Yeah know, I’m not sure lesbians fantasize about playing with each others sweater puppets in the real world.
In my dreams they do though.
What’s sort of interesting about this is that this advice is not applicable towards God. God doesn’t have physical experiences. God cannot ‘lose an arm’. God doesn’t live life fully.
Further this sort of stance produces abhorrent moral choices. Should I let a child starve to death as opposed to giving the child a piece of bread, so that the child actually has that experience?
Presumably, under your view, to do so (to let the child starve) would be the more ‘holy’ action.
So we cannot empathize with other people, at all?
Should we inflict physical pain on other people so that we can get them closer to God?
Should we look at the Kardashians, or other people who have not experienced such suffering, and inflict it for them, for the betterment of mankind?
The problem with this sort of thinking is it’s very metaphysically narrow - you aren’t really considering the implications.
Also, it would seem that Mother Teresa was unholy - shouldn’t she have let people drown in depression and pain as opposed to robbing them of the suffering that they would need to experience in order to become more Godly?
Actually, she kinda did…
Then God’s doing a terrible job.
Wouldn’t it be better to attempt to garner favor with Lucifer in that situation? After all, the pain and misery are guaranteed to occur if we side with God. Perhaps Lucifer will offer us a better deal?
I had an inkling in my mind that this might have been the case.
What does free will have to do with medical problems? Guess what - you don’t give yourself cancer.
You said
I guess the parents of those dead kids must be downright jolly now. Your lack of empathy is disgusting.
The way I see it is that Helen Keller could have spent her life ranting and railing against the darkness and the evilness of God. We would have never heard of Helen Keller.
But nobody has ever doubted her courage and her desire to live an exceptional life. As a consequence, we have all heard of her.
Also, let’s say that God doesn’t exist. Then what would be your excuse for not correcting the evil in the world?
And so what? She’d have been better off able to hear and see. And if she wanted to “live an exceptional life”, being able to hear and see hasn’t ever stopped anyone from doing that.
That I don’t have the power.
I’m working on it. I’m only human.
So HK is remarkable only because of her faith?
So then, nothing to do with her faith…
Which is it?
I don’t see what one has to do with the other or what imperative an individual has for correcting all the evil in the world. Furthermore, what makes you think Voyager doesn’t spend significant effort in trying to make the world a better place, to the extent of his abilities.
You don’t seem real clear on the whole “atheist” concept.
An atheist doesn’t blame God for his problems. An atheist doesn’t believe God exists. If you’re bitching and moaning at God, you’re acknowledging He exists. Somebody doing that isn’t an atheist, he’s an angry theist.
It is possible for an atheist to look at the world as it is and say, “wow, if God existed, he’s a real dick” as that posits that the world would be a better place if God existed and wasn’t a dick. It’s possible for an atheist to tell a theist “your God is a real dick” as that acknowledges the person’s BELIEF exists, but not God himself. It’s possible for an atheist to be angry about the negative effects various religions and churches have had on the world, as they’re solely human enterprises. But an atheist being angry AT God is nonsensical.
He doesn’t blame God because he doesn’t believe in him. This is not a complicated idea. What he is saying is that if you believe in a just and loving god, there are a lot of aspects of life that are difficult or impossible to explain. Most religious believers are well aware of this. I don’t find their answers remotely satisfying, but some of them handle it better than you have been doing.
This doesn’t mean anything to people who don’t believe in a god.
You said a mouthful: you’re arguing for an idea that makes no sense logically. That means something is wrong with the idea- not with logic and facts. And you’re engaging in some behavior here that really gives people of faith a bad name: based on your faith you’re assuming other people simply aren’t as experienced and compassionate and motivated as you are. Your faith is the only basis for that assumption. Whatever your personal experience is, I am positive there is a nonbeliever out there who does more for others and is more compassionate than you are.
This is very smug.
What? His statement would be completely accurate. It might not come from direct experience cutting off his own arm, but it would be true and it would be factual.
Again, this is pure presumption without facts. It’s extremely condescending, and it doesn’t answer the question.
You’re not answering the question.
That’s a given. You’re being asked this question by someone who doesn’t believe in god, and it’s understood that God isn’t fixing this problem. So the question is “why is God not fixing it?” And you’re not answering that question.
And there we have it. you’ve dismissed the question with an attack on life experience and presumptions about other people and without answering their question. It’s a dodge, and not a skilled one.
I learned a new acronym last night-WISHS. It stands for “What I Should Have Said”.
Maybe God is a bit like Mrs. Salerno (mother of one of my friends growing up who had nine children)who, not being born yesterday, knew that once you’ve told the kids how to behave they have to learn by their own mistakes.
Also, maybe we are God’s children, but God didn’t make us exactly(any more than I designed my children)-she created the conditions that allowed us to evolve and become what we are, i.e. sometimes clever/altruistic, often monumentally stupid/rapacious. This is perhaps where the Sims analogy comes in.
Then too, God created lots of others besides us (sea urchins, trees, asteroids)-no reason to imagine that our welfare and concerns should be any more important than the rest of her creation really…
Gals and Guys,
If the New Testament ended with Jesus Christ, the Messiah, dying on the cross. I think that most of us would agree that God was a sadist and leave it at that.
However, a lot of the arguments I’ve seen in this thread for God being a sadist pretty much follow the same formula.
There’s a painful death or a destructive event and therefore God is a sadist.
But when you look at the broader context and take more events into account the analysis looks different but the pro-sadist people are not willing to take this into account.
Oh God, not the ant view again, I hope.
But okay, what broader context and what events would make it okay having your son die horribly on a cross?
You’re not hinting at that silly notion of sin are you?
BTW, for someone who claims to be on a “spiritual quest” you are certainly full of that jewish god. Although you say his book is written by men and for the greater part just metaphor.
You still haven’t told us what other religions you’re concidering and which are not true.
If Helen Keller had lived today, perhaps medicine could have kept from from becoming blind and deaf in the first place. She clearly was an exceptional person, maybe she could have done even more for the world than she did. She might not have been as famous, but she might have been happier.
Fame is not the ultimate measure of anyone.
You got it. God with all his power created a world in which little children die horribly from natural disasters, from his own hand. Some are burned horribly. If that isn’t sadism, I don’t know what is. And you are as blind as Helen Keller if you say God loves us while reading evidence of God torturing us.
I’d like to know what I’m not taking into account when I think that it is bad that babies are drowned in tsunamis. Give me a hint here.
It is much more fulfilling to not believe in any God, since then these things are natural outgrowths of the way the Earth is, and not do to either deliberate evil or the evil of God ignoring suffering.
If God existed, he should be kicked in his Holy Balls (band name!)
Or “there are enormous amounts of painful deaths and destructive events” (same conclusion).
Why not? What looks different and what changes? So far all you’ve said is “I have more experience than you” (debatable at best, certainly false in some cases), “you can’t just complain about these things” (nonresponsive), and “kids getting eaten by sharks is great for sharks,” which in addition to being absurd only addresses a minute fraction of the claim you’re being asked about. Who benefits when tens of thousands of people die in a flood or a hurricane or a mudslide or an earthquake? Who do you believe God was looking out for when religious nuts killed 2,800 people in his name on September 11th?
I can make it make sense in a narrower context: “My son went to fight against the Nazis in '44, and an SS unit caught him and tortured him. But he didn’t die in vain. He was part of the effort to defeat Hitler.” That works…
But “I’m omnipotent. I created the cosmos. I created the weak nuclear force. I created the stars and galaxies. But I’m so incredibly incompetent, I couldn’t forgive mankind’s sins without sacrificing my son.”
WTF? God? He could just issue an edict.
Even Odin hanged himself and gave up an eye to propitiate other powers than himself. It isn’t like he sacrificed his eye to himself.
Basically, Christianity is stuck in a middle place, between Greek rationality and Babylonian sex myths. It partakes too much of both to be truly one or the other.
This reminds me of a wise saying attributed to the barnacle philosopher, Muarry, “Yippie! Plankton!”