There Is No God...

[jauggy]

OK when I say pointless I mean pointless relative to me or the person suffering. During the holocaust the Jews were tortured and killed for a purpose, but the purpose only benefited Hitler not themselves. Likewise what you're claiming is that God has a purpose for people's suffering, but the purpose is only relative to him, not the person suffering. Now I am only being consistent. If I was to call God loving, then I would have to do similarly for Hitler.

[neverclear5]

 

Personally, I do believe in a loving god.. I don't however believe in pointless suffering.

 

If the point is to experience for god, then even experiencing what you perceive to be pointless suffering would actually be the point.

 

If god wants us to suffer then how can you call him/it/her/they loving. Do your pagan gods (p.s. EVEN stupider than the christian one) not have unlimited power? Are they more of the, mount olympus type, fallible gods?

[Georgia Lass]

OK when I say pointless I mean pointless relative to me or the person suffering. During the holocaust the Jews were tortured and killed for a purpose, but the purpose only benefited Hitler not themselves.

 

Again, these are my own personal beliefs but I beg to differ. Spiritually, the holocaust victims gained more experience in those horrible camps then you or me will gain in our entire life's combined.

 

I believe there is a spiritual purpose to all suffering. If the purpose is to experience.. to know, then one would be incomplete without knowledge of darkness.

 

 

Likewise what you're claiming is that God has a purpose for people's suffering, but the purpose is only relative to him, not the person suffering. Now I am only being consistent. If I was to call God loving, then I would have to do similarly for Hitler.

 

If it's relative to god then being part of god makes it relative to you.

 

Hitler did what he did out of malice, hate and lust for power... god allows others to do what they will out of love for you and your own personal spiritual path, growth, and enlightenment.

 

 

To be fair I am working out of my own personal play book here so understanding my reasoning is impossible unless your me.

[jauggy]

To be fair I am working out of my own personal play book here so understanding my reasoning is impossible unless your me.

I can understand that. Also the word "loving" is perhaps too subjective to get any worthwile debate out of it.

[Georgia Lass]

 

Personally, I do believe in a loving god.. I don't however believe in pointless suffering.

 

If the point is to experience for god, then even experiencing what you perceive to be pointless suffering would actually be the point.

 

If god wants us to suffer then how can you call him/it/her/they loving. Do your pagan gods (p.s. EVEN stupider than the christian one) not have unlimited power? Are they more of the, mount olympus type, fallible gods?

 

Stupider then the Christian one? Ouch! ..

 

I'm just saying that personally I believe the point is to experience for god/us. They want us to learn, experience, grow, and sometimes that includes suffering.

 

Let me put it this way, you/god want to become a drummer...

 

You practice and practice..

 

You Almost destroy your knuckles from accidentally hitting them on the cymbals..

 

You endure the laughter and cruel pranks people play by damaging or vandalizing your equipment..

 

but after all the sore muscles, cut fingers, time you spent drumming in your head because of some dick.. you are stronger, better, faster, and know your way around a 12 piece.

 

I believe giving you the opportunity to better yourself is very loving.

 

I know you get my meaning here and I know you probably disagree or just plain think I'm nuts.. lol but in either case let me just say again that these are my personal beliefs.

[neverclear5]

I'm just saying that personally I believe the point is to experience for god/us. They want us to learn, experience, grow, and sometimes that includes suffering.

 

Let me put it this way, you/god want to become a drummer...

 

You practice and practice..

 

You Almost destroy your knuckles from accidentally hitting them on the cymbals..

 

You endure the laughter and cruel pranks people play by damaging or vandalizing your equipment..

 

but after all the sore muscles, cut fingers, time you spent drumming in your head because of some dick.. you are stronger, better, faster, and know your way around a 12 piece.

 

I believe giving you the opportunity to better yourself is very loving.

 

I know you get my meaning here and I know you probably disagree or just plain think I'm nuts.. lol but in ether case let me just say again that these are my personal beliefs.

 

 

In an earthly sense, yes. Thats my plan if I ever have children and thats how I was raised. My point is, All powerful gods are not earthly. If your gods are not portreyed as such then, fine. But all powerful god could just make you a perfect drummer in an instant. He could make you feel satisfied in an instant. He could keep you in a constant state of ecstacy if he wanted! All these arguments for god can only work if you put limitations on his power or his benevalence. If you accept that then fine. Otherwise its just silly.

 

Stupider then the Christian one? Ouch! ..

 

 

yeah, a little harsh but come on.... do you not think your just replacing heroin with methodone here?

although I suppose since there's even less evidense, there's less evidense to ignore. Right. Total retraction. Christianity is stupider than paganism.

 

 

P.S. you need to find the one that hurt your drums and cause them vast amounts of pain! If they'd touched my guitar or my bass I'd have been forced to throttle them!

 

P.P.S. also, feel free to substitute they for he in the god rant above.

[jauggy]

I've also missed out one possibility that Kushner (a theist) considers in his book, "When bad things happen to good people". His belief is that pointless suffering does occur (though not all suffering is pointless). However the only way that God can be loving, is if he actually isn't all-powerful. Not many people have thought of that perspective.

[euphgeek]

Why? What would people learn by letting a god solve all of their problems for them? Adults would be nothing more than overgrown children. You've seen how some spoiled rich children are. Now multiply that by a billion and imagine everyone in the world is like that. Not a pretty picture, is it?

It's funny. I have heard rappers talking about their lives in the streets, hustling, runnin' from Jake, dealing drugs, dealing with gangs etc.

 

"My experiences in the 'hood, all the suffering I endured, all the foodless nights, all the cold houses, with all the kids sleeping in one bed, all that made me what I am; I wouldn't trade it for anything... But I don't want my kids to go through it." Sooo...what? Suffering is enriching, but we should do everything to keep our kids from going through it? It's ultimately a good thing, if you survive it, but it's also ultimately a bad thing, to be avoided whether you could survive it or not?

 

If the ultimate human goal is to eliminate human suffering, and it is, how then does that coincide with a compassionate god who is capable of doing so, but doesn't?

Because once again, it would be a god solving our problems and we would be nothing more than spoiled rich children. We would never learn to stand on our own.

I agree that humans can and should take credit for their own growth, but that doesn't necessarily rule out an interactive, caring god.

 

I guess it's ok for some to have worked hard to solve their own dilemas in life, to have reduced their own suffering by their own hard work - and then to claim that it was all put on them by an imaginary sky-god-daddy-thingy as a trial and that he/it/she actually helped out in some unknown and magical way!!!???

Uh...no. Human beings create conflict and grow by working through them.

[Jun]

Uh...no. Human beings create conflict and grow by working through them.

 

I was being sarcastic.

[neverclear5]

[because once again, it would be a god solving our problems and we would be nothing more than spoiled rich children. We would never learn to stand on our own.

If all powerful god had our backs why would we need to??

 

read my previous post.

[Georgia Lass]

P.S. you need to find the one that hurt your drums and cause them vast amounts of pain! If they'd touched my guitar or my bass I'd have been forced to throttle them!

 

LOL!

 

I should have throttled the prick!

 

He paid me back but still...

 

 

I'll continue the god discussion later on tonight, I'm getting to drunk to think.

 

Cheers!

[neverclear5]

P.S. you need to find the one that hurt your drums and cause them vast amounts of pain! If they'd touched my guitar or my bass I'd have been forced to throttle them!

 

LOL!

 

I should have throttled the prick!

 

He paid me back but still...

 

 

I'll continue the god discussion later on tonight, I'm getting to drunk to think.

 

Cheers!

 

 

good girl. I'm at the institute (its 1:45 here) but I'll be sure to have few few tonight. Drink one for me!

[Guest ConservativePessimist]

1.) I worked for two years to buy my car, and I still have another three months before I pay it off. God didn't buy my car...I did.

 

2.) I'm in college because I worked hard making straight A's for 12 years prior to that...I don't get where God comes into the equation...

 

Furthermore, I don't believe in God for the simple fact that the world is an unfair place. If someone up there created us all and "Loved" us more than anything then I would think that someone would make it as less difficult for us as possible...

Furthermore, I am fortunate...not blessed. Big difference. "blessed" is the idea that we all have somekind of divine inheritance...I feel fortunate that, unlike many people in 3rd world nations, that I can have a car and an education. That I feel fortunate for...

 

However, why would a Just and loving being, that created everything, give me these "blessings," but leave others destitute?

 

I know the christian answer would be, "You are blessed to bless others." However, I find that highly unlikely...When I am able to contribute to others I will do so because I chose to and not because God says...

 

Sorry, but God hasn't done a goddamn(pun totally intended)for me lately.

 

As it is I am having a better day today...

 

I never said that God gave you your car or your grades. I never said anything about God at all actually... I was just pointing out that you're rather fortunate compared to a lot of people, so stop whining. Plus, your original post had a lot less of "the world is unfair" and a lot lot more of "pity me." It just seems like an incredibly selfish and ungrateful reason to leave a religion.

[LosingMyReligion]

1.) I worked for two years to buy my car, and I still have another three months before I pay it off. God didn't buy my car...I did.

 

2.) I'm in college because I worked hard making straight A's for 12 years prior to that...I don't get where God comes into the equation...

 

Furthermore, I don't believe in God for the simple fact that the world is an unfair place. If someone up there created us all and "Loved" us more than anything then I would think that someone would make it as less difficult for us as possible...

Furthermore, I am fortunate...not blessed. Big difference. "blessed" is the idea that we all have somekind of divine inheritance...I feel fortunate that, unlike many people in 3rd world nations, that I can have a car and an education. That I feel fortunate for...

 

However, why would a Just and loving being, that created everything, give me these "blessings," but leave others destitute?

 

I know the christian answer would be, "You are blessed to bless others." However, I find that highly unlikely...When I am able to contribute to others I will do so because I chose to and not because God says...

 

Sorry, but God hasn't done a goddamn(pun totally intended)for me lately.

 

As it is I am having a better day today...

 

I never said that God gave you your car or your grades. I never said anything about God at all actually... I was just pointing out that you're rather fortunate compared to a lot of people, so stop whining. Plus, your original post had a lot less of "the world is unfair" and a lot lot more of "pity me." It just seems like an incredibly selfish and ungrateful reason to leave a religion.

 

 

It was called a rant for a reason....

 

Infact, I specifically placed it in this section for that purpose...

 

 

Duh.

[Dhampir]

Because once again, it would be a god solving our problems and we would be nothing more than spoiled rich children. We would never learn to stand on our own.

Soo... Suffering is good? Is that what you're saying?

 

growing through adversity, and not being spoiled represent lessons that are required for beings given no assistance for survival in a world that's not geared for said survival. A world with a compassionate god would not have need for such lessons; how can you be spoiled in a world where no one doesn't have access to everything they need to live comfortably? And obviously, the lessening of suffering has made only a select few people truly spoiled.

 

Your answer also doesn't take into account the sufferings of those who don't get to learn from them.

[euphgeek]

Uh...no. Human beings create conflict and grow by working through them.

 

I was being sarcastic.

Oh. Sorry, I didn't know.

[because once again, it would be a god solving our problems and we would be nothing more than spoiled rich children. We would never learn to stand on our own.

If all powerful god had our backs why would we need to??

 

read my previous post.

Well, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want a god to do that for me. Life would be boring beyond belief.

Because once again, it would be a god solving our problems and we would be nothing more than spoiled rich children. We would never learn to stand on our own.

Soo... Suffering is good? Is that what you're saying?

It can be, if you learn from it.

growing through adversity, and not being spoiled represent lessons that are required for beings given no assistance for survival in a world that's not geared for said survival. A world with a compassionate god would not have need for such lessons; how can you be spoiled in a world where no one doesn't have access to everything they need to live comfortably? And obviously, the lessening of suffering has made only a select few people truly spoiled.

 

Your answer also doesn't take into account the sufferings of those who don't get to learn from them.

Sure, some people never learn anything from suffering. But why should that be evidence of no god? As I said above, I would find a world with everything provided for me would be extremely boring. A lack of conflict would mean that there would be no need for emotion and no one would appreciate anything. That's my opinion, anyway.

[Dhampir]

It can be, if you learn from it

So, having your scrotum sliced off, and a wire hanger heated over a stove and run slowly up your ass is a good thing if you learn from it?

 

Sure, some people never learn anything from suffering.

By don't get to learn, I mean those whose suffering is the cause of their demise (disease ridden, poverty stricken people). Sure that guy that had to slice his own hand off to escape a cave-in is probably profoundly better for having underwent that ordeal, but how many muther fuckers who've gone through these things would willingly place themselves in those predicaments if they had those events to go through again?

 

Some people willing place themselves in great pain in order to better themselves, but since that is voluntary, it doesn't count. People tend to think that their sufferings teach them lessons they didn't know they needed to learn. The truth is, if it didn't happen, you'd never have needed those lessons.

 

But why should that be evidence of no god?

I never said that. Evidence for no compassionate god, yes. People think about the sufferings of their mundane lives, and attribute some enrichment value to them, but they tend not to think of the severe life threatening sufferings of whole countries. They also forget their children. Would any responsible parent allow their child to... lose a limb if it was in their power to prevent it? Yeah, One-Arm Jonny might be the new buddha, but would you sacrifice that if you could save his arm? Probably.

 

Suffering enriches lives, this is true. So does cocaine.

 

As I said above, I would find a world with everything provided for me would be extremely boring. A lack of conflict would mean that there would be no need for emotion and no one would appreciate anything. That's my opinion, anyway.

So if it was in your power to end human suffering once and for all, you would let tens of thousands die of famine and disease and attempts at genocide to satisfy your need for mental stimulation?

 

People invite conflict, that is our nature (although it would seem like a compassionate god would have corrected this) but that of course is different from true suffering. Some people would stagnate in the absense of such, and that would lead to suffering--duh!--let those people have what they want in a world where no disputes over space and resources exist; those are the causes of suffering, and no one dares to say it would be right to prevent measures to put an end to it.

[The Paineful Truth]

So if it was in your power to end human suffering once and for all, you would let tens of thousands die of famine and disease and attempts at genocide to satisfy your need for mental stimulation?

 

Not for mental stimulation, but to protect and maintain our free will to choose between good and bad, as well as courage and cowardice, compassion and hatred, drive and sloth.... God cannot so much as save an amoeba on the other side of the universe without undermining our free will. We live in a natural universe of which pain and death are a part. We require a natural, rational world to make rationally determined moral and virtuous choices. If there are supernatural exceptions, there is no basis for reason.

[jauggy]

Are you saying we should never have helped the Jews being tortured by Hitler since by helping them we deny them of freewill and a valuable learning experience?

[neverclear5]

So if it was in your power to end human suffering once and for all, you would let tens of thousands die of famine and disease and attempts at genocide to satisfy your need for mental stimulation?

 

Not for mental stimulation, but to protect and maintain our free will to choose between good and bad, as well as courage and cowardice, compassion and hatred, drive and sloth.... God cannot so much as save an amoeba on the other side of the universe without undermining our free will. We live in a natural universe of which pain and death are a part. We require a natural, rational world to make rationally determined moral and virtuous choices. If there are supernatural exceptions, there is no basis for reason.

 

 

If your god made the universe then he made it that way. If everything is his creation then he made us so that free will required suffering. You ain't getting him off that easily. Plus, when has a person that didn't suffer had no emotion. You can love without someone being tortured in Iran. You can cherish without someone being raped by the janjaweed militia in Darfur!

[euphgeek]

So, having your scrotum sliced off, and a wire hanger heated over a stove and run slowly up your ass is a good thing if you learn from it?

Depends on what you learn from it. If you learn that torture is a bad thing (some people don't learn without direct experience) and you survive to make sure that the person that did it to you never does it to anyone else, then some good came out of a horrible situation.

By don't get to learn, I mean those whose suffering is the cause of their demise (disease ridden, poverty stricken people).

Then I suppose it would depend on whether there is an afterlife or not. If there is, perhaps the soul put itself in that situation for a reason. Perhaps for its own betterment or to try to bring through the compassion of others.

Sure that guy that had to slice his own hand off to escape a cave-in is probably profoundly better for having underwent that ordeal, but how many muther fuckers who've gone through these things would willingly place themselves in those predicaments if they had those events to go through again?

Some people would. Especially if their quality and/or appreciation of life got better.

Some people willing place themselves in great pain in order to better themselves, but since that is voluntary, it doesn't count. People tend to think that their sufferings teach them lessons they didn't know they needed to learn. The truth is, if it didn't happen, you'd never have needed those lessons.

Perhaps.

I never said that. Evidence for no compassionate god, yes. People think about the sufferings of their mundane lives, and attribute some enrichment value to them, but they tend not to think of the severe life threatening sufferings of whole countries. They also forget their children. Would any responsible parent allow their child to... lose a limb if it was in their power to prevent it? Yeah, One-Arm Jonny might be the new buddha, but would you sacrifice that if you could save his arm? Probably.

But what if by the loss of the limb and therefore becoming the new buddha he was able to make thousands happy and more fulfilled? Perhaps prevent needless suffering or the death of children?

So if it was in your power to end human suffering once and for all, you would let tens of thousands die of famine and disease and attempts at genocide to satisfy your need for mental stimulation?

I'm saying that if I had a choice between a world where everything was provided for me without my having to do anything and a world with disease, famine and genocide, I would choose the latter. I might even choose to live a life where I die of famine, disease or genocide.

People invite conflict, that is our nature (although it would seem like a compassionate god would have corrected this) but that of course is different from true suffering. Some people would stagnate in the absense of such, and that would lead to suffering--duh!--let those people have what they want in a world where no disputes over space and resources exist; those are the causes of suffering, and no one dares to say it would be right to prevent measures to put an end to it.

Sure, it would be great if we could put a stop to suffering, as long as we do it on our own without it being done for us by a god. Again, I don't see how allowing us to figure things out for ourselves means there is no compassionate god.

[neverclear5]

So, having your scrotum sliced off, and a wire hanger heated over a stove and run slowly up your ass is a good thing if you learn from it?

Depends on what you learn from it. If you learn that torture is a bad thing (some people don't learn without direct experience) and you survive to make sure that the person that did it to you never does it to anyone else, then some good came out of a horrible situation.

 

 

I'll stop you right there. The "purpose" of torture is to prevent torture!?!?!?!?

Isn't that like raping babies for childline!!

[euphgeek]

So, having your scrotum sliced off, and a wire hanger heated over a stove and run slowly up your ass is a good thing if you learn from it?

Depends on what you learn from it. If you learn that torture is a bad thing (some people don't learn without direct experience) and you survive to make sure that the person that did it to you never does it to anyone else, then some good came out of a horrible situation.

 

 

I'll stop you right there. The "purpose" of torture is to prevent torture!?!?!?!?

Isn't that like raping babies for childline!!

That's not what I said. In the example I gave, something good came out of what was otherwise a horrible situation (I'll admit I'm not all that good at coming up with scenarios). I think that we as human beings should work to stop all cruel behavior, and I think that a god, if one exists, should not do it for us, even if it is within his power.

 

Bottom line for me is this. Whether a person is an atheist doesn't matter to me at all. But when you start saying that in essence human suffering proves there's no (benevolent) god, that furthers the stereotype of the atheist who is "angry at god". I just think that's an argument that should be abandoned.

[The Paineful Truth]

Jauggy wrote:

Are you saying we should never have helped the Jews being tortured by Hitler since by helping them we deny them of freewill and a valuable learning experience?

 

Of course not, but I applaud your dedication to sarcasm. Free will gives outsiders, as well as the victims, the choice to ignore the situation or try to do something about it, or aggravate it. All this ignores the reasoning behind the total lack of supernatural intervention.

[Dhampir]

Not for mental stimulation, but to protect and maintain our free will to choose between good and bad, as well as courage and cowardice, compassion and hatred, drive and sloth.... God cannot so much as save an amoeba on the other side of the universe without undermining our free will.

Not for mental stimulation, but to protect and maintain our free will to choose between good and bad, as well as courage and cowardice, compassion and hatred, drive and sloth....

So the human pursuit of the end of suffering is wrong? I mean, if suffering ended tomorrow, purely by human effort, in a couple of generations, according to your logic, those very things would come to pass, sloth, indifference, etc...

 

God cannot so much as save an amoeba on the other side of the universe without undermining our free will.

So, by doing absolutely nothing, god is showing his compassion? Hmm...interesting, if not useless theory.

 

(Dhampir @ Dec 8 2006, 12:13 AM) *

So, having your scrotum sliced off, and a wire hanger heated over a stove and run slowly up your ass is a good thing if you learn from it?

 

Depends on what you learn from it. If you learn that torture is a bad thing (some people don't learn without direct experience) and you survive to make sure that the person that did it to you never does it to anyone else, then some good came out of a horrible situation.

Good can always come out of suffering. Why do we go to such lengths though to end it, and prevent our children from going through it? Why do we only need the lessons learned after we go through the suffering?

QUOTE

By don't get to learn, I mean those whose suffering is the cause of their demise (disease ridden, poverty stricken people).

Then I suppose it would depend on whether there is an afterlife or not. If there is, perhaps the soul put itself in that situation for a reason. Perhaps for its own betterment or to try to bring through the compassion of others.

Spe-cial Plea-diiiiing! First prove there's a soul. Then prove there's an afterlife. Next, prove that said soul exists prior to birth and is able to put itself anywhere for any purpose, and then we can git tuh spec-u-latin' 'bout what that reason is. Aside from that, it practically renders human morality valueless, and the deaths of those who others were not capable of helping nothing more than a testing point for the examination of human morality, to say that we for any reason chose to endure our sufferings before we were born. Explain that to a suicide victim.

 

And also, what if there's not a soul?

 

Sure that guy that had to slice his own hand off to escape a cave-in is probably profoundly better for having underwent that ordeal, but how many muther fuckers who've gone through these things would willingly place themselves in those predicaments if they had those events to go through again?

 

Some people would. Especially if their quality and/or appreciation of life got better.

Which is not the question I asked.

 

But what if by the loss of the limb and therefore becoming the new buddha he was able to make thousands happy and more fulfilled? Perhaps prevent needless suffering or the death of children?

Here's a scenario. Would you be the one to saw off your child's arm? Your 5 year old, who couldn't be made to understand the importance of his sacrifice? What if some entity told you to grab a hacksaw, and slowly saw off your child's arm at the elbow, or wherever the most sensitive area is, without any sort of anesthesia, for either of you. To do so, would begin a chain of events that would make your son the new buddha, able to end world hunger and disease for ten generations. What this entity says is completely truthful, and you know this by way of some powerful intrinsic understanding.

 

However, the entity informs you that someone must lose their limb, and if not your son, you may take his place, however, you will not become the buddha by doing so. Additionally, no one will believe you if you take your child's arm, surely to incarcerate or kill you, and your son will not know and never believe that his mutilation at your hands is the direct cause of his wisdom, and grows to resent you forever. Furthermore, your lost limb would heal completely, but if you cut your son's arm off, the nerve endings would not heal properly, causing him various moments of intense pain almost as great as the day you took his arm. If you take your own limb, your son will have an otherwise normal childhood, and grow to be a very productive member of society, though not nearly as great as if you'd enabled him to become the buddha. What is your decision?

 

Do you endure the blood curdling screams of your child who will be horribly emotionally scarred, then to endure his hatred of you forever to ensure ten generations of something that might--might come at less cost later? Or do you sacrifice yourself, to ensure your son's healthy development, and maturation into as good a person as could be otherwise hoped?

 

Euphgeek: I'm saying that if I had a choice between a world where everything was provided for me without my having to do anything and a world with disease, famine and genocide, I would choose the latter. I might even choose to live a life where I die of famine, disease or genocide.

 

Why? Are you afraid that your character is so lacking? Do you not realize that we wouldn't learn any of the lessons of suffering if it were not in us to learn them?

 

Euphgeek: Again, I don't see how allowing us to figure things out for ourselves means there is no compassionate god.

 

Creating beings with a so-called free will that for some reason absolutely requires that we suffer, in order to not create more suffering, when any god so capable could probably have made it so that we didn't have to suffer more than, say, the lower end of lower class American citizenry, then not step in and relieve extreme suffering at least, smacks much much more of an indifferent god than a god of any sort of compassion. I wouldn't, in fact, I don't have any problem with that idea for god. It makes perfect sense, insofar as any idea of god makes sense to me.