If God and evil cannot be shown to be to co-exist then this is the biggest contradiction ever. It does not compare to saying that there are two cups of sugar in your sugar when there is no sugar in it at all.

To avoid saying God made evil, religion says there is only good and evil is just a good failing to be there when it should be. So murder is not killing but making a life absent! That makes no sense and is desperation. It is a word salad. To avoid saying God made evil now we are told evil is not there to be made in the first place. It is just emptiness and nothing.  Make no mistake, seeing murder that way will help people commit it and it is evil how religion is prepared to disown that person even when its teaching is largely to blame.

So that is good and evil.
Let us talk about the related subject of approval and disapproval and liking and disliking.

Person 1, “It is immoral for innocent to suffer”

Person 2, “I don’t want people to suffer”.
Both are compatible but you can have one without the other. Religion says you need both.
But if you for some reason, hypothetically, have to be 1 or 2 then what? Religion it says because God is morality, and morality is just justice and love and mercy, you should be 1. It says it is wrong to just want people to be okay just because that is how you feel.

The fact that this ends up putting a rule before a person, before personal feeling and rapport, does not matter then.

Religion instructs us that evil is a very strong word and implies grave total condemnation. Yet does this make sense when it says evil is the absence of good? What kind of strong is that?

Anyway they say they mean there is nothing good about homosexual acts, adultery, gender affirmation or abortion if those things are really sins. It would be the case for example that though the adulterous people may be good to each other and good for each other, that their sex is not good at all. They may think that their sex bonds them together better and makes them kinder to each other but even if that is their known lived experience, we are meant to tell them they are kidding themselves. The potential here for moralistic people to bully and invalidate and fail to listen is very real.

The God doctrine is itself riddled with lies, incoherence and what by any religious standard one would call evil. It is just unfit for any purpose. If some argue that the doctrine is a necessary evil what then? They are indirectly saying that atheism is an evil and that they have judged God to be a better, though still appalling, option.

What if both atheism and God are equally evils? Religion then has no right to be all for God and worship would be repulsive. Toss a coin.

You would prove that God as in the one demanding faith would be incompatible with him being good. The notion of a God who makes no requests or demands would survive that.

Religion says that evil corrupts in all sorts of surprising and hidden and almost supernatural ways. It is like how you enjoy a horror film and find that you want to do evil for some reason a few days later or whenever. Necessary evil looks plain evil to the uninformed so you don't need plain evil then to get people corrupted. It is all downhill morally, slowly but surely.

You are told to not let evil spread. But you cannot remove it from the past. You cannot remove it from the crevices it waits in. You cannot see the secret hideaways it used or uses. You can only paper over it. You only delay something turning into its true form.

It is no surprise with theological messing around evil that people sense that religion somehow is not the great antidote to evil that it claims to be.

Just because a duty is a duty, or because a religion is right about something being a duty, that does not give religion the right to command it. Yet it acts like it has that very right.

Because of that it cannot resort to blaming human nature not itself when people do evil in its name.

What would it say if it turned out that its popes had a remarkable degree of evil? Would that not indicate that being in the religion to the extent to being its pope was bad or at least not specially good? What would it say if a tellingly large percentage of members who prayed to a certain degree or had a high level of knowledge of its doctrine were offending far beyond what you would expect of the average membership? Doesn't happen? It does!

Suppose you are accused of doing evil. The accuser is saying that if opponents of your evil use evil means to try and stop it, it is basically making you see that you need to remove and correct the evil in yourself. It is claimed that you cannot deter people from evil except by exposing the ugliness and futility of the evil. Religion will not admit to using evil against evil or evil as aversion therapy. So much for admitting evil being the first step to possible reformation!

And we are told on the one hand that evil plants a seed somehow on those who are informed about it and now we are told we need to be confronted with our evil as much as possible so that we might turn from it!

If God hates you or you think he does then he repels you. If you are evil then will become hardened in it. If he hates you then religion has a reason for lying to you and denying it. It is for its own self-preservation. He must hate you for we should know by now that those who claim to love you as they try to get you to abandon evil are actually using an arsenic form of evil.

Religion promises you a love that is too good to be true. If you feel God does not care enough you are told to dismiss the evidence of neglect and blame yourself. That makes your agony worse. Religion is protecting itself.

Does evil attack itself and thus give way to good or does it just fade like a pair of blue jeans? Is it violent then even against itself or is it just something that time fades out? Religion seems to affirm either or both depending on its mood. If evil self-destructs you have to, or may, become it to help it do it. That is what you are going to feel you have to do. Religion for something that says evil burns itself out does not really think so for it demands that we go to battle against it. Religion lies about how to handle evil so it has no right to refuse the blame for what its evil members do.

Some religionists worry about how evil destroys. Naturally they want to deflect it from themselves or their loved ones. They want the evil to leave them and go to their enemies and destroy them instead.

Religion says God does not want us to suffer but that suffering happens and God is bigger than it and uses it to lead us to him. Now if you really need a friend and you feel the person is worried only that God does not want you to suffer you will feel bypassed. You will feel erased. A doctrine that leads to that cannot really bolster and represent morality.

Some say atheists damage morality for they don't believe in an afterlife. They ask, "If atheists think morality is only about bringing about the most good results then why can’t they aim for good results in an afterlife such as Heaven maybe?" The obvious answer is that it does not matter how long life lasts. Treat people good. At least those people are not saying the atheists need God to affirm morality. But saying the afterlife is needed is worse. 

Be aware that if we we are inclined to suppose that evil might fit God then remember that at the root of that is the question, "If life as as bad under a God if he exists as atheists say then why are they not clamouring for a nuclear war to end it all?" I am saying that the real source of those who dismiss evil as a disproof of God or a near disproof, is avoidance of the suggestion that if suffering is so terrible we should not be here full stop. Atheists argue that some suffering should not happen because it picks out one person while their neighbour flourishes. We are not saying the suffering person should be destroyed. We are saying they matter and that is why their suffering is to be abhorred and condemned. We are proposing happiness and health not destruction. The fact that nature does not know what it is doing does not mean we agree with what it results in. The believers are the one who want people destroyed if evil does not fit God.

Even if religion were right to say that evil just refers to a good that should be there and is not and there is just a void it does not follow it really cares if it is right.

There is too much fast-tracking going on.

A lot of questions are turned away from.

Do we have free will as in being able to create a good or evil ourselves?

We can have that but it does not mean we have free will as in turning to God as your true love or turning away.

It is the same idea as a being having free will but being able to fall in love with a sexually unattractive person who is the most beautiful person inside ever.

And even if there is a God it does not follow that what we think we are connected to in our hearts is him for we are so good at internal idolatry and worshipping our images of things rather than the things. There is zero evidence that free will is about God.

Do we have free will as in being able to be non-self-centred or self-centred? Many say each person has a self-centred motive no matter how altruistic or sacrificing their action seems. That would not need any connection to a God.

The fast-tracking clearly shows that religion does not care. It would say evil is a void for ideological reasons whether it is true or not or whether it is elevating our dignity or tearing it down.

Whatever you mean by absurd, religion says God's love is with us as we suffer evil is absurd.

Atheists who think evil probably refutes God usually don't go as far as to say there is a definite contradiction between both. Some do. Like a square circle, they say this God tolerating evil makes no sense.

Religion hides what it means by evil and it over-simplifies it. This empowers faith in God. This empowers religion. Respect for God is respect for what is proven to be a lie. The lie is very big and very damaging. Have empathy for those who are lied to and those who are clearly harmed by it.

Evil lies about itself in a sense, in the way the dark lies about the person hiding in it. It is lied about by its friends and foes alike. For that reason, to say that evil fits God depends on it being made blurry but it is evil to do that. The argument that God fits evil refutes itself, it defeats itself.  Why?  Because it depends on being evil.


No Copyright