Tools for Satan

[EyeKhan]

I see the belief in Satan as no more moronic than the belief in God.

Why is it worse than believing in God? The article mentions the devil is part of Catholic dogma, so it's not really weird that a believer also believes in the devil.

I think it may be easier to square a non-interfering God with reality than to do the same with a meddling evil Prince of Darkness.

Supposedly it's a meddling God too. God meddles far more throughout the Bible than the Devil does.

The existence of a Satan seems to make a lot less sense than the existence of a God, but only if you accept the more modern view of God as personal, all loving, all forgiving, intent on preserving free will, etc and the modern view of bible content as being largely educational metaphor. Boogie-men are for children and child-like, simplistic thinking. But God doesn't have to be that way. Right?

[RandBlade]

If you believe in the Bible how interfering is God in man's activities throughout it, how interfering is Satan? How many deaths does God cause and how many Satan?

I don't see any reason why the devil is less believable than God.

[GGT]

The existence of a Satan seems to make a lot less sense than the existence of a God, but only if you accept the more modern view of God as personal, all loving, all forgiving, intent on preserving free will, etc and the modern view of bible content as being largely educational metaphor. Boogie-men are for children and child-like, simplistic thinking. But God doesn't have to be that way. Right?

Right. Believing in God doesn't necessitate believing in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause....or Satan. "Simplistic thinking" isn't reserved for little children, afraid of the dark, at bedtime. I think a lot of grown-up people use religious texts and organized religion the same way little kids do -- to simplify very complicated and scary lives. It's a comfort, but also stuffed with fluff, just like our childhood teddy bears.

[RandBlade]

It's not just children who simplify things, its parents.

[Aimless]

If you believe in the Bible how interfering is God in man's activities throughout it, how interfering is Satan? How many deaths does God cause and how many Satan?

I don't see any reason why the devil is less believable than God.

Not all believers take the Bible literally.

[EyeKhan]

If you believe in the Bible how interfering is God in man's activities throughout it, how interfering is Satan? How many deaths does God cause and how many Satan?

I don't see any reason why the devil is less believable than God.

Did you read the part about bible content being metaphorical and not literal? And for that matter, the quantity of interaction with humanity isn't the only measure of reasonable belief - quality matters too.

[EyeKhan]

a lot of grown-up people use religious texts and organized religion the same way little kids do -- to simplify very complicated and scary lives.

In a lot of ways life without God and Satan gets a lot simpler. I think people might like Satan because it takes the weight of responsibility off the shoulders of humanity. The devil tricks us into genocide -- we wouldn't do it otherwise.

[RandBlade]

Not all believers take the Bible literally.

Did you read the part about bible content being metaphorical and not literal? And for that matter, the quantity of interaction with humanity isn't the only measure of reasonable belief - quality matters too.

So if the Bible's not being taken literally then Satan wouldn't be taken literally either. It'd STILL be equally plausible to believe in Satan as God.

I fail to see any reason that it is less moronic to believe in the devil than in God. Both are equally moronic or not.

[EyeKhan]

I fail to see any reason that it is less moronic to believe in the devil than in God. Both are equally moronic or not.

Yes you do. Ok.

[RandBlade]

No I don't. OK

I do believe that both are moronic but there isn't one more moronic than the other, they are a package deal. They come together. It is like saying the Easter Bunny is more moronic than the Tooth Fairy.

[EyeKhan]

No I don't. OK

Ha, that came across pretty funny. I meant "yes you fail to see that one is more moronic than the other..."

[Aimless]

So if the Bible's not being taken literally then Satan wouldn't be taken literally either. It'd STILL be equally plausible to believe in Satan as God.

... the point is indeed that a person who has a less literal take on the Bible and on God should perhaps not believe in Satan as a direct, active and ultimate source of all evil.

In an interview in New York Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declared that he believes the Devil is a “real person.” Scalia went on to say—in a statement reminiscent of Baudelaire and The Usual Suspects—that the Devil is actively engaged in “getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.”

[EyeKhan]

... the point is indeed that a person who has a less literal take on the Bible and on God should perhaps not believe in Satan as a direct, active and ultimate source of all evil.

I think - Rand, correct me if I'm wrong - that Rand feels if he concedes that believing in Satan is more moronic than believing in even a modern concept of God that he will be conceding that belief in God is reasonable on some level. In short, he is wary of being trapped into a statement that anything besides atheism could be reasonable, and so the inflexible position.

Edit: considering past experience with discussion combat here, I don't blame him. (that much )

[Aimless]

I think - Rand, correct me if I'm wrong - that Rand feels if he concedes that believing in Satan is more moronic than believing in even a modern concept of God that he will be conceding that belief in God is reasonable on some level. In short, he is wary of being trapped into a statement that anything besides atheism could be reasonable, and so the inflexible position.

Edit: considering past experience with discussion combat here, I don't blame him. (that much )

What?? That's as moronic as believing in God or Satan

[Flixy]

I think it's similar, and I'm not 'afraid' of conceding God's validity, though. In fact, looking at the world, believing in Satan might be more reasonable

[RandBlade]

I think - Rand, correct me if I'm wrong - that Rand feels if he concedes that believing in Satan is more moronic than believing in even a modern concept of God that he will be conceding that belief in God is reasonable on some level. In short, he is wary of being trapped into a statement that anything besides atheism could be reasonable, and so the inflexible position.

Edit: considering past experience with discussion combat here, I don't blame him. (that much )

No you're wrong, its simply that I fail to see any logical reason why yin is any more logical than yang. Why heads are any more logical than tails.

If you believe in the Christian God then what logical reason do you have for that? If its because you believe in the Bible then logically you should believe in the devil too. You've not provided any LOGIC as to why one is more reasonable than others, just claimed it as so.

[EyeKhan]

No you're wrong, its simply that I fail to see any logical reason why yin is any more logical than yang. Why heads are any more logical than tails.

But belief in a God and belief in Satan are not the same thing, qualitatively -- they are different in motivation, in action, in capability and in function as part of the overall belief system. I think it's irrational to insist believing in one is the same as the other, qualitatively, unless there's some other motivation for doing so.

[EyeKhan]

What?? That's as moronic as believing in God or Satan

No it isn't. It's very human behavior.

[EyeKhan]

I think it's similar, and I'm not 'afraid' of conceding God's validity, though. In fact, looking at the world, believing in Satan might be more reasonable

No way. It's fairly reasonable to believe in a creator of the universe - there's observed evidence pointing to it - but there's no good reason at all to think a super bad guy exists.

[Flixy]

As a way of rationalizing why people just like you and me do bad things? Devil's influence!

[EyeKhan]

As a way of rationalizing why people just like you and me do bad things? Devil's influence!

Well, that's where the childishness is most apparent. There's a huge body of knowledge explaining pretty well why people do bad things from a strictly secular POV. I wonder if the Satan thing actually helps people deal with guilt and regret? If Satan influenced you, then you're not really the bad person your actions suggest...

[GGT]

Ted Cruz was speaking at the "Value Voters Summit", and he said something like The worst thing the Devil did was convince some people he's not real ~but we know better~ Then he went on about Christian Values as the bedrock of America for centuries. The event is hosted by the Family Research Council. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

Sounds like "Satan is a Tool" for some religious groups to influence politics, and they really believe government needs more Christianity to fight Satan. I heard some of these US groups are advising Russia on their pro-Christian/anti-homosexual legislation...because the Devil makes teh gays do evil things, and destroys traditional families, and even Nations!

[Dreadnaught]

My reaction to that story was more visceral than you and Loki's. All Constitutional issues aside, with his education and thoughtful, careful intelligence, he ought to have more sophisticated religious beliefs. Faith in God, belief in the value of religious institutions, etc does not (necessarily) conflict with intelligence, maturity, sophistication, etc. But belief in Satan as an entity that actively manipulates human society as part of some grand cosmic conflict between good and evil...? Yeah, that really is moronic, especially when you're smart enough and educated enough to know better.

The existence of a Satan seems to make a lot less sense than the existence of a God, but only if you accept the more modern view of God as personal, all loving, all forgiving, intent on preserving free will, etc and the modern view of bible content as being largely educational metaphor. Boogie-men are for children and child-like, simplistic thinking. But God doesn't have to be that way. Right?

Did you read the original interview? It was a fun read:

http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/

Scalia seemed to anticipate this "blowback" and made a good point within the interview itself:

You believe in heaven and hell?
Oh, of course I do. Don’t you believe in heaven and hell?

No.
Oh, my.

Does that mean I’m not going?
[Laughing.] Unfortunately not!

Wait, to heaven or hell?
It doesn’t mean you’re not going to hell, just because you don’t believe in it. That’s Catholic doctrine! Everyone is going one place or the other.

But you don’t have to be a Catholic to get into heaven? Or believe in it?
Of course not!

Oh. So you don’t know where I’m going. Thank God.
I don’t know where you’re going. I don’t even know whether Judas Iscariot is in hell. I mean, that’s what the pope meant when he said, “Who am I to judge?” He may have recanted and had severe penance just before he died. Who knows?

Can we talk about your drafting process—
[Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the Devil.

You do?
Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.

Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there …
If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.

[...]
Isn’t it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil?
You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.

I hope you weren’t sensing contempt from me. It wasn’t your belief that surprised me so much as how boldly you expressed it.
I was offended by that. I really was.

I’m sorry to have offended you!
Have you read The Screwtape Letters?

Yes, I have.
So, there you are. That’s a great book. It really is, just as a study of human nature.

He has a point -- in a historical context and in the context of the greater human body of belief/intellectual thought, he's really not saying anything radical. Sure, we can debate all we want if it's crazy for a religious person to be a judge or if religion is inherently crazy. But, in a purely relative sense, Scalia isn't "crazy" here.

[EyeKhan]

He has a point -- in a historical context and in the context of the greater human body of belief/intellectual thought, he's really not saying anything radical. Sure, we can debate all we want if it's crazy for a religious person to be a judge or if religion is inherently crazy. But, in a purely relative sense, Scalia isn't "crazy" here.

First thing I got from that transcript is he's fucking smart.

Second, I'm traveling in those mainstream-removed circles too. Not really in circles, I'm not very social, but what I read/ watch/ listen to is anything but mainstream.

Third, he seems to be saying he believes because its Catholic Dogma and being a good catholic he has too. He never says a word about whether its sensible or plausible.

Also, the argument that most of humanity accepts it for most of history is meaningless. Most of humanity treated women like property for most of human history. Most of humanity kept slaves for most of human history. Most of humanity was fine with genocide for most of human history.... its a bad argument.

In the end, I'd prefer that the justices were atheist. And the president. And all of congress. And everyone else too, so, uh..... that's meaningless too I guess.

Also, I'm really liking this new pope. First time in my life I've heard a pope say something very admirable. I'm expecting him to have an untimely death.

[RandBlade]

I'd prefer that to but that's something to vote towards, not demand. I expect justices and politicians to be secular not atheist and I've not seen any evidence that Scalia doesn't act within his role in a secular manner.

[RandBlade]

No way. It's fairly reasonable to believe in a creator of the universe - there's observed evidence pointing to it - but there's no good reason at all to think a super bad guy exists.

I missed this response. Sorry but this is total nonsense, what "observed evidence" is there for a creator? I've debated religion with the religious for decades and never seen any, it generally boils down to "faith". And if you're going to put your faith in a story then why divorce one part of that story?

[Asmodian]

To go back one page technically Atheism is a belief that GOD does not exist, so it is not a lack of belief. Since lack of gods existence cannot be proven any more than his existence, both assertions require faith. The "lack of belief" would I believe be called Agnosticism.

Going back to how decisions should, I was always under impression that law maker, i.e. politicians can be guided by whatever they want, preferably by their moral convictions and if those are grounded in religious beliefs then so be it. But Judges as rand mentioned should be guided by the laws and in as much as humanly possible try to avoid their moral convictions, etc, influencing their decision.

[RandBlade]

Atheism does not require faith. Something does not need to be disproven in order to not believe in it. We operate in a logical and even legal structure that evidence should be provided for a claim or it can be disbelieved and since there is no reason to believe in any gods, there's no reason not to disbelieve in it. Just as I have no reason not to disbelieve in psychics, ghosts or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Steely Glint]

I see the belief in Satan as no more moronic than the belief in God.

The "Magic Man in The Sky" version of God is just as moronic as the idea of Satan, but I would call more abstract conceptions of God less moronic.

[Steely Glint]

Atheism does not require faith. Something does not need to be disproven in order to not believe in it. We operate in a logical and even legal structure that evidence should be provided for a claim or it can be disbelieved and since there is no reason to believe in any gods, there's no reason not to disbelieve in it. Just as I have no reason not to disbelieve in psychics, ghosts or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The real difference is that atheists consider the idea that there's a god as so unlikely as to be effectively the same thing as non-belief, whereas agnostics thing there's a chance religion might actually be true.