I expect you will both receive as response the same crickets I got yesterday when I requested cites to the “peer reviewed research” involving pre-birth and after death experiences.
I agree with your last sentence. Atheism is on the rise, and science has taught us more and more about the universe - which is true enlightenment in my book.
I also agree that NDEs and OBEs can teach us about the brain and consciousness. Since they do occur, we can try to figure out how they happen. An induced OBE is described here. This doesn’t prove that all OBEs happen this way, but it certainly does mean that there is a non-spooky explanation, and that we don’t have to posit unattached souls.
I’ve had a huge problem with this aspect as well.
If God has a plan, then how can we have free will?
If we exercise that free will, do we get blamed for defying God’s plan?
Did the Holocaust happen for a reason because it’s all part of some greater plan that we just can’t understand?
Did God have a plan for Hitler to do what he did, or did he have something better in mind but Hitler went his own way? Did God plan for Anne Frank and many others to die in concentration camps?
Are we all to blame for what a couple of people supposedly did in the Garden a very long time ago? How is that fair?
If God already has every second of our lives planned out and know what we’re going to say and do before we say or do it, then why would He be angry or disappointed in us for doing what we can’t help doing?
Is it any wonder that my brain is tied up in a knot from trying to reconcile all of this?
A younger family member is currently kicking herself because she wants very much to marry and have a baby; then she got the idea that it will never happen because God has other plans for her, and then declared herself a wicked brat who shouldn’t get mad at God even though his plan and her desires are apparently not meshing very well.
I feel bad for her. She shouldn’t have to blame herself and feel guilty like this.
Well, that extreme was implicit in the point I was originally arguing against; when this “no good without evil” stuff is presented as a justification for the problem of evil, it’s essentially positing that suffering is necessary for good to exist. So I just splashed you with some of the dirt from the starting line, even though you’re arguing a lesser position; sorry about that.
Anyway. You’re correct about plain bread being ambrosia to a starving man; that’s a side effect of the acclimitization I mentioned. You lower your own standards due to privation, and then suddenly normal things taste better…for a while. Then you acclimatize back. Given enough time, you’ll get accustomed to (nearly) anything.
But to bring this back to the original point a little - would you starve your children or feed them garbage with the specific intent that they’d enjoy their later food better, for a while?
By my read of lekatt, he’s arguing the classic ‘your suffering now is transient and unimportant; there will be rewards in heaven’ line, or some close variant. The goal of this is to trivialize the suffering; to answer the problem of evil with “Problem? What problem?”.
You seem to be hinting at the “privation makes us stronger, and that’s it’s goal” argument, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. It has its problems too (“What, the people who aren’t poor or struggling don’t need to grow any?”), but they’re another issue; I really don’t see that that’s what lekatt is arguing.
I’m arguing against the “mortal suffering is trivial” argument, while pointing out that it does have an out: if we mortals are irrelevent and unimportant, then the problem of evil is answered. It’s the logic that allows us to morally blow away characters in video games; they’re not real.
And, lekatt seems to be trying to take this out (thus implicitly admitting that he is using the trivialization argument) with his comment:
However, unless he believes in a pretty esoteric version of souls, it WON’T WORK. This is because in most persectives, the soul is actually presented as being us; it actually experiences everying we experience, and controls everything we do. So, if we suffer, it suffers, and so the suffering is torturing something real, whether our bodies are real or not.
The ‘trivial suffering’ argument only really works if you’re talking about something that’s absolutely unimportant and irrelevent, through and through.
Frankly , so do I. I do however , see that painful experiences can be a motivation for growth. I accept that I lack the perspective to judge what those experiences mean for others. I try to accept my responsibility to do the best I can while believing that the answers will eventually become clear.
On that we don’t agree. I see a world that through it’s struggles , most of them self inflicted, is slowly consistently making improvements. The part I don’t get is why we should expect god to do the things we are able but unwilling to do, and if he doesn’t, he must not really care.
I honestly don’t get this argument or it’s relevancy and I don’t mean that to trivialize anyone’s pain. I don’t see why that has to be explained. Our fear of death and the sense of loss we experience is clearly part of the issue. The higher purpose argument might be that there is no loss of life, only a change in it’s form.The higher purpose is served by cherishing life more than we do. Reading some of the Bahai writings today it spoke of our physical bodies being a mirror from which we can reflect light {our positive input to life} When the mirror is broken the light still continues undiminished. Could it be our attachment to the physical form that creates part of the suffering?
Too easy to say huh? I know. I don’t take it lightly. I’ve had to deal with the death of loved ones up close and personal. It isn’t easy, but IMO it doesn’t negate the existence of a benevolent god.
I’d agree that the different aspects of god belief need to be challenged and in the long run will be left behind. I still think for some god belief is their path to personal growth even if they find out later they were only talking about Fred.
I think god belief and spiritualism is much more multifaceted than most people think and antagonism toward offensive beliefs has people wanting to throw out all of it, the good and bad, rather than a detailed examination of those facets.
It depends on the choices that led up to the events. It is doubtful you could have known your house would get hit by a meteorite when you bought it. But you are aware of the possibilities of meteorites, tornadoes, and other natural events, and you take your chances like everyone else. That is just part of living in the physical. You can’t blame God or nature for singleing you out. You just pick up the pieces and get on with your life. God has nothing to do with it.
That isn’t what anyone here is saying. You keep trying to apply an abstract to this specific discussion. We are stating that either:
A) We have free will and if we are responsible for all our mistakes and everything bad that happens to us and are expected to take responsibility for those things, then we are ALSO responsible for all our right choices, and we are right to accept responsibility for the good things that happen as a result of that as well, and it isn’t a result of some supreme being “blessing” us.
or.
B) If god is infallible and all goes according to god’s plan and it is responsible for every good thing that happens to us, then it is bloody well responsible for every bad thing that happens to us as well.
It really is that simple. However. I would again ask that you answer my questions in post 151
I think you trivialize a lot of people’s decisions for atheism as mere frustration or anger. My decision was not made without thought and careful examination. It is possible to actually analyze one’s spirituality and come out on the side of atheism.
Take your chances? You ignore the fact that there are plenty of people who don’t take chances (i.e., don’t smoke, exercise, etc.) and still get cancer or some other horrible disease. They didn’t take a chance, but they got it in the neck anyhow.
And how does God have nothing to do with it? Did not God create the earth and all that it contains, including disease? I wouldn’t so easily absolve him of responsibility.
Consider an analogy. Suppose I allow my house to be very unsafe–exposed electrical wires, unsecured poisons, etc. If my child dies because of this, can I say, “I didn’t single him out; it just happened. It’s got nothing to do with me.” Of course not. Any such parent would be a cruel and heartless monster, and very much to blame for what happened. And yet on your view, such behavior is perfectly acceptable when practiced by God.
Because, you know, God is Unconditional Apathy, and all.
Dude, bummer about your dead kid and everything. I totally didn’t see that one coming. Here, in My Benevolence, I tossed some pot seeds in your backyard; just fire up a spliff, relax, try to pick up the pieces.
No, but I did tell them about starving children elsewhere in the world.
Levity, to break the tension a bit 
Starving children and other examples of suffering is not just about those individuals but also about those around them. If my kids were starving I’d consider stealing to feed them if it came to that. It would be someone else’s choice whether they would help me or hoard for themselves which in turn would weigh in on my decision. There is a complex web of cause and effect and an interplay of choices of consequences.
I don’t see it as suffering being trivial and unimportant because of future reward.
Part of it seems to be our response to harsh experiences. Would we admire Christopher Reeves if he became a bitter drunk after his accident? We admire him because of the courage and grace he faced his situation with.
To tell you the truth, I don’t pay a lot of attention to** lekatts** arguments. Sorry if I complicated things by butting in. I just commented on that one thing because I think the spectrum of experience is relevant to growth which, IMO, is what this journey is all about.
It’s not that mortal suffering is trivial. It’s an attempt to take the focus off our physical bodies as the total us. Ideally, we value the body as the temple of life and light. We cherish life and hold it in high esteem. Yet we may still risk our physical well being for an ideal we cherish even more.
Right. Of course, the bit that this doesn’t address is God’s choices and consequences. The problem of evil is a question of why a benevolent God would refrain from helping out, after all; if you don’t factor a god into the equation, then you end up just making commentary, really.
Sure, I’ll agree that there’s a complex web of cause and effect and an interplay of choices of consequences; that’s the atheist perspective, after all.
Noted that you’re not advancing lekatt rather mideval argument.
So, you’re positing that trauma is an opportunity to allow us to show our strength, struggling valiantly against adversity, eh? That seems to be an explanation that only covers certain specific cases, though. Like, the people are are killed instantly by their misfortune wouldn’t seem to fit. Or those too young to comprehend what’s happening to them. Also, speaking of Reeve’s shining example, what if he had become a bitter drunk? It’s not exactly uncommon. Lots of people break under their burdens, rather than growing.
I see an analogy to pruning; sure, in some cases careful pruning will encourage growth, but what we have going on in real life is more akin to somebody flailing blindly around with a chainsaw. If inciting growth were the main point of suffering and evil, I’d expect it to do so more consistently.
Or, wait, suffering is an attempt to take the attention off the body? Tell that to the people whose bodies hurt. That tends to attract the attention, I gather. Really I don’t see how this makes sense; unless you’re hinting at the ‘mortal suffering is trivial’ argument, which you explicitly say you aren’t. Perhaps you could clarify?
Thanks for pointing this out. The posts are coming so fast I missed it.
It didn’t seem to me that the OP or anyone else was arguing for those traditional beliefs but maybe I’m wrong. Thats why I reacted the way I did. They didn’t seem relevant to the OP nor did they apply to me or what I was saying.
Briefly, {I hope}
God and spiritual beliefs IMO are about the inner journey of growth and maturity. That includes taking personal responsibility for our own choices and our feelings and what we do about them.
I specifically don’t agree or approve of the vision of god as a separate being out there somewhere apart from us that approves or disapproves of our actions. I believe actions have consequences and it is those consequences that will eventually steer us toward better choices.
Jesus said the kingdom of God is within and thats how I see it. I believe we are connected in a real way although I don’t know the details. That connection has a lot to do with our consciousness, our spirit , or soul, whatever terminology suits you. I believe there is probably a higher consciousness that is sometimes referred to as god or the holy spirit or even mysterium tremendum. Terminology isn’t to important and it’s unfortunate that it separates us so often.
The essence of it all is love and truth and these things draw us to them despite our illusions and stubborn resistance. eventually the consequences of our actions will bring us back to the path which we share, but is still unique in some way for each of us.
Thats enough to start.
I think there is a complex web of cause and effect that is too much for us to grasp. We operate within our limited vision of it. So, I agree, sometimes there isn’t always someone to blame. Often there’s a shared responsibility, and as you said, sometimes we’re faced with two bad alternatives.
I thought I had responeded to his specific comment but he’s free to crroect me if I misunderstood.
Okay, I understand your point and it’s a valid one. Is it an abstract to talk about choices and consequences? I’ve never talked about god blessing us or punishing us.
I think I’ve done that. Tried anyway.
If you can find anywhere where I’ve trivialized peoples atheism or characterized it such a manner please point it out to me. I don’t believe I’ve done that.
I happen to think atheism is a perfectly valid choice.
The charecter of the person matters more than the details of their belief system.
On this board I just happen to be one of the outspoken believers among a number of outspoken and articulate atheists, so I often wind up defending belief because I don’t want that trivialized anymore than you want atheism trivialized.
I’m sure there are some traditional beliefs that you and I would both find distasteful. I’m all for beliefs being challenged. I think it’s good for us.
I started a thread on this subject a while back. Almost everyone on this board owes his or her very existence to WW II. If WW II hadn’t happened, perhaps our mothers would have married someone who didn’t die in battle. My parents were married before the war, and my father survived, but he worked for the UN, which wouldn’t exist if not for the war. If God has a plan which involves any of us existing, then all the horrors of the war are a part of it. I’m much happier with the philosophy of shit happens myself.
Yeah, but don’t most versions of God theorize that you have some kind of immortal soul? Were there a different arrangement and sequence of babies being born, he’d just jam your spirit in a different body. So you’d be different, with possibly different parents, and an at least slightly different life; however you’d still exist. Right? Which I think unravels that justification for the war?
Of course, without the war there’d likely be more bodies to fill. So maybe he arranged for the war to keep demand in line with the then-available supply. 
Nature has no purpose, so a godless nature can’t be blamed for anything. Tornadoes don’t aim themselves at the evil, or at churches, or even at trailer parks. But if there is a god who designed the universe, in whatever way (no Bible literalism necessary) and who is a thinking entity, he either designed the earth to have these problems and/or deliberately does not intervene when the results of his poor design kill people. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he has everything to do with it. If you believe in a god not powerful enough to intervene, no problem - but he’s a very odd god.
Everything in the universe is living. Our planet is alive and doing the things that is needed to sustain that life. We are like fleas on the dog and have to dodge the scratching now and then.
My father was in WWI, and it was that war that spawned the League of Nations which became the UN. If God…if God…if God… If you are truly interested in the truth you will seek it.
Your understanding of God is faulty. What can I say?