It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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.
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.
"Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction"
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 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?
Originally posted by dizTheWiz
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 !
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?
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....
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.
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.
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.