That’s fine - just don’t expect to convince many believers using such comparatively mild examples of temporary suffering.
You are talking about temporary, transitive forms of suffering. Everybody who has gone through those forms of suffering either will, or has, seen a permanent end to it. Anybody would choose this over an eternal torment. Anybody.
Der Trihs, if your best response is to disingenuously quote me out of context, then it only serves to detract from whatever overall point you are making, rather than enforce it.
No, they wouldn’t. Such “transitory” suffering is easily enough to compel you to make whatever choice will end it NOW. Your hypothetical afterlife won’t make that agony hurt any less.
I didn’t quote you out of context; you’ve been systematically calling all sorts of horrible things words like “silly”.
And you are completely ignoring the point that there’s no reason to think your evil god would NOT throw people into Hell even if they sucked up to him. There’s no reason to think that such a god won’t just throw EVERYONE into Hell no matter what they do. That’s exactly what I’d expect from the monster you are describing.
That presupposes the actual existence of such eternal torment (a concept, I hasten to add, that was absent in Christianity until the Middle Ages). In the absence of any kind of proof, or even hint towards that (again, it’s not in the Bible), it seems… well, silly to say or think that earthly suffering is irrelevant.
I think the general problem with your argument is in the phrasing it as an either-or. Yes, I agree with you, temporal suffering is less harsh than eternal punishment - even the most mild punishment, over an eternity, would easily beat out any kind of horrible unpleasantness we could come up with here. But the question is not which option out of the two means the least suffering, but why there has to be suffering at all, or at least why suffering is not reduced to the minimum possible under that particular God. Each and every piece of suffering, temporal or otherwise, must be accounted for under a benevolent God. So when I bring up suffering in a God debate, it’s not to make the argument about temporal suffering being the worst possible thing, but to make the argument that unnecessary suffering exists, in however comparitively small an amount.
You’ve now used the second argument I paraphrased earlier. Congratulations!
If people can’t change their beliefs, why have ideas of god and religion evolved over the centuries? This thread makes it clear that they have done so.
Theoretically, maybe. But I don’t think it works out that way in real life.
I almost commented on this in my first post. What you’re saying is true, but that’s not the god most people want. Most people want a god who makes the world more understandable and bearable, who rewards their good deeds, makes their suffering worthwhile, and perhaps punishes those who wrong them.
This fails to understand why people believe, I think.
Now you’ve switched to using strawmen. I am not arguing that a pleasant afterlife would ease the suffering one might experience in this world. Incidentally, it could certainly erase any memory of it.
No, I haven’t. Cite please.
And the relevance this has to the discussion is… ?
In other words, atheists are prepared to pre-suppose that a God exists for the sake of arguing that He is allowing suffering on earth, but when believers retort by pointing out that there exists an eternal torment that is comparatively much worse to anything experienced here on earth, atheists change their mind and decide that it’s not acceptable to pre-suppose the existence of a God?
That is a hopelessly, hopelessly inconsistent line of reasoning.
It’s worth examining why you would merely “give it serious consideration” rather than outright say “yes, of course; come beat me; the reward is eternal paradise, after all”. For the sake of argument, think of happiness as something available in a measurable quantity. Your argument implies that having a small quantity of happiness immediately (say, 0 utils for twenty-four years while you’re locked in a cellar and raped by your father) is entirely outweighed by a large amount of happiness received in perpetuity.
What you ignore is that we discount the happiness available at future times—future happiness is worth less than present happiness. Pulling numbers out of my ass for the sake of demonstration, say I have two choices:
-
I can be locked in a cellar and raped by my father for 24 years, during which time I receive 0 utils. At the end of year 24 I die and because of my suffering ascend to heaven; then I receive 100 utils per year forever.
-
I avoid being raped by my father. For 24 years I receive 45 utils, and as before I die just before turning 25. My modicum of happiness displeases God; my soul separates from His love and I receive 0 utils per year forever.
Assume further that I discount happiness at an effective rate of 5%. The math is not difficult. Due to the magic of geometric series, at commencement the present value of scenario (1) is about 620 utils; the present value of scenario (2) is 666 utils*. The immediacy of earthly pleasure outweighs the eternity of heavenly bliss.
Of course this exercise is facetious, but I trust it’s clear: eternal happiness does not render earthly pain meaningless or silly. That pain is happening now.
- I swear I didn’t plan that: sum 45/1.05^x, x = 0…24 = 665.94.
So life is pretty much a hazing conducted in order to get into the Heaven fraternity? And god’s take on it is “Shut up or I’ll give you something to really cry about?”
Yeah, sign me up for that philosophy.
Assuming God actually exists, which religion (if any) has some solid evidence that their interpretation of God’s nature and intent is accurate?
I’ll skip on the irony of a Christian accusing others of inconsistency. Too obvious.
But, to answer you :
First of all, there’s no such thing as a united body of atheists. We don’t have a club.
Second, pointing out that “hey, pal, there’s horribly worse and abominably cruel suffering in the next world, so be thankful you got raped and tortured for a spell in this world !” doesn’t exactly entice me to your point of view that the God you present me is nice and friendly.
Thirdly, as Reverend Threshold points out, the existence of *any suffering whatsoever *is kind of a big deal when you’re trying to sell the idea of an omnipotent and loving God. If he loves us so much, why would he torture us ? If he knows us (and he should, having created each one of us to his specs), why would he need to test us ? If he’s omniscient, wouldn’t he know before he even creates us what the end result of the test will be ? If he gave us free will so we had the freedom to choose him, and choosing him equals eternal bliss but not choosing him equals eternal torment, is it really that much of a choice, and couldn’t he dispense with the kangaroo trial ? Etc, etc, ad nauseam. I’m not going to plow through the entire litany of inconsistencies and paradoxes in the Christian doctrine (especially since there are a bajillion versions of said doctrine these days -I tell ya, it was much easier when everyone was either a Catholic or a heretic :p)
ETA : oh, and yes, a majority of agnostics will be ready to acknowledge the idea that there might be a God, since our current knowledge doesn’t explain everything. But if you want to jump from “God’s in the cracks” to “Hell’s real”, well, mind the gap.
No one is trying to sign you up for anything, perhaps you need to re-read the thread.
Are you asking me?
Let’s say for the sake of argument, that none of them have a shred of it.
Now over to you to conclude with a point.
That happened in this thread? Where?
Someone was arguing that God is “nice and friendly”?
I’m going to stop reading here. Seems as though you’re interested in responding to points other than those raised by me.
Therefore, we have no reason to assume that anyone promoting a religion has any idea whether or not their description of God is accurate or not. Does suffering prove God’s existence? Does it prove God’s lack of existence? Any statement about suffering in a religious context is therefore suspect so I have no reason to believe anyone who says suffering in this world will lead to paradise in the next. In the meantime, we have scientific and technological means of relieving a great deal of suffering. Religion, at best, can make someone care less about their suffering.
This is a ludicrous argument. You’re dismissing all real human suffering by trying to invent imaginary suffering which you say is worse.
It doesn’t help you at all, not the least of which becvause only an evil God would invent Hell, but also because you’re attempting to basically deny that evil exists on earth. You can’t solve the Problem of Evil by trying to deny that evil exists. This thesis is a failure fronm start to finish.
Christianity, historically, is a mish-mash of contradictory beliefs, pagan ceremonies (and beliefs) and as a general rule, as we say in French, “says everything and its contrary”. Hence, the quip.
Oh. All right then. God is a hateful son of a bitch, but we should praise him all the same. I suppose we should also be eternaly thankful to, say, Russia, for not nuking every last one of us. They can, they don’t, they’re merciful ! Hallelujah, tovarich ! Hosannah amensky !
Not answering the actually problematic preguntas. Gotcha. So, this God dude, nifty, huh ? Praise Him, amiright ?
So how come atheists are allowed to ask “Why does your God allow so much suffering in the world?”.
If all I ever heard from atheists was “Your God doesn’t exist, so no point pondering over ‘what ifs’ or ‘how comes’”, then you’d have a point. But that’s not what I see.