Yes. It's Dystheism.
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
195 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1459 readers
52 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Dystheism
TIL
I've always said (jokingly since I'm an atheist) that Christians got it mixed up and thought Satan was God, so they've really been worshiping Satan all this time. They don't want to admit they're wrong about him being good, so they make up all kinds of excuses for all the horrible things he does. That's why they were totally conditioned and ready to do the same with trump.
No, Satan is just a being created by God who realized how fucked up God is.
Of course, the issue with God is that its presence equates power with morality, which makes people think Trump is a moral man.
The Christian god is just a spurned lover who wrote in their diary about how stupid and mean their ex is and they should never have dumped him.
Satan is the dumper and has moved on long ago.
the term i always heard was maltheism. reading the other comments though, i'm surprised how many other terms there are for this.
fun fact: renowned mathematician Paul ErdΕs referred to God as the SF, or Supreme Fascist, who kept all the best mathematical proofs to himself.
Erdos was fucking weird, lol.
I genuinely believe that God exists and he is evil, like a toddler who fries little ants with a lens.
That could describe the Demiurge in Gnosticism.
Misotheism.
Miso as in misogyny, misandry, etc. Not as in the delicious fermented paste that makes a lovely soup.
Its 'god(s) exist(s) and can absolutely go fuck itself/themselves, possibly for the following reasons...'
Yes, it is called Heresy.
Β
For there is but one god and he is mighty.
Β
IN HIS NAME WE SHALL PURGE THE UNCLEAN.
Β
ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY GOD-EMPEROR
Β
FOR GLORY AND FOR TERRA
God is unreasonable and scary when you are a Christian, at least for me when I grew up. You're basically told he can read your mind so you pretend he's a great guy, but to me an evil God is just Christianity.
The philosophers religion.
This is definitely some shit Nietzsche would crack up high as fuck on opium. Hell im pretty sure he did.
also, if we're going by traditional religious figures. Satanism. Though modern satanism is very different. I would argue that this is more accurately described as "christian satanism" or "christo-satanism"
load more comments
(5 replies)
Some forms of gnosticism say this
The term youβre looking for is Evilgodism
Isn't the god supposed to define what good and evil even is, and wouldn't therefore any monotheistic god be "good" by definition?!
Socrates answered this. If morality is objective or has an objective basis then it is necessarily independent from any God or god's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Edit to add: If you're interested in the concept of an evil God in the context of Christian beliefs I recommend reading "Answer to Job" by Carl Jung. He doesn't exactly make the Christian God evil but ascribes moral failings to God and frames Jesus as the redemption of God instead of the redemption of man.
Neither of those are necessarily true. For an Abrahamic god, sure, but one can certainly conceive of a god that doesn't define good and evil, and a god that defines good and evil and doesn't define itself as good.
I don't think I would even call a being like that "god", more like "evil spirit" or something.
These things aren't well-defined, so you're certainly welcome to, but I think most people would consider an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe to be a god and not a spirit.
That's what people say, but in practice people have their own ideas and just project them on to god.
Somewhat off-topic, but there's this line of thought, which multiple Christian thinkers have come up with throughout the centuries, called the Ontological Argument. It basically tries to prove the existence of the Christian God with only pure logic, no axioms involved.
Proofs without axioms don't exist elsewhere, so take the following with a massive grain of salt, but basically it goes:
God is a maximally good being. Existence of a maximally good being is itself good. Therefore, God must exist.
Aside from this being circular reasoning, it also involves a massive axiom: The existence and definition of good vs. bad.
But with your point, we can advance the argument even further:
Defining what's good is good.
That way, we get twice the circular reasoning, but no axioms anymore. π
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Misothiest is the term I heard.
Yet the first words there say
Misotheism is the "hatred of God"
so that's a different thing.
How about Divine Misanthropy?
Blasphemy?
So many things are blasphemy to someone. More specific please.
The real question is why do you feel so angry and upset about your life? I would start focusing on the good things not just the bad ones.
That's completely irrelevant. You can be working hard towards something and achieve it while there is someone always trying to sabotage you. I am asking about the saboteur
Most likely the saboteur doesn't exist and you're having bias reviewing your life.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator. As long as the initial cause is not determined it's all hypothetical. It's like arguing between Copenhagen interpretation and Many worlds. All arguments are moot without data.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator.
I said "most likely". If you have material, objective, reproducible evidence that skeptics can examine proving the existence of a god, please present it. And win a Nobel prize.
What I mean is that we don't have any data to even comment on the likelihood. You can't say most likely.
Apply your comment to fairies. Do you arrive to the same conclusion? If not, why?
And in that situation, the safest bet is to say no. See: the invisible dragon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
I have changed my mind about how much we should bet on the fucker actually existing. The dude who sent the Carl Sagan video... You da mvp
load more comments
(5 replies)
Maybe apatheism?
My limited experience with going to Church of God places indicated to me that they hold this belief, but I do jot know the term for it. They didn't pray to god, they prayed to Jesus, specifically. And cried for him. And thanked him. And apologized to him. And so on. All to Jesus, not god, who are apparently different.
The idea of the Trinity is not the same across all "Christian" religions, see Arianism for example of an early split.
They certainly didn't start out this way, but the terms gnosticism and manichaeism are now both used loosely for this depending on the context.
Adaptus Ministorum
view more: next βΊ