Satans Paradox For Truth

The other day the homie KonquestAbyss and i were having our philosophical discussions when the word evil came up, and what that word actually means,

one of the online definitions. "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction"

Then the question was asked if it is evil to tell a perspective of truth that opposes another persons truth resulting in pain suffering and destruction towards that person and their truth.

The word Satan i belief originally means adversary one of the definitions of adversary : "a person, group, or force that opposes or attacks; opponent; enemy; foe."

SOO us on ATS are we a bunch of adversaries, going through the motions of doing evil towards one another when we argue and lean soo heavily on our disputable truths and currently known facts and attempt reshape the minds of one another

OR do the adversaries create a paradox where their oppositions cancel each other out leaving only truth in the middle or is it all truth!

Paradox of Paradigms

Just something to think about

Philosophically, everything is truth.

But in practical usage, everything is a lie.

First off let me say, great thread! I like the approach you have taken to analyzing the meanings of these stories and the words used to explain them. I to am interested in language context as well as a few other more esoteric views on the subject of language.

SOO us on ATS are we a bunch of adversaries, going through the motions of doing evil towards one another when we argue and lean soo heavily on our disputable truths and currently known facts and attempt reshape the minds of one another

My answer is yes. We are opposing each other, divided and confused. I have heard before that the key to enlightenment is acceptance.

I'd say it is all about intentions; if you tell a truth to hurt someone, it is evil, but if it is done to prevent further suffering, it is not evil, even if it is hurtful to the other.

Better hurt now for a short time than later and for longer, that's what I say.

Some say the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing mankind into believing he didn't exist.

I believe the greatest trick ever played on mankind was done by the church in making people believe that he did.

There is only truth. If that truth threatens the power of the church of course they'll do whatever they can to discredit you, including calling you "evil."

I would rather be condemned for speaking the truth then uphold the status quo and stand with the majority who are sponsored by a lie. It's all about maintaining the moral highground, no matter what name that position bestows upon you.

reply to post by dizTheWiz


Dear dizTheWiz,

I disagree with your definition of evil. Not everything that causes you pain is evil, that is a self-centered observation of life (I do not mean that in a negative way). It takes out the context of the pain. We can learn from pain. Some of us only learn from pain because we refuse to learn until we have burnt all of our bridges. As for Satan, it says he accuses us day and night before the Lord; but, what did he accuse Job of? He accused Job of only loving God because he had it good, because he had plenty. Job was tortured by Satan and he still did not hate God. Satan lost that bet.

I see no paradox. If you believe in Satan then you must understand him to be the king of this earth. The test is to see if we can manage ourselves and love even when we do not benefit. The world sees life as a cost benefit analysis on a personal level, do things benefit you or cause you pain is the analysis; but, right and wrong do not enter into that equation. We define ourselves more by showing who we are when faced with adversity then we do when faced with pleasure (though that too can be our downfall).

Satan's challenge is to prove that we will trade others in exchange for our personal benefit. Pain is merely the incentive.

reply to post by dizTheWiz


"Whatever's clever."

Does that answer well enough for the posited ideas?

reply to post by AQuestion


The op was in reference to someone who dishes out "suffering, injury, or destruction." Your post was written from the point of view of the recipient.
It's far easier to deal with pain (as you put it) than it is to deal with causing pain. From a recipients standpoint everything boils down to perception. Things aren't so easily defined on the other end of that spectrum.

If I tell someone something that contradicts their beliefs, the very foundation of their reality, and this truth causes them great pain and agony, am I evil for doing this? Or am I more evil for allowing them to unknowingly perpetuate the lie? That is the question I took from the op.

reply to post by dizTheWiz

Then the question was asked if it is evil to tell a perspective of truth that opposes another persons truth resulting in pain suffering and destruction towards that person and their truth.

The thing is, people are only hurt by such truths because the old lies are engraved so deeply into their world paradigms. The lies are really what has caused their suffering, and those lies are most likely inhibiting their ability to live up to their full potential and truly understand the world properly. It causes them to live in a state of ignorance and leads them to promote ignorant ideas whilst attacking anyone who wants to offer them the truth. When we finally accept the truth, you will find that the ultimate result of such a paradigm shift is an overall positive change in the world. Therefore the initial suffering caused by such a shift in our understanding is greatly outweighed by the positive growth which takes place after the shift.

It can be explained in fairly simple terms:

Do you believe it's ethical to make your children believe in Santa their whole lives, or should you tell them the truth at some point in their life, despite how that truth may hurt their feelings?

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Dear FugitiveSoul,

"Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction"

The question assumed that the source of pain is evil, that is what he quoted. The second thing was that he explained his view on Satan. I responded to what he wrote and asked. If I disagree with him on his definition of pain then it would indicate that asking questions, even if they annoy people is not evil. All pain is not evil and not all evil causes pain. If I steal your food then I have done evil; but, it does not mean that you will go hungry, you may go out and buy more or another may feed you, my evil deed does not always result in your pain. The inverse is true, if I fix your broken arm it may cause you pain; but, it is not evil, it is quite the opposite. You may take his question however you will; but, I responded to what he said and explained why using terms that he introduced to the thread.

Originally posted by AQuestion

The question assumed that the source of pain is evil, that is what he quoted. The second thing was that he explained his view on Satan. I responded to what he wrote and asked. If I disagree with him on his definition of pain then it would indicate that asking questions, even if they annoy people is not evil. All pain is not evil and not all evil causes pain. If I steal your food then I have done evil; but, it does not mean that you will go hungry, you may go out and buy more or another may feed you, my evil deed does not always result in your pain. The inverse is true, if I fix your broken arm it may cause you pain; but, it is not evil, it is quite the opposite. You may take his question however you will; but, I responded to what he said and explained why using terms that he introduced to the thread.

I disagree. The op claims that evil causes "injury, destruction, or suffering." Stealing food from my plate does cause suffering in a sense.
Like the old saying "Not all fingers are thumbs, but all thumbs are fingers", the logic stands that "not all injury, destruction, and suffering are caused by evil, but all evil causes either injury, destruction, and/or suffering."

Personally, I don't believe in good and evil as black and white subjects. "Evil", like "good", is a matter of perception, which is why God (if you believe in a divine deity, which I don't) would also have to fulfill the role of the Devil. The two go hand in hand. One without the other creates an imbalance.

If I give a man $10,000 dollars to help him get back on his feet, he may think it a god send, and praise my charity. While on the flipside; I may give a man $10,000 dollars and he may see it as an act of pity, which may lead towards feelings of resentment or even hatred towards me.
Within any given scenario, there are countless ways in which the outcome of said scenario can play out.

The dilemma is; if I know the outcome to be negative, and I go along with it anyway, does that make me "evil?"
Let's break this down into a scenario more fitting to the op.

Example:

Let's just say I build a time machine, or some sort of a looking glass that can peer through time, and I prove without a shadow of a doubt that everything ever claimed by any Abrahamic Religion (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) to be 100% false; Adam and Eve, Moses, Christ, anything in which faith is built, do I reveal my findings to the world, even if I know these findings will lead to mass suicides, murders, the destruction of the Vatican, Jerusalem, and other holy locations, resulting in the deaths of thousands, possibly millions, or do I sit on this knowledge and maintain the lie? Am I evil if I release the truth? Or am I more evil if I allow millions upon millions of other people to be sucked into these religions, to be stunted in their true spiritual growth and the growth of humanity?

Does my truth, since it is in direct opposition to the "word of God", become the adversary of "God", making me a satan, and therefore evil by default?

reply to post by dizTheWiz


People who want to kill or torture living things for pleasure are evil. In my opinion anyone who is anti-humanity is evil. People do not get it if we do not work together our species will perish.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Dear FugitiveSoul,

I disagree. The op claims that evil causes "injury, destruction, or suffering." Stealing food from my plate does cause suffering in a sense. Like the old saying "Not all fingers are thumbs, but all thumbs are fingers", the logic stands that "not all injury, destruction, and suffering are caused by evil, but all evil causes either injury, destruction, and/or suffering." Personally, I don't believe in good and evil as black and white subjects. "Evil", like "good", is a matter of perception, which is why God (if you believe in a divine deity, which I don't) would also have to fulfill the role of the Devil. The two go hand in hand. One without the other creates an imbalance. If I give a man $10,000 dollars to help him get back on his feet, he may think it a god send, and praise my charity. While on the flipside; I may give a man $10,000 dollars and he may see it as an act of pity, which may lead towards feelings of resentment or even hatred towards me. Within any given scenario, there are countless ways in which the outcome of said scenario can play out. The dilemma is; if I know the outcome to be negative, and I go along with it anyway, does that make me "evil?" Let's break this down into a scenario more fitting to the op. Example: Let's just say I build a time machine, or some sort of a looking glass that can peer through time, and I prove without a shadow of a doubt that everything ever claimed by any Abrahamic Religion (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) to be 100% false; Adam and Eve, Moses, Christ, anything in which faith is built, do I reveal my findings to the world, even if I know these findings will lead to mass suicides, murders, the destruction of the Vatican, Jerusalem, and other holy locations, resulting in the death of thousands, possibly millions, or do I sit on this knowledge and maintain the lie? Am I evil if I release the truth? Or am I more evil if I allow millions upon millions of other people to be sucked into these religions, to be stunted in their true spiritual growth and the growth of humanity?

If you steal from me have you not caused me injury? Were you thinking the word was limited to physical injury? I believe that you can mentally abuse people. I am not sure I am following the rest of what you wrote, if there is a God then he must also be evil? I still disagree with the definition of evil so maybe that is why I cannot follow your logic on this. Pain can be a positive thing and evil can be pleasurable, that doesn't fit your definition. Here is a nice simple example. Your husband cheats on you, decides it could hurt his career and never does it again or tells you about it. The act of betrayal was evil; but, you were not harmed because you never knew. You don't believe in God so we don't have to get in a Karma or afterlife conversation about it, simply definitional in a non-spiritual manner. Maybe you would say that because nobody got hurt that it wasn't evil; but, evil includes intent and not just consequence. If I plan to kill you and I die in a car crash on the way, my intent was still evil. Peace.

@Aquestion
Yes nice job flipping it the way you did. so where do u believe the term evil comes into play in the human paradigm. is it only in the presence of personal morals?

or do u think no perspective of evil should exist because all intellectual pain the ego experiences is here to teach us.

I remember reading people argue over specific alien races who are presumed to return to earth as being good or bad. And i said whether malevolent or benevolent, one way or another they are here to help us with our spiritual liberation. then the people arguing started going WHA WHA ohh no, it cant be !

good input from all of you guys
@Chaotic order. LOL nice one with the children believing santa example. Humans still seem to have the habit where its ok lying to each other if it amusing

Originally posted by dizTheWiz
@Aquestion
Yes nice job flipping it the way you did. so where do u believe the term evil comes into play in the human paradigm. is it only in the presence of personal morals?

or do u think no perspective of evil should exist because all intellectual pain the ego experiences is here to teach us.

I remember reading people argue over specific alien races who are presumed to return to earth as being good or bad. And i said whether malevolent or benevolent, one way or another they are here to help us with our spiritual liberation. then the people arguing started going WHA WHA ohh no, it cant be !

Dear dizTheWiz,

If you reply to the OP rather than my post, there is a good chance I will not be notified that you responded to me; but, perhaps that was your intent. I flipped nothing, I continued along the line of thought that I originally wrote and was responded to. Evil is when selfishness is more important to us than others, when we think we are more important than anything else, when we would allow others great pain to avoid any ourselves. A better question, in my humble opinion, is what is good and how do we strive towards it? Good, for me, would be being in service to others when it does not benefit you to the same extent and forgiveness.

Now, while people artfully define evil they tend to ignore good. Is good the opposite of evil, is it anything that enriches us or is it more than that, is it more than enriches all of us? Perhaps you think good and evil are separate and unrelated terms. I would not say that all pain is good, it certainly fails when we can no longer handle it and cease having free will, that is a point that is individual.

I saw a show, TaxiCab Confessions, on HBO. There was a lady who cared for the elderly, her arm was broken. She explained how an elderly person with dementia had harmed her and she explained how he didn't understand what he had done and that these elderly needed help from strangers when their families could not take care of them. She said how proud she was to do that. I would say that was good in her being exhibited by real action. She would say that these people were not evil even though they harmed her. Jesus says to forgive them for they know not what they do. I raised three kids, they caused plenty of pain; but, they didn't understand that poking me in the eye as a baby would hurt me, people learn.

Originally posted by AQuestion

If you steal from me have you not caused me injury? Were you thinking the word was limited to physical injury?

Obviously not, since I mentioned that stealing my food could, in fact, cause me suffering.

I believe that you can mentally abuse people. I am not sure I am following the rest of what you wrote, if there is a God then he must also be evil? I still disagree with the definition of evil so maybe that is why I cannot follow your logic on this. Pain can be a positive thing and evil can be pleasurable, that doesn't fit your definition.

There's no confusion in our two definitions, they're both very much the same; it's just you keep switching perspectives. Can evil cause pain in a victim? Yes. Can evil cause pain in the person committing the act? Yes. Can doing evil cause pleasure? Yes. Cause having evil done to you cause pleasure? I fail to see how.

Here is a nice simple example. Your husband....

Before we go any further, I want to change the scenario so that it doesn't feel too weird for me.

Your wife cheats on you, decides it could hurt her career and never does it again or tells you about it. The act of betrayal was evil; but, you were not harmed because you never knew. Maybe you would say that because nobody got hurt that it wasn't evil; but, evil includes intent and not just consequence. If I plan to kill you and I die in a car crash on the way, my intent was still evil.

The scenarios are apples and oranges.

Your scenario 1: I've done something terrible. Should I tell you and have you get pissed at me?
Your scenario 2: I'm on my way to kill you, but die along the way. I'm still evil, because I really was planning on killing you.

My scenario: I've discovered a bit of knowledge that greatly conflicts with the status quo. Do I reveal that knowledge and derail people's perceptions and reality and potentially reck people's lives, while liberating others, or do I sit on this nugget of truth?

See the difference? Your scenario contains malice. Mine contains nothing more than truth and the dilemma of revealing said truth.

Remember, I was referencing my source from the op:

"Then the question was asked if it is evil to tell a perspective of truth that opposes another persons truth resulting in pain suffering and destruction towards that person and their truth."

You don't believe in God so we don't have to get in a Karma or afterlife conversation about it, simply definitional in a non-spiritual manner. Peace.

I never said I didn't believe in god. I said, I don't believe in god as a divine deity. I absolutely believe in god, karma, and the afterlife. Consider me: pro-spirituality/anti-religion.

Anyway; this has been a lovely debate, but seeing that it's 3am here, I think I'm going to turn in.
It's been a real treat debating with you, though I think both of us are on the same page, only our logical methodology are a bit different. If you respond to this it'll be tomorrow before I'm able to get back to you (or should I say later this morning). Either way, have a good evening/morning (depending on where you are in the world). G'night.

reply to post by dizTheWiz


Without suffering how would evolution take place?

Its the efficient use of suffering thats important.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Dear FugitiveSoul,

Have a nice rest, I shall be turning in shortly myself.

My scenario: I've discovered a bit of knowledge that greatly conflicts with the status quo. Do I reveal that knowledge and derail people's perceptions and reality and potentially reck people's lives, while liberating others, or do I sit on this nugget of truth? See the difference? Your scenario contains malice. Mine contains nothing more than truth and the dilemma of revealing said truth.

I believe intent does play a part and knowledge of the effect that our words will have also matters. I would not explain certain things to children because they need to understand basics in order to understand greater truths and they need to learn how to learn for themselves to be truly free, as in free will. Evil, in your scenario, would not be telling someone something that might upset their world view, it would be telling them it before they were ready to deal with it. If I knew that a comet was going to destroy the earth tomorrow and kill us all, I would not tell my three year old, they will be better off not knowing. It is not about telling the truth, it is about explaining things to someone before they have enough fundamentals to decide what it means for themselves.

As for denying your spirituality, sorry, I thought you had said you didn't believe in God and was trying to respect that. Whether there is a God or not, my definition of good and evil remains the same. Good is giving more than you took, evil is taking more than you gave. Both of these implies without agreement or consent or understanding. Peace.

reply to post by AQuestion


my bad i dont use ATS to debate or post much i dont even know where to look for the notifications of a reply.
# i barley found out what OP means a couple days ago

the main message i was trying to put across was opposing a false truth can make one seem evil to the false person

but u did a good job clarifying the def of what it is to be evil

i went as far into the rabbit hole of this subject as i needed in my first post and just wanted to see what people would say . The OP wasnt as elegant as i could have made it. i rushed it and started babbling towards the end and lost my point,
well anyways thanks for participating