Is Satan Happy? How Happy? Extremely Happy?

[Elixir]

Something I realized when talking with a Christian I worked with back in the early 90s.

For many especialy Evangelicals Christians god, Jesus, Satan, angels, and evil spirits are all very real. It is liketrhey are living a Lord Of The Rings reality. Epic battles between good and evil.

Which explains why they are eager to re-elect Donald Trump:
If they can get you to believe absurdities they can get you to commit atrocities, and that's precisely what Trump has in mind.
The beliefs of evangelical Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. are certified absurdities. As long as there are people willing to use those absurdities to their advantage, there will be atrocities committed.

 

[abaddon]

Maybe the reason these conversations often become about whether gods are real is because the larger conversation is about whether all the woo is real. How many different aspects of Santa are there that you can discuss with a child and not eventually get bored out of your skull? Do reindeer really fly? Do elves make the toys? Is Mrs. Claus a good cook? But kids outgrow the belief primarily because their peers outgrow the belief and the conversation just dries up.

I'll agree that such conversations can be stimulating and likely do much to advance cognitive development but then for many people evidence based reality takes over. For most people on this forum the existence of gods equates with the existence of woo. Gods and bible gods are just more woo, not unlike Orange Face's claims that elections are all rigged. Intelligent people just move on but are eventually impressed upon to address the subject in the face of more and more ridiculous claims.

That's an example of how people with a fixation on fundy theism keep everything inside their tiny sandbox. Just declare that all other religious topics are more of the same so why do anything else except repeat the same two or three ideas about religion across years (or decades even).

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe the reason these conversations often become about whether gods are real is because the larger conversation is about whether all the woo is real. How many different aspects of Santa are there that you can discuss with a child and not eventually get bored out of your skull? Do reindeer really fly? Do elves make the toys? Is Mrs. Claus a good cook? But kids outgrow the belief primarily because their peers outgrow the belief and the conversation just dries up.

I'll agree that such conversations can be stimulating and likely do much to advance cognitive development but then for many people evidence based reality takes over. For most people on this forum the existence of gods equates with the existence of woo. Gods and bible gods are just more woo, not unlike Orange Face's claims that elections are all rigged. Intelligent people just move on but are eventually impressed upon to address the subject in the face of more and more ridiculous claims.

That's an example of how people with a fixation on fundy theism keep everything inside their tiny sandbox. Just declare that all other religious topics are more of the same so why do anything else except repeat the same two or three ideas about religion across years (or decades even).

The why is it makes them feel good.

 

[abaddon]

The why is it makes them feel good.

Many atheists are limited and repetitive because it makes them feel good?

------

Here, I'll rephrase my post:

That (@T.G.G. Moogly's post] is an example of how atheists with a fixation on fundy theism keep everything inside their (the atheist's) tiny sandbox. They (the atheists) can just declare that all other religious topics [than fundy theism] are more of the same ["woo"] so why should an atheist do anything else than repeat their (the atheist's) same two or three ideas about [that religious "woo"] across years (or decades even).

 

[Elixir]

If an authority (parent, teacher, preacher) had taught me as a child that lying cheating and stealing would make my life miserable, I’d likely try to refrain from doing those things. (They did, and I did.).
If I had only been taught that if I lied, cheated or stole, an all powerful unseen entity would torture me forever, I might refrain out of fear - for a while. But once I realized that the idea of a supernatural sky daddy was “woo” I might go full on into lying cheating and stealing, not realizing that it would ruin the quality of my life experience, no sky daddy needed.
I think religions do that to people raised strictly within them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When a child realizes the the Great Sky Pixie does not punish liars, cheaters, grifters, thieves et al, they might begin to doubt the exustence of that Sky Pixie. And not be afraid to lie, cheat. Or other bed behavior.

The other aspect of this problem are those who think they are damned to hell any way and so it all does not matter any way. Antinomianism.

 

[James Brown]

It's curious how often apologists will engage in formal debates such as "Does God exist?"

I've never seen a debate on lesser subjects such as "Does Satan exist?" or "Is Hell an actual place?"

It can be quite difficult to get an atheist to discuss any theological question other than "does God exist"? I get bored with it.

So you're saying that Christian Apologists have been desperately trying to debate the existence of Satan, and no skeptic will take them up on it?

I have to admit I haven't seen anything like that.

Well, that sounds like almost as dull an argument over God's existence. But I've been posting on these fora for decades now, and it's rare for a conversation on any religious topic not to eventually circle back to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not. Conversations about other topics, or other faith traditions, die quickly.

Okay, I'll bite.

Politesse, does Satan exist?

I promise I'll try my hardest not to switch to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not, so that you won't find it dull.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The why is it makes them feel good.

Probably most things most people say give them a sense of satisfaction, a good feeling. I've used the sound of my own voice to console myself when I was absolutely alone. But I knew I was alone and I knew why I was talking out loud. That's different than spouting nonsense, what I refer to as woo, and insisting that someone else should believe you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Okay, I'll bite.

Politesse, does Satan exist?

I promise I'll try my hardest not to switch to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not, so that you won't find it dull.

Lets imagine a person has a doctor of divinity degree and is going to explain Satan to us. What are we going to hear? I would hope that the conversation would not be along the lines of your typical fundy refrain.

 

[Elixir]

Lets imagine a person has a doctor of divinity degree and is going to explain Satan to us. What are we going to hear?

To make that prediction I would want to read their doctoral thesis, and hope it’s better than Kent Hovind’s.
I’m perplexed by the very notion of advanced degrees in superstitions.

 

[Politesse]

It's curious how often apologists will engage in formal debates such as "Does God exist?"

I've never seen a debate on lesser subjects such as "Does Satan exist?" or "Is Hell an actual place?"

It can be quite difficult to get an atheist to discuss any theological question other than "does God exist"? I get bored with it.

So you're saying that Christian Apologists have been desperately trying to debate the existence of Satan, and no skeptic will take them up on it?

I have to admit I haven't seen anything like that.

Well, that sounds like almost as dull an argument over God's existence. But I've been posting on these fora for decades now, and it's rare for a conversation on any religious topic not to eventually circle back to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not. Conversations about other topics, or other faith traditions, die quickly.

Okay, I'll bite.

Politesse, does Satan exist?

I promise I'll try my hardest not to switch to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not, so that you won't find it dull.

Boring question, as I said. You might as well ask whether Gandalf exists.

 

[steve_bank]

I was referring to theists. That being said as I see it it applies to all human social functions. Pro sports and music fans.

As I like to say religion is a manifestation of a common human trait. More abusive and dangerous than most social functions.

Wearimg a cross around your neck or wearing a t-shiet with your favorite band on it to me are psychologically the same, in my amature psychologist opinion. It creates a self and group social identity to belive in and it makes yuu feel good.

Here in Seattle the Mainers making the MLB playoffs last yera was a very big deal for the city. Optomism wentt up.

It's curious how often apologists will engage in formal debates such as "Does God exist?"

I've never seen a debate on lesser subjects such as "Does Satan exist?" or "Is Hell an actual place?"

It can be quite difficult to get an atheist to discuss any theological question other than "does God exist"? I get bored with it.

So you're saying that Christian Apologists have been desperately trying to debate the existence of Satan, and no skeptic will take them up on it?

I have to admit I haven't seen anything like that.

Well, that sounds like almost as dull an argument over God's existence. But I've been posting on these fora for decades now, and it's rare for a conversation on any religious topic not to eventually circle back to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not. Conversations about other topics, or other faith traditions, die quickly.

Okay, I'll bite.

Politesse, does Satan exist?

I promise I'll try my hardest not to switch to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not, so that you won't find it dull.

Boring question, as I said. You might as well ask whether Gandalf exists.

Is that a yes or no?

I sense equivacation. Perhaps you do not entirely reject the supernatural?

 

[steve_bank]

The why is it makes them feel good.

Many atheists are limited and repetitive because it makes them feel good?

------

Here, I'll rephrase my post:

That (@T.G.G. Moogly's post] is an example of how atheists with a fixation on fundy theism keep everything inside their (the atheist's) tiny sandbox. They (the atheists) can just declare that all other religious topics [than fundy theism] are more of the same ["woo"] so why should an atheist do anything else than repeat their (the atheist's) same two or three ideas about [that religious "woo"] across years (or decades even).

I was referring to theists. That being said as I see it it applies to all human social functions. Pro sports and music fans.

As I like to say religion is a manifestation of a common human trait. More abusive and dangerous than most social functions.

Wearimg a cross around your neck or wearing a t-shiet with your favorite band on it to me are psychologically the same, in my armature psychologist opinion. It creates a self and group social identity to believe in and it makes you feel good.

Here in Seattle the Mainers making the MLB playoffs last year was a very big deal for the city.

Optimism went up. The first home game is tomorrow and it is contnually in the ews. Optimism for the coming season. Something to believe in after COVID.

To me organized atheism and Christians are flip sides of the same coin. My main concern is always separation of church and state and my right to be free of religious coercion.

 

[Politesse]

I was referring to theists. That being said as I see it it applies to all human social functions. Pro sports and music fans.

As I like to say religion is a manifestation of a common human trait. More abusive and dangerous than most social functions.

Wearimg a cross around your neck or wearing a t-shiet with your favorite band on it to me are psychologically the same, in my amature psychologist opinion. It creates a self and group social identity to belive in and it makes yuu feel good.

Here in Seattle the Mainers making the MLB playoffs last yera was a very big deal for the city. Optomism wentt up.

It's curious how often apologists will engage in formal debates such as "Does God exist?"

I've never seen a debate on lesser subjects such as "Does Satan exist?" or "Is Hell an actual place?"

It can be quite difficult to get an atheist to discuss any theological question other than "does God exist"? I get bored with it.

So you're saying that Christian Apologists have been desperately trying to debate the existence of Satan, and no skeptic will take them up on it?

I have to admit I haven't seen anything like that.

Well, that sounds like almost as dull an argument over God's existence. But I've been posting on these fora for decades now, and it's rare for a conversation on any religious topic not to eventually circle back to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not. Conversations about other topics, or other faith traditions, die quickly.

Okay, I'll bite.

Politesse, does Satan exist?

I promise I'll try my hardest not to switch to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not, so that you won't find it dull.

Boring question, as I said. You might as well ask whether Gandalf exists.

Is that a yes or no?

I sense equivacation. Perhaps you do not entirely reject the supernatural?

No, I'm quite agnostic on the point, that's no secret.

 

[Elixir]

If the supernatural exists, is it really supernatural? Everything else that is known to exist, is natural as far as can be determined by examination. What, other than a super prefix and the fact that we cannot explain it (not exclusive to supernatural stuff) differentiates the natural from the supernatural? Is it that it allows a religious version of Superman?

 

[steve_bank]

I was referring to theists. That being said as I see it it applies to all human social functions. Pro sports and music fans.

As I like to say religion is a manifestation of a common human trait. More abusive and dangerous than most social functions.

Wearimg a cross around your neck or wearing a t-shiet with your favorite band on it to me are psychologically the same, in my amature psychologist opinion. It creates a self and group social identity to belive in and it makes yuu feel good.

Here in Seattle the Mainers making the MLB playoffs last yera was a very big deal for the city. Optomism wentt up.

It's curious how often apologists will engage in formal debates such as "Does God exist?"

I've never seen a debate on lesser subjects such as "Does Satan exist?" or "Is Hell an actual place?"

It can be quite difficult to get an atheist to discuss any theological question other than "does God exist"? I get bored with it.

So you're saying that Christian Apologists have been desperately trying to debate the existence of Satan, and no skeptic will take them up on it?

I have to admit I haven't seen anything like that.

Well, that sounds like almost as dull an argument over God's existence. But I've been posting on these fora for decades now, and it's rare for a conversation on any religious topic not to eventually circle back to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not. Conversations about other topics, or other faith traditions, die quickly.

Okay, I'll bite.

Politesse, does Satan exist?

I promise I'll try my hardest not to switch to whether some very specific conception of the "Christian God" is factual or not, so that you won't find it dull.

Boring question, as I said. You might as well ask whether Gandalf exists.

Is that a yes or no?

I sense equivacation. Perhaps you do not entirely reject the supernatural?

No, I'm quite agnostic on the point, that's no secret.

Does not sound agnostic, but then agnostic can be a moving target.

We know Gandalf is fictional, nothing agnostic about that. The question is moot.

Gods and deities can not be proven or disproven, that is what I take to be agnostic. Do you believe in the supernatural in some form? Sirits, supernatural powers and the like?

 

[Politesse]

We know Gandalf is fictional, nothing agnostic about that. The question is moot

Not to me. I think these archetypes exist for a reason. If you're asking for DNA evidence for Gandalf, you'te asking the wrong questions in my opinion, and will learn nothing from mythos as you encounter it.

 

[Tharmas]

We know Gandalf is fictional, nothing agnostic about that. The question is moot

Not to me. I think these archetypes exist for a reason. If you're asking for DNA evidence for Gandalf, you'te asking the wrong questions in my opinion, and will learn nothing from mythos as you encounter it.

But, can a character with a known author/creator and with a publication date within a century be considered an archetype or myth? Well, you’re the anthropologist, so you tell me.

 

[steve_bank]

I read Tolkien's biography. He was the archetypal quasi eccentric British ivory tower academic intellectual.

Tolkien loved to travel off the beaten path drinking with locals and listening to folk tales and stories. He was immersed in legends and myth.

He did serve in WWI and lost friends in the trenchs, and he was gassed. Some believe the ghastly battle scenes in LOTR are based in his war experience. Hobbits simplistic Englih peasants obvlibious to the cataclysmic conflict brewing 'across the water'. IOW the channel.

Gandalf is probably a synthesis of Tolkien himself expressed in his deep knowledge of myths . Not exactly a profound insight, obvious for an author. From what I read of Doyle he was actually a medical doctor who took some cases, and saved an innocent man from hanging. Holmes and Watson both partly Doyle. The detective and the chronicler.

Again an evasive moving target. Are you saying there was or may have been an 'historical Gandalf' with supernatural powers?

Do you think Wican is true for example?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Boring question, as I said. You might as well ask whether Gandalf exists.

So you get it?