Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's always funny when I hear people say "but you have free will so all the bad things that happen are YOUR fault".

Really? So God made us with intent to make that decision and it's our fault? He had foreknowledge of events, how could that be our fault?

It's like the Toyota recall, they were badly designed from the ground up. Just because when a driver uses his 'free will' to put his foot on the accelerator, it doesn't mean it's his fault that the mechanism is faulty. But the difference is, Toyota can actually make a design that works and don't intend on making it mess up, God had foreknowledge of the fault.

At 4/5/10 01:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

Stop being an idiot. Being an atheist is not an "extreme". That's possibly one of the most silly things ever said in this thread.

Extremism is to put your whole part into something. Being religious is an "extreme". Same with atheism. Imagine that there's a line. On one end we have atheism, and on the other, religion. Both sides are extremes, with agnosticism (or whatever it's called) in the middle. We have people who are passionate in religion, like the Pope, and we have people passionate about atheism, like you. And, we have annoying, stupid agnostics like me who make no sense at all.

At 4/10/10 11:16 AM, thedo12 wrote:

At 4/10/10 11:13 AM, amaterasu wrote:
Why do you think God deserves the blame for the fact that people must endure pain and suffering in their lifetimes?

If god effectivly created reality knowing what would happen then he is the direct cause of all suffering and pain in the universe . And thus is to blame.\

\

You know, there has to be pain and suffering. Otherwise, there wouldn't be freedom. It's like yin-yang. Every bad comes along with a good, and vice versa. You wanna be free to argue and have your own point of view? Then be thankful for pain and suffering. It's because we're free that we have the choice to inflict pain and suffering.

At 4/10/10 01:16 PM, TakedaIesyu wrote: You know, there has to be pain and suffering. Otherwise, there wouldn't be freedom. It's like yin-yang. Every bad comes along with a good, and vice versa. You wanna be free to argue and have your own point of view? Then be thankful for pain and suffering. It's because we're free that we have the choice to inflict pain and suffering.

why? if God is the absolute master of reality, reality could have been created with nothing but good. or is it that God lacks the full control of existence that we attribute to him?

At 4/10/10 01:12 PM, TakedaIesyu wrote: Extremism is to put your whole part into something. Being religious is an "extreme". Same with atheism. Imagine that there's a line. On one end we have atheism, and on the other, religion. Both sides are extremes, with agnosticism (or whatever it's called) in the middle. We have people who are passionate in religion, like the Pope, and we have people passionate about atheism, like you. And, we have annoying, stupid agnostics like me who make no sense at all.

How is accepting or not accepting an assertion (X) is extreme? I would adore to see you try to research the terms and justify your assertions.

Or, we can go into examples.

"The moon is blue."

Those who accept this assertion are extremists. Those who don't are extremists.

Which means any assertion, regardless of what it is, is a sign of extremism.

I suggest we all burn down a library.

At 4/10/10 11:27 AM, amaterasu wrote: So ok, God is definitely to blame for the fact that pain and suffering exists. I'd like to follow up with this: Do you think continuously improving life, from an evolutionary standpoint, is possible without the existence of pain and suffering?

I think life as we know it, evolution aside, even on a moment to moment basis, would be completely impossible without pain and suffering.

I guess what I'm getting at is I don't consider pain and suffering a reason to hate god (some people use this reasoning) and consider him a sadist (which I think is what Bacchanalian meant rather than masochist), because it seems to be a necessary mechanism behind life..

Pain and suffering are a reason to hate god if those things are arbitrarily enforced upon us, which they are.

And while sadist also applies, I did mean masochist, as our pain and suffering apparently is not a pleasant thing for Him either - or specifically applied to Avie's hypothetical: our complaints and insistence keep Him in a state he does not want to be, by His own design.

At 4/10/10 01:12 PM, TakedaIesyu wrote: with agnosticism (or whatever it's called) in the middle.

Most of the atheists that've posted in this thread are agnostics.

At 4/10/10 11:27 AM, amaterasu wrote: So ok, God is definitely to blame for the fact that pain and suffering exists. I'd like to follow up with this: Do you think continuously improving life, from an evolutionary standpoint, is possible without the existence of pain and suffering?

Yes? I suppose what you're asking is the veracity of "no pain, no gain" (to put it simply). While things like survival of the fittest, natural selection, and our own human experiences make it seem like failure, or pain, is a necessary cog in the process of progress, I think there are enough cases of things getting done "right" the first time around to say that improving life is indeed possible without pain and suffering.

A crude analogy:
You're applying to college. You don't get in the first time, figure out what you did wrong, re-apply, and get accepted the second time. From an evolutionary standpoint, you've learned and improved, yes?

What about the people who got in on their first try?

What is interesting is one perspective of God as NOT omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, using the great flood in the bible as supporting evidence. Some in Genesis as well.

One perspective may be that God is learning as well. He creates Man, and the first thing we do is fuck up Eden. Then we misbehave bad enough that God has to flood the Earth and wipe us all out (minus the one specimen he felt was worth saving, Noah).

So I suppose the bible may be used to justify your point, if even God can be seen going through the "no pain, no gain" process in Creation.

But for that to be true, God must be fallible. Or at least not omnipotent.
If God is infallible and omnipotent, then he created a world with pain and suffering by choice, as part of his plan.

And this is where theists usually want to tear into me for not believing in an afterlife.
It's not so much I dislike the idea of an afterlife as it is I dislike the idea that THIS existence is merely a test. If eternal salvation is based upon actions in this life, that's exactly what the meaning of life, in the Judeo-Christian concept, is: A test. The entrance exam to heaven.

And in my opinion, that makes God look like a dick.

I took your quote on a couple tangents, I know.

At 4/10/10 04:15 AM, Memorize wrote: Right... because none of those "atheists" did it either, eh?

The only guy I saw doing that is someone that can't be banned :)

I thought it was the word "gay", which the creators of this website seemed to find it necessary to highlight in rainbow colors.

It's any sort of slur on homosexuals, kind of like how the n-word and all it's variations, or other racist language and all it's variations are. I mean, isn't that just kind of common sense that if you ban one slur on a group you'd ban them all?

I suggest we all burn down a library.

teach kids e-prime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

At 4/11/10 03:43 AM, pr0ded wrote:

I suggest we all burn down a library.

teach kids e-prime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

... in order to... avert extremism?

At 4/11/10 03:43 AM, pr0ded wrote:

I suggest we all burn down a library.

teach kids e-prime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

E-Prime fails as an attempt to make language more objective. It is just as easy to make subjective or opinionated statements without "to be" (eg. Instead of "star wars is a bad movie" you could say "star wars had no value" or "star wars sucked") and E-prime ignores the many objective uses of "to be" (eg. "The temperature outside is 67 degrees fahrenheit" or "one plus one is equal to two").

...And exactly how is this relevant?

At 4/10/10 11:27 AM, amaterasu wrote: Do you think continuously improving life, from an evolutionary standpoint, is possible without the existence of pain and suffering?

If god can't do something he is not all powerful and thus isn't god.

I guess what I'm getting at is I don't consider pain and suffering a reason to hate god (some people use this reasoning) and consider him a sadist (which I think is what Bacchanalian meant rather than masochist), because it seems to be a necessary mechanism behind life..

When we talk about for the most part were talking about the all powerful , all knowing god the christians , muslim and all desert religions love to believe in. If this god is all powerful then he should be able to create without suffering , and if he is all knowing then he knows what the products of his labour will be. So if there is suffering in the world god knew about this suffering beforehand and created a imperfect world anyways knowing it would lead to death , rape child abuse ect:

If you are some one who dose not believe in an all powerful all knowing god then this argument dosen't apply to to you.

At 4/11/10 12:57 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:
...And exactly how is this relevant?

to subjective perception and reality tunnels, since everything is mediated through your senses subjectively. so there is the relation, wouldn't be taught in school, where they teach you consumer capitalist scientific materialist reality tunnel. while the media teaches the madison avenue one

At 4/11/10 03:32 PM, pr0ded wrote: to subjective perception and reality tunnels, since everything is mediated through your senses subjectively. so there is the relation

In other words, it's just as relevant to any and every discussion about anything.

Should we suddenly derail to talking about prototype theory? Because every sentence involves semantics. How about semiotics? Grammar? Spelling? They're all related.

At 4/10/10 01:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: So interestingly enough, re-reading Peter David and JK Woodward's Fallen Angel (buy on Amazon from IDW, good stuff), and it's got an interesting idea that I thought might be worth exploring just for something different: God doesn't care. The main character is a Fallen Guardian Angel. Cast out because her youngest charge, a six year old girl, is kidnapped and violently murdered by a child murderer who gets off, so she kills him in broad daylight. Now consigned to a city of the damned she lets her wayward priest son in on the big secret: God hates human beings. God wants to die and be gone, and because we won't let Him do it already, because we keep worshiping him and asking for crap he can't go. Floods, earthquakes, global warming, all of this is God trying to get us to wake up and be like "fuck this guy, he's a douche" and we won't take the hint. But God won't wipe us out either because humanity was something like a "final exam" to prove once and for all how awesome God was.

Weird stuff, good stuff. So there's the question: What if God exists, but doesn't care? Or more accurately, it's like David's heroine says it is, God wants to just fade off into oblivion and we just won't let Him do it already?

That's an intriguing concept. It sort of portrays God as an overworked and overstressed parent who punishes their children out of nothing more than frustration. (I imagine that Peter David must may have grown up in an abusive home).

Anyway, I don't find myself in agreement with David's interpretation of God at all. It just flies in the face of all the stories believers have told about their encounter with God as a positive one, marked by said-deity's overt love and kindness. (You'd think if God is speaking to people, he would convey hate rather than love, if Peter David is to be believed)

But, that's just my opinion, so, take it with a grain of salt, if need be.

At 4/10/10 01:37 PM, SolInvictus wrote: why? if God is the absolute master of reality, reality could have been created with nothing but good. or is it that God lacks the full control of existence that we attribute to him?

How does one determin the complete definition of "good"? If I couldn't kill... I wouldn't be able to eat... I'd die. All life would be forced into some form of self feeding... like photosynthatis. Even if that's the case, if we couldn't be killed or injured, we would suffer overpopulation problems. Either that, or only so many exist and breeding is no longer allowed. But without breeding, how does life adapt and change to it's environment? What then, is even the point of living?

Just because something is 'bad' to you, doesn't mean that it's actually a bad thing. Should tapeworms not be allowed to eat simply because you don't like them feeding in your intestines? Who are you to decide what life-form gets to survive? Tapeworms aren't doing anything wrong.... neither are botflies, posionious spiders, or man-eating bears... regardless of how much humans hate them. "Good" is subjective. How can you possibly create a universal good for all life everywhere without allowing for some opposite amount of suffering?

How could you even make the idea of 'no bad' even work? Nobody could ever get sad, worried, scared, or upset... we wouldn't be allowed to have any emotions... we would have no fear and no drive for survival. We built houses not because they looked nice, but because we didn't want to cook or freeze to death in the wilderness. Everything life does is to help it avoid the negative consiquences of not helping itself. If we where all indefinitly happy we'd all just stand around doing nothing until we died because we'd have nothing negative to avoid... what a pointless existance. Wouldn't that actually be worse... for everyone?

Stranger still, is that you have to take into account that God made everything, not just humans. He made molecules and atoms. He made the laws of physics. The universe is an amazing place and you can't claim it to be a flawed design simply because you don't want to feel any bit of discomfort ever. Maybe this is the best design... sure some bad things happen, but a few bits of suffering compared to the overall design and life of the entire universe is probably worth it in the end. Especially if all that suffering ends with death and results in either a rebirth, or an eternity in paradise.

...and this is all assuming that God is even behind your creation. Who's to say God didn't simply create the building blocks of the universe, set them in motion, and then let his perfect design simply govern itself? That's what I would do... and I'm not even all knowing. Why would I create a flawed environment that needs my constant watch and assistance at all times to continue running when I could create something that runs itself and only intervein when I see fit? If this is the case, man is the result of Gods creation... not a direct creation of God. Thus your suffering isn't his fault...

At 4/12/10 05:06 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Especially if all that suffering ends with death and results in either a rebirth, or an eternity in paradise.

What, according to you, distinguishes paradise from earth to the extent that it would be called paradise? Do you feel the title is fitting? What does paradise entail?

At 4/12/10 06:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: What, according to you, distinguishes paradise from earth to the extent that it would be called paradise?

That's a bit tricky to put into words.... I don't view existance like most people. I think a lot of people assume that if God exists, he plays a role in everything, every day. But not me. That idea makes no sense to me. It seems like a flawed design, one an all knowing being wouldn't make.

Think of it like a game of "The Sims". We all love that game right? But let's be honest, would you really enjoy it if your sims didn't do anything you didn't tell them to do? No, the fun of the sims is watching them live life and you having the ability to intervein only if you want to. It's fun to tell your sim to practice the guitar, but it's nice to know that if you get up to go the bathroom, your sim isn't just going to stand there and burn to death in a kitchen fire.

If we, as humans, can understand the advantage of letting things run themself, then why wouldn't God see this same advantage on a universal scale? I like to think that he would.

To me, this means God had to create an entire universe that would not only hold life, but allow life to exist on it's own without his constant watch. This means God created the Big Bang, but not the planet Earth. God created the laws of physics that allow life to exist, but he didn't hand sculp me. What we see around us is the result of Gods creation, not the creation itself.

This means a few things:
1) Science will never be able to find God because there's nothing to find.
2) The flaws we preceive with the universe aren't neccessarly flaws with the universe.

Think about some of the common arguments that people have against God. How can God let babies die of cancer? How can God let people die in war? Why would God not prevent rape?

Yes, all of those things are terrible. Yes, those things make you feel like the universe is imperfect. But look at the point of view from which you make these judgements. You're not finding flaws with the entire universe, you're finding flaws with basic everyday life. You're saying that the entire universe is broken because one life form has the ability to throw another lifeform in the trash. Yet you ignore that if it was impossible for us to throw things in the trash, we wouldn't be able to throw anything away and we'd all have to live in our own filth.

If I couldn't kill a man, I wouldn't be able to kill a cow. Nobody enjoys AIDS but that's only because you're not a HIV virus. If you where a virus, you'd love AIDS and you'd hate mankind. Sure rape is shitty when it's humans, but there are a lot of animals who's only breeding practice is "be strong enough to take your mate by force". If I couldn't have sex, I couldn't have sex... period. Forced sex is shitty from a moral point of view, but from a universal point of view it's neccessary.

Being God I would know that these are the negative side effects of my creation. But for every rape there's some genius balace of perfection going on all around you. You exist because Gods universe was created so perfectly that your cells where able to form, hold DNA, and allow you to think for your own so God doesn't have to constantly tell every human to jump out of the kitchen fire.

Does that make any sense?

yes, Evolution is real. Because that's part of the design. Chaos and randomness are a part of the design. Humans, monkies, AIDS, all results of the design. Survival of the fittest is part of the design. That means that rape and cancer are going to occure. Yes, they're terrible things... but they're a neccessity for the overall design itself because they're the consequences not the actual creation.

Sex is amazing. Free will is amazing. Existance is amazing. Rape... well, that sucks... but how can you have existance, sex, and free will without also having to put up with the fact that some people, are going to have sex by force? You can't. When all you focus on is rape, yeah everything looks like shit. But when you focus on the existance of the entire universe, well rape is just a tiny, tiny part of a much larger, more genius, beautiful thing.

I don't know, it's hard to explain in a post. I'm never sure how others are going to interprit what I wrote... so easy to get off topic.

What does paradise entail?

To me, paradise wouldn't be a place. Instead, it would be a state of being. I always liked the buddhist idea that you could eventually become a part of everything without actually being anything.

Honestly, I never really thought of paradise as a physical land I would visit to spend eternity in. But if it was, I wouldn't mind. After all, it's paradise... whatever it is, however it is, I'm going to enjoy it simply because it would be impossible not to. It can't be paradise if I'm unhappy.

At 4/12/10 07:13 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I don't know, it's hard to explain in a post. I'm never sure how others are going to interprit what I wrote... so easy to get off topic.

Well. From over here it looks like the concept of paradise is antithetical to your argument that a perfect world requires pain and suffering.

At 4/12/10 01:53 PM, BlackVelvett wrote: That's an intriguing concept. It sort of portrays God as an overworked and overstressed parent who punishes their children out of nothing more than frustration. (I imagine that Peter David must may have grown up in an abusive home).

It's possible he did, abuse themes do tend to recur in the major works he's known for. But then again it could just be it's a subject he returns to in his fiction because he knew an abuse victim, or just has a passion against it. It's a hot button issue for me as my best friend growing up was a victim of an abusive parent.

Anyway, I don't find myself in agreement with David's interpretation of God at all. It just flies in the face of all the stories believers have told about their encounter with God as a positive one, marked by said-deity's overt love and kindness. (You'd think if God is speaking to people, he would convey hate rather than love, if Peter David is to be believed)

This presupposes though that these stories are genuine. That the experience was exactly what it was described as. Hey, it's POSSIBLE, sure. But it's more likely it's either outright falsehood, or some sort of misinterpreted experience (a hallucination of some kind for instance). I'm not even sure that's what Peter David really believes either, don't get me wrong. Fallen Angel is a fictive work, not necessarily a manifesto of belief. I was just positing the concept as it would, I feel, explain better a creator who allows terrible shit to happen in the world better then the incomprehensible for me idea of "he loves you...now duck under the door because when he made you, he also made earthquakes which can fucking kill you". It also makes more sense if I go to the Judeo-Christian view as well since under that, God ALREADY created a race that can do not but worship him (the angels) so perhaps humanity was a test to see if he could create a race with a choice in the matter, and he's hoping they basically grow up and stop trying to hit dad up for things every time they're in trouble. That bad shit is his way of saying "leave the nest kids! Go experience this life and this world I built for you and learn how to DEAL with it without me having to keep intervening for you".

But, that's just my opinion, so, take it with a grain of salt, if need be.

Oh sure, in the end, anything about a creator is opinion really until we get a bit more of a solid lead on if there is one and what that creator is like. Good chatting with you though, nice to be able to make a post in here that isn't having to get hostile or try to fight about belief and what not.

At 4/12/10 07:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/12/10 07:13 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I don't know, it's hard to explain in a post. I'm never sure how others are going to interprit what I wrote... so easy to get off topic.

Well. From over here it looks like the concept of paradise is antithetical to your argument that a perfect world requires pain and suffering.

why? you can enjoy pain and suffering, you can be a sadist that live in your own paradise.

At 4/12/10 07:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Well. From over here it looks like the concept of paradise is antithetical to your argument that a perfect world requires pain and suffering.

Not neccessarly. If paradise is a spirtual realm where 'souls' exist without physical bodies, then the laws that govern the idea of 'perfection' in the physical world would no longer apply.

How this works is unaswerable. It could vary based on a number of opinions and beliefs. Athiests might think that this other realm is simply impossible. Christians might see it as a spirtual world where souls prance through endless fields of roses with their grandmother, and buddhists might see it not as a place, but as a state of being where one has become everything and nothing at exactly the same time.

Regardless of how it works, I would think the main diffrence is that the afterlife isn't the same thing as the physical world we live in today. Meaning the idea of 'perfection' would vary based upon the requirements needed for the survival of it's inhabitants.

We currently exist in a physical world... where pain and suffering is part of the 'perfect design'. But these rules may not apply to the afterlife.

At 4/12/10 07:13 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

It can't be paradise if I'm unhappy.

Happiness is a brain state. Eventually we can synthesize it.
Eventually, I can plug an electrode into your brain and make you happy 24/7.

At 4/13/10 01:45 PM, poxpower wrote: Happiness is a brain state. Eventually we can synthesize it.
Eventually, I can plug an electrode into your brain and make you happy 24/7.

Agreed,which is why I like to think of 'paradise' more like a 'state of being', and not 'being in a place'. The fact is, all feelings are simple brain states. I could use that same electrode to make you feel sad 24/7... or scared... or hungy.

The point I'm trying to make isn't about how paradise would work, but simply that it doesn't matter. Paradise, if it exists, is paradise. When you get there, you'll love every second of it for all eternity simply because if you didn't, it would be paradise.

I've heard people say things like "Eternal life sounds boring". Sure, maybe it does right now... but if it's really paradise, when you get there, you won't ever be bored.

...maybe it's because the feeling of bordem died with your physical body. Or maybe, it's because the endless field of flowers you have to run through is so immaculate that you never tire of it. I don't know. It doesn't really matter.

There's also a large chance there is no afterlife... at which point, why care? If this is the case, you'll never know.

Trying to imagine/explain the mechanics of how a "perfect" world would function is irrelevant. The point is that many forms of widely practiced theism contain a logical and ethical contradiction:
If God can create a world without suffering (paradise) why does this world he created contain such excessive degrees of suffering?
You are left with an uncomfortable situation for theists.
Either
A) A world without suffering is impossible, and heaven does not exist.
or
B) Having proven he could create a world without suffering (paradise), God intentionally created a world filled with suffering.

At 4/13/10 02:29 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Agreed,which is why I like to think of 'paradise' more like a 'state of being', and not 'being in a place'. The fact is, all feelings are simple brain states. I could use that same electrode to make you feel sad 24/7... or scared... or hungy.

But to agree it's all brain states denies your argumentation for a soul. By definition, a "soul" must be more then just brain states and the processes of the physical body. It must be an independent thing that exists seperate from, but ultimately powering, all those processes. It's conciousness as independent of the things that power it. By agreeing with pox, you are denying the existence of such.

The point I'm trying to make isn't about how paradise would work, but simply that it doesn't matter. Paradise, if it exists, is paradise. When you get there, you'll love every second of it for all eternity simply because if you didn't, it would be paradise.

Yes, it would certainly have to be that way...should it actually exist of course.

I've heard people say things like "Eternal life sounds boring". Sure, maybe it does right now... but if it's really paradise, when you get there, you won't ever be bored.

...maybe it's because the feeling of bordem died with your physical body. Or maybe, it's because the endless field of flowers you have to run through is so immaculate that you never tire of it. I don't know. It doesn't really matter.

Or maybe it's that "time" does not actually pass. That each moment is eternally that first moment you arrived, without a brain, would we have memory? Memory is a brain function, without memory, would one really recognize the passage of time, especially in a place where time would be static? Can't see how you would.

There's also a large chance there is no afterlife... at which point, why care? If this is the case, you'll never know.

Hmmm? You would ultimately know when you die. It's just that you wouldn't be able to come back and tell anybody.

This thread is filled with non-nonsensical dribble.

If there is a god, smart enough to create the entire human race, he isn't going to send me to hell because I didn't talk to him through the power of my mind. This makes both atheism and religion pointless.

At 4/13/10 04:35 PM, Im-A-Pirate wrote: This thread is filled with non-nonsensical dribble.

If there is a god, smart enough to create the entire human race, he isn't going to send me to hell because I didn't talk to him through the power of my mind. This makes both atheism and religion pointless.

Oh. Claiming this thread is full of nonsensical dribble, then following up with some nonsensical dribble.

Priceless.

At 4/13/10 03:29 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote: If God can create a world without suffering (paradise) why does this world he created contain such excessive degrees of suffering?

The answer to this question depends upon which religious sect you ask.