Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

There Is No God...


LosingMyReligion

Recommended Posts

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

 

Exactly. And there is NO reason that an all-powerful god couldn't have made a paradise of a world wherein every life form could find ultimate fulfillment without suffering.

 

To posit that suffering and trials are needed to grow and therefore are the intention of an all- good and all-powerful god is just making excuses and dodging the one obvious outcome - no such god is possible.

 

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?

 

For a human to permit others to suffer and not lift a finger to do something about it is called monstrous and henious by other humans.

 

For a god rumored to be all-good and all-powerful to permit others to suffer without doing a thing about it is called good and just by said god's apologists.

 

Man, that makes my bullshit alarm go off something fierce :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • euphgeek

    14

  • Dhampir

    10

  • neverclear5

    8

  • The Paineful Truth

    5

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?

Suffering is not the only way we learn. It's one way, though. During my childhood, I endured a lot of suffering at the hands of my peers that made me the person I am today. Would I have given anything at the time to make it stop? Absolutely. Would I go back now to change it if I had the power to? Not a chance.

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?

You did see the words "depend" and "if" in my post didn't you?
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?

I would completely ignore an entity, no matter how right it had proven itself to be, that told me to harm another person or myself in any way and I would never associate with it again.

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?

Of course. Do you think, though, that there should be no lessons just because some people won't learn? Imagine if schools operated that way!

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.

I never said that suffering is "required," just that suffering can produce some good results. Remember when the APA produced a report that said some victims of pedophilia went on to live happy and productive lives? Remember how the fundies started screaming bloody murder because they thought the APA was endorsing pedophilia? I rather think that you're misinterpreting what I'm saying in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suffering is not the only way we learn--
Wha-what? Suffering isn't the only way we learn? So we can grow and change for the better without the need for suffering? Then why doesn't a compassionate god remove all or most of it?

 

You did see the words "depend" and "if" in my post didn't you?
Which is why I called what you did special pleading. In response to my question, you answer with 'well if this is the case, then maybe' type answers, the implication being that there's a reason to posit these if-then ideas, which is why I said prove any of them. You didn't answer my question except to assume possibilities about other things for which you assume possibilities.

 

I would completely ignore an entity, no matter how right it had proven itself to be, that told me to harm another person or myself in any way and I would never associate with it again.
I don't remember saying you had that option. In fact: "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." I'm pretty sure I said you didn't. I'd like you to answer that scenario more clearly, but you did answer in a way. On one hand, you said that suffering is good if it yields positive results, but you would not inflict it on someone, even knowing the tremendousness of the magnitude of positivity it would yield.

Of course. Do you think, though, that there should be no lessons just because some people won't learn? Imagine if schools operated that way!

But you just said that suffering is not the only way we learn. Yet you would not stop suffering if you had it in you.
I never said that suffering is "required," just that suffering can produce some good results. Remember when the APA produced a report that said some victims of pedophilia went on to live happy and productive lives? Remember how the fundies started screaming bloody murder because they thought the APA was endorsing pedophilia? I rather think that you're misinterpreting what I'm saying in the same way.
Hmm...First you said that suffering is good in that it yields positive results. But you admitted that suffering isn't the only way we learn. You said that it would be good to have a world where there's no suffering, of course countering your idea that the human spirit just wouldn't be enriched without it, even such things as the guinea worm, or extreme famine. But then you countered that, by saying that if it was in your power to end suffering, you wouldn't. All along your thrust is that extreme suffering like the guinea worm, third-world famine, and Darfur genocide is not outside the tolerance of a compassionate god with the power to stop it, or have made it so these things didn't happen in the first place. You've even insinuated that human suffering might be insignificant in itself, as it's just meant as some lesson for our eternal spirits or some such.

 

If a god made us, with a free will that it designed for us, that invites suffering, whether for a greater good or just because that's the way it goes when it could probably have made us in a different way just as free, just as open to learning and growth, how then is it not required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suffering isn't the only way we learn? So we can grow and change for the better without the need for suffering? Then why doesn't a compassionate god remove all or most of it?

How do you know a compassionate god hasn't removed most suffering?

Which is why I called what you did special pleading. In response to my question, you answer with 'well if this is the case, then maybe' type answers, the implication being that there's a reason to posit these if-then ideas, which is why I said prove any of them. You didn't answer my question except to assume possibilities about other things for which you assume possibilities.
I was just suggesting a possible answer to the question. What's wrong with that?
I would completely ignore an entity, no matter how right it had proven itself to be, that told me to harm another person or myself in any way and I would never associate with it again.
I don't remember saying you had that option. In fact: "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." I'm pretty sure I said you didn't. I'd like you to answer that scenario more clearly, but you did answer in a way. On one hand, you said that suffering is good if it yields positive results, but you would not inflict it on someone, even knowing the tremendousness of the magnitude of positivity it would yield.

If I didn't have that option, then it would be up to the entity to remove either my or my child's limb, as I would refuse to do either one. And if you're saying that I can't refuse, then it's up to you to show me how this entity could force me to not refuse.

Of course. Do you think, though, that there should be no lessons just because some people won't learn? Imagine if schools operated that way!
But you just said that suffering is not the only way we learn. Yet you would not stop suffering if you had it in you.

I as a human being would endeavor to stop any suffering that I could. It is up to humans, not a god, no matter how benevolent it may be, to solve our problems.

I never said that suffering is "required," just that suffering can produce some good results. Remember when the APA produced a report that said some victims of pedophilia went on to live happy and productive lives? Remember how the fundies started screaming bloody murder because they thought the APA was endorsing pedophilia? I rather think that you're misinterpreting what I'm saying in the same way.
Hmm...First you said that suffering is good in that it yields positive results.

No, I said that some suffering can be beneficial to those who suffer if they learn a positive lesson from it.

But you admitted that suffering isn't the only way we learn. You said that it would be good to have a world where there's no suffering, of course countering your idea that the human spirit just wouldn't be enriched without it, even such things as the guinea worm, or extreme famine. But then you countered that, by saying that if it was in your power to end suffering, you wouldn't.
If I could end suffering, I would. I just wouldn't want a god to do it for me.
All along your thrust is that extreme suffering like the guinea worm, third-world famine, and Darfur genocide is not outside the tolerance of a compassionate god with the power to stop it, or have made it so these things didn't happen in the first place. You've even insinuated that human suffering might be insignificant in itself, as it's just meant as some lesson for our eternal spirits or some such.

 

If a god made us, with a free will that it designed for us, that invites suffering, whether for a greater good or just because that's the way it goes when it could probably have made us in a different way just as free, just as open to learning and growth, how then is it not required?

If you already know the lesson, what is the point in suffering to learn the lesson? For example, what would be the point of making a calculus professor do a hundred pages of third grade math story problems and telling him to be sure to show his work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know a compassionate god hasn't removed most suffering?
Special pleading.
I was just suggesting a possible answer to the question. What's wrong with that?
Nothing, I suppose, just note that what you were actually doing was offering a 'possible' answer to a question raised by another 'possible' answer to a previous question.
No, I said that some suffering can be beneficial to those who suffer if they learn a positive lesson from it.
You said this:

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.

the implication being that suffering has some intrinsic value in itself. Does it? If so, what is it? If not, why would you rather live in such a world if you had the power to change it?

If I could end suffering, I would. I just wouldn't want a god to do it for me.

That's the question I asked before: if it was in your power to end suffering once and for all, etc., etc., to which you first replied by saying you'd find a world where you were provided for boring. Yet of course the end of suffering would pretty much mean a world where no one had to struggle to live, no matter how it came about.
It is up to humans, not a god, no matter how benevolent it may be, to solve our problems.
Why would the method matter? Because if god did it, it would lead to spoiledness and boredom? Wouldn't that lead to suffering? Wouldn't that lead to a way around said spoiledness and boredom? And how woudn't our own solution eventually lead to the same end?
If you already know the lesson, what is the point in suffering to learn the lesson? For example, what would be the point of making a calculus professor do a hundred pages of third grade math story problems and telling him to be sure to show his work?
What is the point of a lesson you didn't need to learn till you learned it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know a compassionate god hasn't removed most suffering?
Special pleading.

How so? The argument is whether or not it's possible for a benevolent god to exist. I'm just trying to show that it can be possible.

I was just suggesting a possible answer to the question. What's wrong with that?
Nothing, I suppose, just note that what you were actually doing was offering a 'possible' answer to a question raised by another 'possible' answer to a previous question.

Well, the only other answer I could have given without assuming the existence of an afterlife would be, "I don't know." I was just trying to keep the conversation going.

No, I said that some suffering can be beneficial to those who suffer if they learn a positive lesson from it.
You said this:

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.

the implication being that suffering has some intrinsic value in itself. Does it? If so, what is it? If not, why would you rather live in such a world if you had the power to change it?

If I could end suffering, I would. I just wouldn't want a god to do it for me.

That's the question I asked before: if it was in your power to end suffering once and for all, etc., etc., to which you first replied by saying you'd find a world where you were provided for boring. Yet of course the end of suffering would pretty much mean a world where no one had to struggle to live, no matter how it came about.
It is up to humans, not a god, no matter how benevolent it may be, to solve our problems.
Why would the method matter? Because if god did it, it would lead to spoiledness and boredom? Wouldn't that lead to suffering? Wouldn't that lead to a way around said spoiledness and boredom? And how woudn't our own solution eventually lead to the same end?

I just think that we as humans appreciate things more if we know we worked for them. Those who fought in the American Revolutionary War are long dead, but many Americans still appreciate our freedom of speech and religion, for example.

What is the point of a lesson you didn't need to learn till you learned it?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but if you have knowledge or wisdom that you didn't have before, then it can contribute positively to one's growth as a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How else are we supposed to learn?

 

Why would God just create grinning single-celled organisms to keep God company?

 

I think this entire view of perfection, as said before, as being EXTERNAL, and the idea that there can be no God because we have pain and suffering, to be simplisitic and especially when coming from a coddled Westerner as being really so silly and infantile.

 

It also assumes that each person has only one trip around the block. Reincarnation, or rather spiritual evolution, would paint a different picture.

 

This is where the idea of free will and experience comes to its highest point. Free will is the ability to experience the full range of emotion, both what we define as "good" and "bad". Spiritual evolution results in experiencing all of it.

 

I think those who are farther along on the journey are capable of looking back at it, and seeing the richness of that full range of experience, rather than wallow in pity about the parts they felt were hard. Remember, one of the primary reasons the Christian idea of heaven was perceived as boring was because it was "perfect".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sage, that's exactly what I've been trying to say. Thank you. I like how you put perfection into perspective as being the same as a Christian heaven. I've seen many people on this board say that if all we had to do was sit around and praise God for eternity, that would be hell. Well, a god could do the same thing in heaven that people are demanding a benevolent god do on earth, which is to make it so that we are fulfilled by doing nothing but praising him for eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really not what people are saying, though. I haven't seen anyone express anything even remotely similar to a desire to just sit around and praise the glory of a benevolent deity all day.

 

On the contrary, we're a lot more selfish than that. We want suffering to go away so we can spend all our time concentrating on and participating in wanton hedonism. :wicked:

 

On a more serious note, I think something needs to be pointed out here. A person who dies on the torture rack is not benefitted by the experience in any way ("spiritually" doesn't count; souls and reincarnation=special pleading). It's only the person who survives the experience and comes out the other side that is potentially able to take something positive away with him.

 

In short: Adversity by itself is not and has never been a positive force. Overcoming it is wherein the value has always lain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the entire concept of God is an extension of mankind's arrogance. We want to believe that we are more important than we actually are, which is where God comes into play. We can't accept even the remote possibility that we are nothing more than highly evolved organisms that will, someday, cease to exist in entirety. We want to believe that we are superior to everything on earth when evidence proves that we share DNA(and common ancestors)with chimpanzees.

 

If there is a God I believe...

 

A.) He doesn't know we exist...

 

B.) He hates us and wants us to suffer...

 

True, you don't learn anything if you live a pampered and privileged life. However, if God is perfect (as every single religion claims)then why would we need to learn anything? If we are already "perfect" because we are created in the image of a "benevolent" and "perfect" supernatural being then what is the point of enduring suffering if we are already perfect in the first place? If reminds me of a Sylvia Brown Montell Williams moment. A person in the audience asked, "Why was there a Holocaust?" Sylvia replies, "They chose to die that way to teach the world about hatred." Sorry, but call me shallow, but if I chose to come to Earth I wouldn't choose to die in a concentration camp for the purpose of showing others about the horrors of hatred(that apparently meant nothing...See: the Rawandan Genocide and various others). Is it possible that, perhaps, human hatred and imperfection caused such victims to die, and not an all knowing God seeking to teach us something?

 

As I pointed out before if there is a god then he is probably busy in some other universe, and he probably doesn't realize he made us. Maybe we are some scientific byproduct that he forgot to throw in the garbage. Or maybe he created us as his own personal everlast bag. If he has a bad day at work he can come punch on humanity.

 

I apologize in advance, but the idea that suffering is meant, on some cosmic level, to be for the betterment of mankind is ridiculous. Considering that many human beings spend their entire lives in a perpetual state of calamity would be obscene.

I believe that it is us and just us, and we should be more worried about what happens to humankind as opposed to figuring out some master plan behind it all. Which was the original purpose of my little diatribe. I've accomplished more in my life by not believing that things would just "work out" and making them happen for myself. Yes, there is a possibility that God exists and I could be wrong. I concede that, but I would have to see it to believe it.

 

If god is so perfect, wonderful, and responsible for everything then why is there endless suffering for billions of people across the globe. It doesn't compute. My theory is that we are more afraid of non existence than we are of hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really not what people are saying, though. I haven't seen anyone express anything even remotely similar to a desire to just sit around and praise the glory of a benevolent deity all day.

What else would one do with one's time, though?

On the contrary, we're a lot more selfish than that. We want suffering to go away so we can spend all our time concentrating on and participating in wanton hedonism. :wicked:
How could wanton hedonism exist if a benevolent god took away anything that could possibly lead to suffering? Also, why would one have the need for wanton hedonism if they were already fulfilled?
On a more serious note, I think something needs to be pointed out here. A person who dies on the torture rack is not benefitted by the experience in any way ("spiritually" doesn't count; souls and reincarnation=special pleading). It's only the person who survives the experience and comes out the other side that is potentially able to take something positive away with him.

It's not special pleading if the debate is over whether a benevolent god can exist if there's suffering in the world. Essentially you're saying "prove the possibility that a benevolent god exists, assuming the non-existence of said god."

In short: Adversity by itself is not and has never been a positive force. Overcoming it is wherein the value has always lain.

I agree with that. That's what I've been saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a god, but I don't think that way just because of suffering. I think there is most likely not a god because there is no evidence for one. I think once you start using emotional arguments like how could a god allow suffering, you open yourself up to emotional manipulation by people. I personally try to avoid arguments like that when talking to Christians. I agree with the poster who said that it encourages stereotyping of atheists/non-believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the entire concept of God is an extension of mankind's arrogance. We want to believe that we are more important than we actually are, which is where God comes into play. We can't accept even the remote possibility that we are nothing more than highly evolved organisms that will, someday, cease to exist in entirety. We want to believe that we are superior to everything on earth when evidence proves that we share DNA(and common ancestors)with chimpanzees.

 

If there is a God I believe...

 

A.) He doesn't know we exist...

 

B.) He hates us and wants us to suffer...

That's what I mean about furthering the "angry at god" stereotype that many Christians seem to have about atheists. There are many much better reasons to not believe in a god than that.

True, you don't learn anything if you live a pampered and privileged life. However, if God is perfect (as every single religion claims)then why would we need to learn anything? If we are already "perfect" because we are created in the image of a "benevolent" and "perfect" supernatural being then what is the point of enduring suffering if we are already perfect in the first place? If reminds me of a Sylvia Brown Montell Williams moment. A person in the audience asked, "Why was there a Holocaust?" Sylvia replies, "They chose to die that way to teach the world about hatred." Sorry, but call me shallow, but if I chose to come to Earth I wouldn't choose to die in a concentration camp for the purpose of showing others about the horrors of hatred(that apparently meant nothing...See: the Rawandan Genocide and various others). Is it possible that, perhaps, human hatred and imperfection caused such victims to die, and not an all knowing God seeking to teach us something?
I don't normally put much stock in what Sylvia Browne says, but she occasionally says something that I agree with.
As I pointed out before if there is a god then he is probably busy in some other universe, and he probably doesn't realize he made us. Maybe we are some scientific byproduct that he forgot to throw in the garbage. Or maybe he created us as his own personal everlast bag. If he has a bad day at work he can come punch on humanity.

 

I apologize in advance, but the idea that suffering is meant, on some cosmic level, to be for the betterment of mankind is ridiculous. Considering that many human beings spend their entire lives in a perpetual state of calamity would be obscene.

I believe that it is us and just us, and we should be more worried about what happens to humankind as opposed to figuring out some master plan behind it all. Which was the original purpose of my little diatribe. I've accomplished more in my life by not believing that things would just "work out" and making them happen for myself. Yes, there is a possibility that God exists and I could be wrong. I concede that, but I would have to see it to believe it.

On a certain level, I think you and I believe the same thing. Humans have to learn to clean up their own messes and earn their own accomplishments.

If god is so perfect, wonderful, and responsible for everything then why is there endless suffering for billions of people across the globe. It doesn't compute. My theory is that we are more afraid of non existence than we are of hell.

The suffering those people experience is not "endless" because it stops when they die, no matter if you believe in a god or not.

 

Also, I am not afraid of non-existence. If there truly is no god and no part of us lives on after we die, then I'm sure I won't be the slightest bit inconvenienced by that. I try to make the most of the life I live right now, rather than wait for some perfect world after I die. That's what spiritualism teaches. Make your own heaven here on earth while you're alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first off, I like where Woodsmoke and LMR went. I agree with a lot of what they said.

QUOTE(Dhampir @ Dec 9 2006, 01:37 AM) *

QUOTE

How do you know a compassionate god hasn't removed most suffering?

Special pleading.

 

How so? The argument is whether or not it's possible for a benevolent god to exist. I'm just trying to show that it can be possible.

That arguement is a lot like asking how you would know if a ripple in spacetime didn't cause someone you grew up with to suddenly disappear from history.
I think this entire view of perfection, as said before, as being EXTERNAL, and the idea that there can be no God because we have pain and suffering, to be simplisitic and especially when coming from a coddled Westerner as being really so silly and infantile.
I don't think anyone has said that suffering = no god. I've been trying to demonstrate that suffering most likely = no compassionate god, an idea that not only am I comfortable with, but have explored in my ruminations.

 

I just think that we as humans appreciate things more if we know we worked for them. Those who fought in the American Revolutionary War are long dead, but many Americans still appreciate our freedom of speech and religion, for example.
So? Are you indeed saying human character would suffer for lack of suffering? That would be to imply the necessity of suffering, you know.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but if you have knowledge or wisdom that you didn't have before, then it can contribute positively to one's growth as a person.

Some few people actually manage to die with the barest minimum of suffering. A lot of them aren't Paris Hilton; they actually have some character. Perhaps they don't have quite the character as the guy who had to cut his arm off to escape the cave-in, but the question I'm asking here is, so what? Honestly, how many people would willingly walk into tower one knowing exactly what was going to happen that day? Probably none of the ones that did! One or two in a million, maybe, and I'm being generous here. You said it yourself, suffering isn't the only way one learns. The people who didn't suffer like the guinea worm victims, or famine or disease or genocide victims, or even having one bite less food to eat than they wanted, some of them actually led good lives; the lessons of suffering weren't necessary to them.

 

Issues of strenth of character, issues of appreciation of fortune, issues of enlightenment, none of these things are relevant except with consideration to the possibility of FUTURE SUFFERING. Virtually all the lessons one can learn from true suffering pertain to surviving future suffering. I'm not talking about things like the every day struggles of us "Coddled Westerners", I'm talking about when people die because the water in their village had just too much their own shit in it. Or when a man has his genitals senselessly mutilated. I don't care what you learn from having your balls slowly and hideously disected, there is no one who wouldn't take it back if they could.

 

What you're saying is that a compassionate god is not mutually exclusive to this world where people die in the most painful, horrible ways imaginable. That in itself implies that our free movement requires the possibility of suffering. A compassionate god allows suffering; it's not a bad thing. FOR WHAT? A person could be just fine and dandy going through their whole lives without having a single truly traumatic experience. In a world with no suffering, why the hell would I need the lessons learned from suffering, if I'm never going to get to apply them? A compassionate god could have made it so our world precluded the possibility of the Darfur genocide. The guinea worm. The Dust Bowl. And, such a god could have made it so that we could be fulfilled without boredom. How do you know you would miss the Darfur genocide if it never happened? how do you know there wouldn't be just enough pain in the world to grant the sense of accomplishment that you seem to think is so vital? There'd be plenty to do without having to lament the deaths of 2700 third world toddlers a day, according to those charity infomercials.

 

Why would I need to learn lessons that I didn't know I needed till I learned them? Why would I need a stronger character, or a greater sense of appreciation for my posessions and health in a world where I didn't need it to survive? How could we be losing out if those things are only essential to the circumvention of our struggles? Hope you understand my question a little better now.

 

Like I said, the idea of god itself is not beyond me. But a compassionate god with the power to end suffering and does not is a contradiction in terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I mean about furthering the "angry at god" stereotype that many Christians seem to have about atheists. There are many much better reasons to not believe in a god than that.
Why? Because these are the only logical conclusions we can derive? To be certain, I would say that god is either amoral relative to our existence, or oblivious to it, though open hatred is definitely a possibility--certainly at least as possible as a compassionate god, and probably moreso. You can see that as an 'angry at god' stance if you want to, but this is simply an extrapolation from the evidence, or lack therof. like so many have said, how can one hate something one doesn't believe in?

 

On a certain level, I think you and I believe the same thing. Humans have to learn to clean up their own messes and earn their own accomplishments.

I asked this in a round about way in my last post, but why?

The suffering those people experience is not "endless" because it stops when they die, no matter if you believe in a god or not.

Are we devaluing human suffering here?
I don't think there is a god, but I don't think that way just because of suffering. I think there is most likely not a god because there is no evidence for one. I think once you start using emotional arguments like how could a god allow suffering, you open yourself up to emotional manipulation by people. I personally try to avoid arguments like that when talking to Christians. I agree with the poster who said that it encourages stereotyping of atheists/non-believers.
Once again, no one here is arguing for suffering as evidence of no god. Like you I arrived at my standpoint (which btw, is not completely non-theistic) based on reason and the evidence I have examined. I am arguing for the unlikelihood of a compassionate god, or a god of compassion relative to us here on this rock where such attrocities as have been named occur daily.

 

It's not special pleading if the debate is over whether a benevolent god can exist if there's suffering in the world. Essentially you're saying "prove the possibility that a benevolent god exists, assuming the non-existence of said god."
It is too. It is fallacious to assume the existence of a soul just because the existence of a god is assumed. I personally know people who think there's a god, but that theres no such thing as a soul. Hell, I even somewhat fit in that category.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That arguement is a lot like asking how you would know if a ripple in spacetime didn't cause someone you grew up with to suddenly disappear from history.

So if a benevolent god removed most suffering, how would we know that a god did anything? Aren't you giving me an impossible goal?

So? Are you indeed saying human character would suffer for lack of suffering? That would be to imply the necessity of suffering, you know.
It seems as though suffering is unavoidable, even if there is a benevolent god, doesn't it?
Some few people actually manage to die with the barest minimum of suffering. A lot of them aren't Paris Hilton; they actually have some character. Perhaps they don't have quite the character as the guy who had to cut his arm off to escape the cave-in, but the question I'm asking here is, so what? Honestly, how many people would willingly walk into tower one knowing exactly what was going to happen that day? Probably none of the ones that did! One or two in a million, maybe, and I'm being generous here. You said it yourself, suffering isn't the only way one learns. The people who didn't suffer like the guinea worm victims, or famine or disease or genocide victims, or even having one bite less food to eat than they wanted, some of them actually led good lives; the lessons of suffering weren't necessary to them.

 

Issues of strenth of character, issues of appreciation of fortune, issues of enlightenment, none of these things are relevant except with consideration to the possibility of FUTURE SUFFERING. Virtually all the lessons one can learn from true suffering pertain to surviving future suffering. I'm not talking about things like the every day struggles of us "Coddled Westerners", I'm talking about when people die because the water in their village had just too much their own shit in it. Or when a man has his genitals senselessly mutilated. I don't care what you learn from having your balls slowly and hideously disected, there is no one who wouldn't take it back if they could.

 

What you're saying is that a compassionate god is not mutually exclusive to this world where people die in the most painful, horrible ways imaginable. That in itself implies that our free movement requires the possibility of suffering. A compassionate god allows suffering; it's not a bad thing. FOR WHAT? A person could be just fine and dandy going through their whole lives without having a single truly traumatic experience. In a world with no suffering, why the hell would I need the lessons learned from suffering, if I'm never going to get to apply them? A compassionate god could have made it so our world precluded the possibility of the Darfur genocide. The guinea worm. The Dust Bowl. And, such a god could have made it so that we could be fulfilled without boredom. How do you know you would miss the Darfur genocide if it never happened? how do you know there wouldn't be just enough pain in the world to grant the sense of accomplishment that you seem to think is so vital? There'd be plenty to do without having to lament the deaths of 2700 third world toddlers a day, according to those charity infomercials.

 

Why would I need to learn lessons that I didn't know I needed till I learned them? Why would I need a stronger character, or a greater sense of appreciation for my posessions and health in a world where I didn't need it to survive? How could we be losing out if those things are only essential to the circumvention of our struggles? Hope you understand my question a little better now.

 

Like I said, the idea of god itself is not beyond me. But a compassionate god with the power to end suffering and does not is a contradiction in terms.

I don't think so. I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn from suffering and learn from trial and error. And to try to make this world a better place than I found it. It's almost as if I myself am God. :)

That's what I mean about furthering the "angry at god" stereotype that many Christians seem to have about atheists. There are many much better reasons to not believe in a god than that.
Why? Because these are the only logical conclusions we can derive?

They may be the only logical conclusions that you can derive, but atheists don't have a monopoly on logic.

To be certain, I would say that god is either amoral relative to our existence, or oblivious to it, though open hatred is definitely a possibility--certainly at least as possible as a compassionate god, and probably moreso. You can see that as an 'angry at god' stance if you want to, but this is simply an extrapolation from the evidence, or lack therof. like so many have said, how can one hate something one doesn't believe in?
It's not whether I see it as anger or hatred toward god, I was saying that it fuels the misperception among Christians that atheists are angry at god.
Are we devaluing human suffering here?

No. I believe that the idea of a lack of an afterlife devalues human suffering by making it pointless.

It's not special pleading if the debate is over whether a benevolent god can exist if there's suffering in the world. Essentially you're saying "prove the possibility that a benevolent god exists, assuming the non-existence of said god."
It is too. It is fallacious to assume the existence of a soul just because the existence of a god is assumed. I personally know people who think there's a god, but that theres no such thing as a soul. Hell, I even somewhat fit in that category.

The theme of this debate is personal beliefs, so I'm just using mine to illustrate my points. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but if you keep tying my hands and moving the goalposts, then I can't debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if a benevolent god removed most suffering, how would we know that a god did anything? Aren't you giving me an impossible goal?
By what standard exactly would we determine that god did remove any amount of suffering, much less most of it?

I don't think so. I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn from suffering and learn from trial and error. And to try to make this world a better place than I found it. It's almost as if I myself am God.

Okay, god. Learn what from suffering? And, on one hand, you have a world to make better, but what use is it if it's unecessary? Or, on the other hand, how do you know a world without suffering doesn't still provide room for improvement? Or, on this third hand I got sticking out of my chest, who's to say that in such a world, it is absolute that we would necessarily stagnate, become bored, and ultimately suffer from a lack of character, which character would not even be needed?

 

You might be grateful for the opportunity to have your sack removed and be profoundly affected by it, but how can you say for certain you would miss that (the opportunity, I mean, not your sack)? I've talked to people about learning profound lessons through their sufferings, but they've also said they wished they didn't have to learn them.

The theme of this debate is personal beliefs, so I'm just using mine to illustrate my points. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but if you keep tying my hands and moving the goalposts, then I can't debate.
You were making an assumption that no one else was making, thus operating on a different argumentative level from the rest of us.. I moved no goalposts. I mean, we can debate with the assumption of a soul, but for the purposes of this debate, we've already assumed the existence of a god, and since it seems that for this argument, the soul is largely contingent upon the existence of that god. Since we can't prove god in the first place, and we can't prove the soul, arguing about what one unproveable concept would do or thinks or feels is right relative to another uproveable concept seems rather pointless. For this argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accidentally made the same post twice. But I'll touch on some things I missed anyway.

QUOTE

So? Are you indeed saying human character would suffer for lack of suffering? That would be to imply the necessity of suffering, you know.

It seems as though suffering is unavoidable, even if there is a benevolent god, doesn't it?

Only if you can't conceive of a god that could concieve of a world without suffering.
It's not whether I see it as anger or hatred toward god, I was saying that it fuels the misperception among Christians that atheists are angry at god.
Okay, so what's your problem? Why bring it up? You're obviously not an atheist.
No. I believe that the idea of a lack of an afterlife devalues human suffering by making it pointless.
Really... I see your position as devaluing suffering by assuming that suffering isn't senseless. That we're here to be tested or because we somehow chose to be diseased third-world children to experience it. Hey, what if we were giving birth at a rate greater that the rate of ensoulment?

 

And another thing, you said you're grateful for the chance to learn from suffering, which I have to reiterate my position on the sufferings of those who die from them. That's one problem with your assumption of the soul on the assumption of god, the one we all agreed on. It also makes a third assumption: that ultimately there's a purpose to suffering. And there was something else, but I just lost my train of thought and forgot. I'll remember it later :shrug: Don't you fucking hate that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By what standard exactly would we determine that god did remove any amount of suffering, much less most of it?

Exactly my point. Unless a god were to show itself to us and declare exactly how much suffering it had removed, there's no way to know.

Okay, god. Learn what from suffering? And, on one hand, you have a world to make better, but what use is it if it's unecessary? Or, on the other hand, how do you know a world without suffering doesn't still provide room for improvement? Or, on this third hand I got sticking out of my chest, who's to say that in such a world, it is absolute that we would necessarily stagnate, become bored, and ultimately suffer from a lack of character, which character would not even be needed?

 

You might be grateful for the opportunity to have your sack removed and be profoundly affected by it, but how can you say for certain you would miss that (the opportunity, I mean, not your sack)? I've talked to people about learning profound lessons through their sufferings, but they've also said they wished they didn't have to learn them.

But are they better people for having learned the lesson? Your argument seems to center around "what if some people don't want to learn a lesson?" I look at it this way: we send children to school because we know it's good for them to learn, but they don't always see it that way. They don't always want to learn the lessons, either.
You were making an assumption that no one else was making, thus operating on a different argumentative level from the rest of us.. I moved no goalposts. I mean, we can debate with the assumption of a soul, but for the purposes of this debate, we've already assumed the existence of a god, and since it seems that for this argument, the soul is largely contingent upon the existence of that god. Since we can't prove god in the first place, and we can't prove the soul, arguing about what one unproveable concept would do or thinks or feels is right relative to another uproveable concept seems rather pointless. For this argument.

True, but since we're arguing about unprovable concepts, what's the difference if we throw in others to come up with a scenario that proves our point?

It seems as though suffering is unavoidable, even if there is a benevolent god, doesn't it?

Only if you can't conceive of a god that could concieve of a world without suffering.

The question is, would we be happy with no suffering or would we suffer from a lack of suffering, and how would we ultimately know that there was no suffering?

Okay, so what's your problem? Why bring it up? You're obviously not an atheist.
It's just a suggestion of how to frame an argument. Not to mention, you get to try out the argument against a real live theist, albeit not a Christian. Plus, I like to debate different people. I've debated atheists, neocons and fundies and each are a unique experience.
No. I believe that the idea of a lack of an afterlife devalues human suffering by making it pointless.
Really... I see your position as devaluing suffering by assuming that suffering isn't senseless. That we're here to be tested or because we somehow chose to be diseased third-world children to experience it. Hey, what if we were giving birth at a rate greater that the rate of ensoulment?

That could explain George W. Bush. ;)

And another thing, you said you're grateful for the chance to learn from suffering, which I have to reiterate my position on the sufferings of those who die from them. That's one problem with your assumption of the soul on the assumption of god, the one we all agreed on. It also makes a third assumption: that ultimately there's a purpose to suffering. And there was something else, but I just lost my train of thought and forgot. I'll remember it later :shrug: Don't you fucking hate that?

Yeah, I hate that, too. :)

Here are some of my beliefs about the soul and suffering: First of all, I believe in reincarnation. We as souls come into bodies in order to grow and evolve to a higher level. Some souls choose to suffer to that end, and others suffer just because of the cruelty of some humans or from a random disease. Humans with higher level souls sometimes choose to live lives of persecution and tend to be stronger when it comes to going against or at least questioning the dictates of society, such as religion. Some higher level souls come in order to teach others a lesson, for example, a gay child who is born to homophobic parents or a daughter of racist parents who marries a man of a different race.

 

That's all I can think of for now. I hope it explained where I'm coming from. If you have any questions about my beliefs, I'll try to answer them as best I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate could use a heaping helping of Occam's razor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.