From: empiress	Date: October 13th, 2002 07:25 am (UTC)		(Link)

For the sake of all the goodness within ourselves we must recognize and accept that we are completely selfish and carnal beings. Evil, even. When we accept this and understand how this works then the good within ourselves can become all the more greater and expressible. Without this embrace of our evil sides we are imbalanced and not capable of fully realizing our "good" potential. More worryingly without accepting our evil side we will not perceive accurately what good itself is and stray. "

Agreed! Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism have all been saying this for millennia. They are all insistent about humanity's dark side as a fundamental starting point. Buddhists call it admitting that one is a "karmic being," eg, that we are limited and full of negative karma and negative karmic outcomes. The Koran describes it as sin (Koran 4:111, 6:120, 24:11). Judaism terms it human evil or having "strayed": "the heart of the sons of men is full of evil" Ecc. 9:3 and "all have gone astray" Is. 53:6. Christianity also describes it as evil and sin. Jesus said, "The world...hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil"( Jn. 7:7). Paul explains, "there is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom.3:10) and "all have sinned." Paul also refers to this as the "law of sin" (Rom. 7:23) saying, "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." Evil is inescapably part of the human condition. In all the world's faiths, if one cannot accept one's own dark and evil side, one is decieving oneself and blind, unable to do "good."

Likewise, in any addiction recovery program, the first step is always to admit one has a "problem" before one can begin to fix it. One cannot ever hope to recover, grow, or change if one does not first accept the fundamental dark and evil side of oneself. In fact, no "good guy" badge can or ought ever to exist according to the world's faiths because, "there is none righteous, no, not one."

:-)

	From: vexen	Date: October 13th, 2002 01:42 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Cool. I recognize that many religions state a pretty similar thing. Calvinists call it "Total depravity". The Christians view is probably best expressed through Paul, as you quote, "there is none righteous". However the use of the word "sin" is not used within Satanism for most of the aspects of ourselves that other religions classify as "sin".

The religion that is closest to Satanism in this respect is Buddhism, although there is no concept of Karma in Satanism, Buddhism's view of ourselves as self-limited accords with Satanisms and would be the closest match for an equivalent of what "sin" is in Satanism. I think. This would also be compatible within Solipsism, where life is a journey back to the self. In Solipsism self-realisation is probably equivalent to Nirvana. Both of these are mystical extrapolations of what goes no further in Satanism than a will for a happy life.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: December 6th, 2005 09:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Evil

I think the biggest problem is the term "evil" and what we consider evil..Lust, pride, need to procreate, selfishness, etc, are not evil..They were deemed evil by man-made religions..They are all a natural part of human nature..Evil is taking pleasure in other people's pain & misery..deliberately causing terrible things to happen for the sake of entertainment..When lust, greed, pride,selfishness, etc. are coupled with reason, logic, common sense, & compassion ( all human gifts) then they are not evil....The Inquisition was evil,The burning time was evil, book burning is evil, stifling knowledge is evil..Seems to me Satan is good & the Catholic church is evil..

From: (Anonymous)	Date: October 30th, 2002 11:32 am (UTC)		(Link)
Altruism

Your definition of altruism is not altruism. You define altruism as giving to others because it benefits you. That is not altruism. Altruism is giving to others because it benfits others. Altruism has nothing to do with you. By adding a you to altruism you are changing the definition and tearing apart the argument on the changed definition. There by not arguing against altruism at all,just arguing against something you made up. In essence you are arguing against egoism which is counterproductive to your point.
May God bless you and keep you always.
Jason

	From: vexen	Date: October 30th, 2002 09:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Altruism

I don't think you understood the point of the text on altruism. I am saying that altruism is a hypocritical concept because when we do things for others we always do so for selfish reasons. Altruism is long term selfishness.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: March 27th, 2003 06:15 am (UTC)		(Link)
you stupid freaks

all the people that come here and think they're all cool becasue they can diss on god and make it seem ok, yeah well you suck. how can you put down the only thing that is right in life. without god where would we be. well for one thing we wouldn't be on earth since umm he made earth.

well thats all i have to say
bye

	From: vexen	Date: March 27th, 2003 04:10 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: you stupid freaks

There are no gods.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rm.html

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 8th, 2003 02:56 am (UTC)		(Link)
Love for a child?

OK, I totally agree with what you say about altruism being long-term selfishness. And anyone who is honest will also agree. Love ... yes, whyen it comes to sexual or "romantic" love ... this too is selfish.

But what about the love for a child? Particularly an unplanned child. You could say that loving a child you had planned for is selfish because you had a kid because you WANTED one. But what if you didn't want one. What if, 5 years on, you still wish you had never had one? Yet you still love that child. What if, in you deepest moments of despair ... when the absurdity of existence hits you HARD and you start to lose the will to live ... your only reason to go on is cos you know that you must give love to this child and protect it until it is old enough to look after itself? And it's not cos you WANT to go on? Is this selfishness?

Or could it be put down to something else, more primal? The basic biological need to continue the species, perhaps? After all, it is the ONE thing we know for sure that we are here for. If there is a reason for doing that, we do not know! ;)

I just don't think that "love" is always a selfish thing. But, when it's not down to selfishness, it is down to the biological imperitave to continue the species so it's still not altruistic!

From: (Anonymous)	Date: December 6th, 2005 09:36 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Re: Love for a child?

Loving a child is perhaps the most selfish kind of all..The amazing way one feels when holding a child is wonderful.. Ok, it does become a bit unselfish when that adorable child becomes a teen, but that too passes..Believe me, after having 3 kids, 2 planned, 1 not, I do know it is selfish..There are times we do things that are unselfish, but all in all, it makes me feel warm & proud, a feeling that is definitely sought after for selfish reasons.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 26th, 2003 01:28 am (UTC)		(Link)
altruism and selfishness

So far what I have read regarding good and so-called evil has just turned my traditional notions upside down.
I still am confused about what you consider evil or if it really is.
This almost sounds like a form of Orwellian doublespeak where the words
actually mean the opposite. For example "love" means "hate" and "peace"
means "war".
Would a serial killer be considered evil in your use of the term?
He certainly can't be good or altruistic by the original definition of
the word!
Selfish? possibly. Some of them get a feeling of pleasure or gratification from commiting their acts of crime.
Just as some thieves get more pleasure from the act of stealing and getting away with it than from whatever they have stolen.
It's the challenge in committing the crime that seems to be a thrill
for some.
How about someone like Saddam Hussein,Stalin,Caligula,Ivan the terrible
and other tyrants from history?
I don't consider them altruistic in any sense of the word.
I honestly feel that there are people who can get more pleasure either
out of hurting others or their feelings in some way.
Some of us like to take out our anger on others and get some satisfaction in doing so. That is just too obvious to even state.
I sometimes fanasize about doing this myself and acting like the ultimate jerk, just as some fantasize about having an erotic encounter with the opposite sex.
Deep down I want to believe or I want to be someone who gets pleasure by humiliating others,making them look like fools by outsmarting them,rubbing things in like bad reminders,and just somehow bring a cloud over their sunshine.
I want to be the person who when he dies will make everyone breathe a sigh of relief and pleasure.
Like the death of Stalin which according to some made many Russians feel a bit of relief as though an expected hurricane never showed up.
Why would I want this? Perhaps it's ego combined with having a chip on my shoulder. Maybe I just want to be the big bad wolf who terrorizes everybody. Even villians can gain respect and admiration as well as immortality. History after all is full of them.
I would sooner be remembered as a tyrant or an asshole rather than a fool or a wimp. Now that should be the motto of a real Satanist.
That's how one should really feel especially if they have any sense
of self-respect.
Like others I do have my issues or hangups but
I admit that thinking about possible consequences in regard to my actions does a lot to encourage me to exercise some self control.
But it's still nice to fantasize and I can still be an obnoxious prick every now and then and I can always make someone feel uncomfortable.
I enjoy turning some people off more than I do turning them on.
There is a part of me that wants to be a noncomforming bastard.
Where someone else wants to act like a gentleman I want to be rude
and painfully brusque with the opposite sex.
I don't dream of being a romantic ladies man I dream of being a jerk.
Funny isn't it? I envy the Arabs and other people in the middle east in
some respects. I'm not a muslim but there are some things I like about their culture and way of life that I wish I could get away with emulating. One is their treatment of women. I would like to get away with hitting or slapping around women without being arrested especially if they deserve it. To me it is one of the few places in the world where men are really men for this very reason.
They don't have feminist lesbians telling them how to think politically correct and how they should be acting around women.
If I was white or caucasian I would be tempted to be a redneck bigot
just to be the opposite of being a politically correct geek or moron.
Well judging by what I have said so far,I think I can say without bragging in the least bit and with a straight face this much.
I think based on my own self-reflection that I'm probably more of a real satanist than some others out there and perhaps maybe more than
you are.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: December 6th, 2005 09:43 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Re: altruism and selfishness

I feel sorry for you..You are filled with rage & dysfunctional thoughts..You are by no means a Satanist..He represents enlightenment, which you obviously could use.. A Satanist is clear-headed, honest, rational & intelligent..He/she doesn't take pleasure in others' misfortune or degradation..

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 26th, 2003 01:30 am (UTC)		(Link)
altruism and selfishness

So far what I have read regarding good and so-called evil has just turned my traditional notions upside down.
I still am confused about what you consider evil or if it really is.
This almost sounds like a form of Orwellian doublespeak where the words
actually mean the opposite. For example "love" means "hate" and "peace"
means "war".
Would a serial killer be considered evil in your use of the term?
He certainly can't be good or altruistic by the original definition of
the word!
Selfish? possibly. Some of them get a feeling of pleasure or gratification from commiting their acts of crime.
Just as some thieves get more pleasure from the act of stealing and getting away with it than from whatever they have stolen.
It's the challenge in committing the crime that seems to be a thrill
for some.
How about someone like Saddam Hussein,Stalin,Caligula,Ivan the terrible
and other tyrants from history?
I don't consider them altruistic in any sense of the word.
I honestly feel that there are people who can get more pleasure either
out of hurting others or their feelings in some way.
Some of us like to take out our anger on others and get some satisfaction in doing so. That is just too obvious to even state.
I sometimes fanasize about doing this myself and acting like the ultimate jerk, just as some fantasize about having an erotic encounter with the opposite sex.
Deep down I want to believe or I want to be someone who gets pleasure by humiliating others,making them look like fools by outsmarting them,rubbing things in like bad reminders,and just somehow bring a cloud over their sunshine.
I want to be the person who when he dies will make everyone breathe a sigh of relief and pleasure.
Like the death of Stalin which according to some made many Russians feel a bit of relief as though an expected hurricane never showed up.
Why would I want this? Perhaps it's ego combined with having a chip on my shoulder. Maybe I just want to be the big bad wolf who terrorizes everybody. Even villians can gain respect and admiration as well as immortality. History after all is full of them.
I would sooner be remembered as a tyrant or an asshole rather than a fool or a wimp. Now that should be the motto of a real Satanist.
That's how one should really feel especially if they have any sense
of self-respect.
Like others I do have my issues or hangups but
I admit that thinking about possible consequences in regard to my actions does a lot to encourage me to exercise some self control.
But it's still nice to fantasize and I can still be an obnoxious prick every now and then and I can always make someone feel uncomfortable.
I enjoy turning some people off more than I do turning them on.
There is a part of me that wants to be a noncomforming bastard.
Where someone else wants to act like a gentleman I want to be rude
and painfully brusque with the opposite sex.
I don't dream of being a romantic ladies man I dream of being a jerk.
Funny isn't it? I envy the Arabs and other people in the middle east in
some respects. I'm not a muslim but there are some things I like about their culture and way of life that I wish I could get away with emulating. One is their treatment of women. I would like to get away with hitting or slapping around women without being arrested especially if they deserve it. To me it is one of the few places in the world where men are really men for this very reason.
They don't have feminist lesbians telling them how to think politically correct and how they should be acting around women.
If I was white or caucasian I would be tempted to be a redneck bigot
just to be the opposite of being a politically correct geek or moron.
Well judging by what I have said so far,I think I can say without bragging in the least bit and with a straight face this much.
I think based on my own self-reflection that I'm probably more of a real satanist than some others out there and perhaps maybe more than
you are.

Yours Truely
Howard Lee

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 26th, 2003 01:33 am (UTC)		(Link)
altruism and selfishness

So far what I have read regarding good and so-called evil has just turned my traditional notions upside down.
I still am confused about what you consider evil or if it really is.
This almost sounds like a form of Orwellian doublespeak where the words
actually mean the opposite. For example "love" means "hate" and "peace"
means "war".
Would a serial killer be considered evil in your use of the term?
He certainly can't be good or altruistic by the original definition of
the word!
Selfish? possibly. Some of them get a feeling of pleasure or gratification from commiting their acts of crime.
Just as some thieves get more pleasure from the act of stealing and getting away with it than from whatever they have stolen.
It's the challenge in committing the crime that seems to be a thrill
for some.
How about someone like Saddam Hussein,Stalin,Caligula,Ivan the terrible
and other tyrants from history?
I don't consider them altruistic in any sense of the word.
I honestly feel that there are people who can get more pleasure either
out of hurting others or their feelings in some way.
Some of us like to take out our anger on others and get some satisfaction in doing so. That is just too obvious to even state.
I sometimes fanasize about doing this myself and acting like the ultimate jerk, just as some fantasize about having an erotic encounter with the opposite sex.
Deep down I want to believe or I want to be someone who gets pleasure by humiliating others,making them look like fools by outsmarting them,rubbing things in like bad reminders,and just somehow bring a cloud over their sunshine.
I want to be the person who when he dies will make everyone breathe a sigh of relief and pleasure.
Like the death of Stalin which according to some made many Russians feel a bit of relief as though an expected hurricane never showed up.
Why would I want this? Perhaps it's ego combined with having a chip on my shoulder. Maybe I just want to be the big bad wolf who terrorizes everybody. Even villians can gain respect and admiration as well as immortality. History after all is full of them.
I would sooner be remembered as a tyrant or an asshole rather than a fool or a wimp. Now that should be the motto of a real Satanist.
That's how one should really feel especially if they have any sense
of self-respect.
Like others I do have my issues or hangups but
I admit that thinking about possible consequences in regard to my actions does a lot to encourage me to exercise some self control.
But it's still nice to fantasize and I can still be an obnoxious prick every now and then and I can always make someone feel uncomfortable.
I enjoy turning some people off more than I do turning them on.
There is a part of me that wants to be a noncomforming bastard.
Where someone else wants to act like a gentleman I want to be rude
and painfully brusque with the opposite sex.
I don't dream of being a romantic ladies man I dream of being a jerk.
Funny isn't it? I envy the Arabs and other people in the middle east in
some respects. I'm not a muslim but there are some things I like about their culture and way of life that I wish I could get away with emulating. One is their treatment of women. I would like to get away with hitting or slapping around women without being arrested especially if they deserve it. To me it is one of the few places in the world where men are really men for this very reason.
They don't have feminist lesbians telling them how to think politically correct and how they should be acting around women.
If I was white or caucasian I would be tempted to be a redneck bigot
just to be the opposite of being a politically correct geek or moron.
Well judging by what I have said so far,I think I can say without bragging in the least bit and with a straight face this much.
I think based on my own self-reflection that I'm probably more of a real satanist than some others out there and perhaps maybe more than
you are.

Yours truely
Howard Lee

	From: vexen	Date: May 30th, 2003 10:18 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: altruism and selfishness

!

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 30th, 2003 04:48 am (UTC)		(Link)
Cut those craps. just shut up and enjoy our life.

:D Vernace prefer enjoyig life instead of thinking all these philosopy.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: June 29th, 2003 07:21 am (UTC)		(Link)
this

I read the essay, but not the previous comments, so I don't know if this has been said or not.

I have held beliefs very similar to those of satanism for a while now, however I think this whole notion of sin is silly.

Basically, I believe that all human actions are for pleasure, bar a few weird instinct related things (some animals kill themselves for the pack). I believe that this is due to evolution. Basically, an animal is more likely to fight for its life if it has had past experiences of pleasure. Therefore pleasure too is an instinct. It's purely for survival.

Now that's alot different from sin and evil. The concept of sin requires there to be an opposite. There is none. All you can do is achieve pleasure, and if you aren't, you're trying to. You can't escape it. So there is no good, no evil, no sin, no nothing.

This brings me to a question of mine for someone to answer. Why is satanism connected to satan, evil, and this general "blackness"? In my mind there is no connection between instinct (pleasure) and satan. It should be called something like instinctism. And another thing, why is it a religion at all? I can see that it has beliefs, but beliefs are only there when something else could be true, they are there to guide you. Now with satanism, (and instinctism), what is there to be guided by? There are NO beliefs, other than the one that says that there is no meaning to life, no god, no creator, no nothing. That is not a religion, unless you make it into a social thing, and make up some beliefs to go with it. I don't see how a statement such as "Everything we do is for pleasure" can be the basis of a religion.

I know you are not stupid people, so there must be some reason for all of this. Maybe you're not a reigion at all, just a social club. Please give me the run down.

	From: vexen	Date: June 29th, 2003 07:43 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: this

I agree that notions of "sin" are silly. Many Satanists' consider Satanism to be a philosophy and way of life, but not a religion. I personally consider it a religion. It's basically up to you.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 23rd, 2004 09:02 am (UTC)		(Link)
Moral Right

Dear Essay Writer,
To say that good exist only because of evil is foolish and misguided. It is evil that exist becaue of good. To prove this just look at the very creation of Satan. Satan, which represents evil, is a fallen angel created by God, who represents goodness. Saying that satanists enjoy being kind to others is a form of selfishness is extreme foolish and no matter how many times you tell yourself this it will never be true. Being kind to others makes you feel good because of your innate concious which leads us to good. Evil only gives us momentary pleasure, and in the long run it leads to unhappiness.

	From: vexen	Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:55 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Moral Right

I do not believe in God, or Satan, I am not a Christian. This is not a Christian site, and is not based on Christian mythology. It is a site based on truth, science, logic, etc, and as such your arguments are pretty irrelevant.

If there is a god, it is evil. Any good that exists, if there is a god, was created by evil. Live with it.

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/god.html - if there is a god, it is evil.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 24th, 2004 10:30 pm (UTC)		(Link)
This is a two ways road

I'm not a satanist. I also don't go to any church. I believe in God, and for that I respect your believes. I just wanna make this point. In your site, you said that all good is based on evil, but all evil is also based on good, since if one of them doesn't exists the concept of the other is a mistake. The human species is both of everything. And, and once believing that everything once came from God, is natural all that we can feel, despite of Churchs (or religions) talking. If we can feel hate or anger, or any kind of these "bad" feelings, it's because we depend on them for something, the same way we need to feel the "good" feelings. all these things exists 'cause we need them, and it's wrongs to try to suppress them in any way. (i'm not saying that we should kill everyone we want or stuff like that, i'm saying that we need to learn to feel love and hate, in a certain way that didn't hurt anyone, but gives us satisfaction, or placer, or even peace.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: October 12th, 2004 05:48 am (UTC)		(Link)
Good relies on evil

I find your work very interesting and liberating. It is such a refreshment to see the world on both sides of the road insteat of one. Your comments and theory are very much so real. Thank you for what you have done. This has actually helped with my essay that I have to constuct.

Thanks Again

From: (Anonymous)	Date: October 12th, 2004 06:18 am (UTC)		(Link)
Altruism and Ego

What I don't understand is the intro to this paragraph if satan is willing to be blunt and straight forward on telling you on how selfish they are. Then why is it that we are always in the blind spot when someone evil hurts us. Although I feel this way I really do repect your theory on how people are social animals and need to socialize in order to keep sane

From: (Anonymous)	Date: October 25th, 2004 12:54 pm (UTC)		(Link)
wake up!

You are a sinner by your own definition. How can all good be based on evil without the reverse also being true? You demonstrate total ignorance and stupidity with the contradictory statements that you stand by.
You are also giving total credence to the Christian faith by objecting to it totally; you are the antithesis of Christianity, reactionary, the exact opposite and therefore inextricably linked to it. You even name yourselves after a bible character.
You confused people.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: October 25th, 2004 11:54 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Devils Advocate

The psychology seems sound and seamless… at first glance. Take another look though, analyze this again. You’ll notice it avoids the idea of a conscious completely. If you lie to somebody, deceive him or her completely. Nobody will know. Society will not view you as a less acceptable person. Yet, you still feel remorse, or guilt. Why? Because our “animal instincts” are balanced just as much by good as by evil. One cannot have a solo existence, neither can rely on the other.


“Me too. Despite the individualism of the left hand path I think being seen as good, nice or friendly by others is a requirement of our mental health and self esteem. Our ego demands that we are socially acceptable”

That fails to explain why one might feel remorse. If it hasn’t hurt anyone and your own reputation is left untarnished, then you should (by the arguments made) feel pride before guilt. Perhaps we need to dig a bit farther then our motives. Your motives have caused you to lie in the first place, something deeper brings this feeling of remorse. I could write you a book and not explain this to its fullest extent, yet the general idea is that our base instincts are balanced. Once you can accept that, then you can take full advantage of who you are as an individual.

Sincerely
Yours truly

From: (Anonymous)	Date: October 26th, 2004 01:10 am (UTC)		(Link)
Who's right?

After reading through everything that is said, I feel the need, or obligation to point out the fact the secular meaning of the word “sin” can be considered irrelevant. Anton LaVey used the word sin in a biblical context when he argued against faith. He argued against the concept of a god by using the term sin. However, he redefined the term as well (weather he used the secular meaning or twisted the religious connotation is irrelevant).

Example: (A poor example since I’m not in the “thinking mood”)
If I were to argue and critique Satanism, yet I decided to redefine the entire religion.

Am I still critiquing Satanism, as you know it? No, defiantly not. I’m critiquing Satanism as I have created it. In a sense, I am playing chess against myself. It is not obvious that whichever side I choose shall win? Satanism rejects the idea of God, which it has created for itself, not the true meaning of God.
That’s not to say that Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism don’t accept only the meaning of god, which they have created for themselves. It’s possible that they do.
Perhaps one should speculate as to why each religion is so independent and yet also dependent on every other religion. Perhaps we all of different meaning for the words we use.
If you believe you’ve found a religion that relies on logic and reason any more then any other religion, then think again. No one religion has been found to be true, which is why there are so many. This is why millions of people die every year. Sickening? Maybe. Frustrating? Defiantly.
I sympathize with your beliefs; they are as valid to you as mine are to me.
I simply urge you not to be so rash as to wrap your mind around this single philosophy to the point that you can no longer be open-minded.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: April 29th, 2005 12:13 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Human being number 10x10^1000000

Dear Fellow Humans,

I though that i should post something here, seeing as this website was partly the cause of my own undoing. I have no shame in admitting that I am a very confused person. I will however point out a very simple notion for you to ponder over.

What is the absence of light defined as being? Dark Yes? Could you provide me a jar of Dark? If it were possible would you be able to provide me a sample of darker dark? Even if i was to remove all sources of light from a point and take that sample of area you would be able to to not find anything darker. Again the same principle could be applied to that of Heat. You can have hot, mega hot super hot, in terms of Kelvin you could have more than a million Kelvin. But you cannot go below -273K, for this is absolute Zero.
The basis of your argument is that of duality. There seems to be this common notion of that there is an equal yet opposite of Good, which is called Evil.

Evil is merely the absence of Good.

That was all i had to say.

	From: vexen	Date: April 29th, 2005 01:05 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Human being number 10x10^1000000

Your comparisons between heat, light/dark and good/evil are ok, on the surface, but flawed when it comes to details.

Firstly: heat/cold is an absolute scale fixed a fixed zero; absolute zero. This, you correctly point out. As there is no upper end, dualism is impossible. You could take the average temperature of the universe and create a dualistic scale either side of that, however, such an average temperature is a mere 10kelvin or something, which would pretty much make all human experience occur within the "very good/hot" scale. Temperature is a useless comparison for good/evil or light/dark.

When it comes to light, you'd do well to look at the wider picture. Light is, as you probably know, only the visible part of the EM spectrum. What we call "dark" in terms of light, really only means an absence of EM wavicles of particular frequencies: In any "dark" space where there is no light, there may well be lots and lots of activity. To this end, "dark as the absence of light" has no idealogical or physical basis.

Thirdly, the same problem occurs with good/evil. What is good for some is evil for others. For example, antibiotics are good for us, eradicating disease. But of course they're evil for bacteria; wiping out colonies and causing mass denaturisation. What we consider "evil" or "good" is the same as what we consider "light" or "dark: absence of light": They are both completely human-centric, meaningless and arbitrary concepts.

As such, your comparisons to temperate (which has as absolute scale) is plain wrong, once you consider the details.

Also you put the subject as "Human being number 10x10^1000000". There simply has not been that number of human beings in the world, ever. There are only 6x10^9 now, in totality the total number of human beings that have ever existed will be only a double figure exponent, not the 1000000 you guesstimated!

So... when you talk about "duality", know all the ways in which I do not mean it. It is psychology and symbolism, and definately certainly not an idea which can be physically measured like light.

Evil is not the "absence of good", but an arbitrary, made-up Human construct that we contrast to good in order to express our psychological feelings. Trying to make it any more scientific or ideological than that is to forget it's anthrocentric basis.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 28th, 2007 02:16 am (UTC)		(Link)
Good is based on Evil?

Correction:

All good is based on God. God is the creator and source of all, and is therefore the basis for all things. All that is out-of-line with God's Way is Evil.

Good could be called "God-Like" and Evil could be called "not God-Like"

Good is "the right way" "the natural way" "the correct way" ...all which can only be found and based upon God; who is the source and basis for all existance.

Common Logic.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: August 18th, 2007 10:22 pm (UTC)		(Link)
'Good' and 'Evil'

Regarding your ideas on love. There is another dimension which you ignore-when someone's love gives them the devotion that will facilitate endurance of hardship due to the loved one being more important than themselves. Additionally-the animal (and plant) world is generally quite distinct from humans in that they do not attack each other in the prescribed forms of 'evil' you present. Nature outside of humans works to organically maintain the environment we find ourselves in-an inherently 'good' OUTCOME. The ROOT is not necessarily the most important aspect of the argument between good and evil. I personally believe a mature view of spiritual reality (which you enter using terms of good and evil) is beyond good and evil, the distinction is necessary but of limited value as spiritual truth.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: August 19th, 2007 05:10 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Purpose

Vexen

May I ask what your objective is in the line of thought you pursue? How do you forsee this conclusion 'forcing humanity forward'? I am confused by the pretext that your theory is 'anti-religion'. Evil is a religious concept. I prefer the term 'behaviour' myself.'Good' is beneficial to people as a whole, 'evil' is not. It's very simple. Would you say that Adolf Hitler was the equal of Martin Luther King for example? I am not necessarily saying that one is evil, the other is good (although this would be a convenient way of describing the distinction in language) but rather wish to draw your attention to the difference in motivation/behaviour/achievements of these people. They are clearly distinct. What worked for one benefited many, what worked for the other benefited few. Whether evil is the root of every action or not, human behaviour has dramatically varied results which provide a distinction in themselves beyond the presumed motivation behind it, therefore negating the concept you are offering.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: January 30th, 2008 12:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

wot is the pic about all it is a picture with a dog in the middle with horns and wings at the side thats totaly wrong you praise the devil do you believe in god remember this it is all backwards can you read latin start from the begining and go backwards the bible the first is wot you shud luk at n clues of life

	From: vexen	Date: January 30th, 2008 06:28 am (UTC)		(Link)

WTF?

From: (Anonymous)	Date: February 27th, 2008 01:05 am (UTC)		(Link)
J

God is the truth god is good ultimately he is in control of everything. Why did you come to the conclusion noted is live journal posted on oct 10th 2002.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 8th, 2008 11:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)
YES

Forgodness sake why the hell our we expressing good as evil, that is satanism. It like we cut our nose of despite our face. Yes satanism is good not bad and god is bad not good. GET IT RIGHT!

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 8th, 2008 11:20 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Re: YES

Satansits have a good morale ground, the problem is they fuck up on everything, they act like dicks by putting spells on people, its like they have a good point of view on something, then they kick themselves in the head by doing something stupid and evil.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: February 18th, 2009 11:45 pm (UTC)		(Link)
True love is selfless not selfish

If love is "...ultimately selfish; the satisfaction and feel-good that ...brings an ultimate reward", how do we feel when some body puts their life in harms way just so that the one they LOVE may live on?

Jesus died so that ALL may live and it is this struggle with our natural sinful nature that feels unnatural. but we were made in God's image, it was the selfish act that came from eating the forbiden fruit that distorted our image of God.

Have you ever wondered why God put a tree with forbiden fruit right under Adam and Eve's nose? Without making the selfless choice of self sacrifice no body can understand true love. Love based on selfish agendas will never end in seeing the best for the ones we love, this is the difference between love and like... "I like it when you scratch my back" "I love you when I scratch your back".

Spoken with love.