorance; not get into shouting matches with people; not vandalize; make myself happy; and acknowledge that nobody's perfect. I try to use these principles to help me guide and justify my actions. And I try not to judge people unless I feel very strongly that their actions violate my own moral principles.

FWIW.

S&F

[edit on 7/10/10 by skooper1895]

[edit on 7/11/10 by skooper1895]

reply to post by skooper1895


Morality is usually lost to emotions, that is if the person has strong morals to begin with. Logically you know yelling or fighting is a poor choice but your emotions try to force you to do it anyway. The same moral codes will cause a lot of negative emotions after you lose it as well. Guilt, self-hate, depression, etc. Feelings can cause a lot of problems.
"Life is a comedy for the man who thinks, and a tragedy for the man who feels". Your general principles sound as good as any. Not judging people is always a positive, up to a point where you have to...
Also forgive my ignorance but what does FWIW mean?

What one must do is achieve balance of the masculine and the feminine. One must balance the mind and heart. We must be intellectual and emotional. One is not more than the other.

Originally posted by jonah0julian
What one must do is achieve balance of the masculine and the feminine. One must balance the mind and heart. We must be intellectual and emotional. One is not more than the other.

I kind of see creation somewhat like this:

The highest point of creation is white light going on forever.
Then there is the 2nd level of the sphere which is the cell of the universe.
This cell divides in 2, 4, 8, and so forth.
Polarity is represents the division of the creation at 2. These are equal parts that must be balanced. Yin and Yang
Masculinity and Femininity balanced.

Originally posted by jonah0julian

Originally posted by jonah0julian
What one must do is achieve balance of the masculine and the feminine. One must balance the mind and heart. We must be intellectual and emotional. One is not more than the other.

I kind of see creation somewhat like this:

The highest point of creation is white light going on forever.
Then there is the 2nd level of the sphere which is the cell of the universe.
This cell divides in 2, 4, 8, and so forth.
Polarity is represents the division of the creation at 2. These are equal parts that must be balanced. Yin and Yang
Masculinity and Femininity balanced.

In other words, one is not all light and one is not all darkness. A true light being is one that has a balance of darkness and light. A being of "all light" is an agent of Lucifer the "light bearer". This is New Age manipulation.

reply to post by jonah0julian


I've read all about balance and duality while reading everything I could find out about original gnosticism. I agree with a lot of it (more than any other religion) and I agree that some emotion is needed, but emotional decisions when researching lead to the wrong conclusion more often than logical reasoning...

reply to post by jonah0julian


To be all light is actually Luciferian. One cannot be all feminine or all masculine. That is pure Illuminati philosophy. This is why the
Illuminati are homosexual occultists, because they are only of the side of darkness (of Lucifer the "light bearer" of "all light"). It is balance of the masculine and feminine, light and darkness, negative and positive, yin yang. Wholeness includes everything is a balanced harmony.

Originally posted by time91
reply to post by jonah0julian

 

I've read all about balance and duality while reading everything I could find out about original gnosticism. I agree with a lot of it (more than any other religion) and I agree that some emotion is needed, but emotional decisions when researching lead to the wrong conclusion more often than logical reasoning...

The Lemurian civilization fell because it consisted of too much HEART. Atlantis fell because it consisted of too much MIND. So then it is the balance of heart and mind that humanity is trying to achieve in this age. This will be completed at the Transition to the Age of Aquarius and End of the current Kali Yuga (Hindu cycle) in 4100 A.D.

Peace

reply to post by time91


Yes, personal feelings can cause problems. That's why it's good to avoid useless conflicts and to control oneself whenever possible.

But everyone gets into sticky situations where they screw up and have to apologize and forgive their self. A little bit of guilt now and then is a sign of imperfection but also decency, and it is to be encountered and learned from. But one's life is truly lived when guilt is put aside for the better things in life.




By the way, FWIW means "For What It's Worth."