Seriously, why does God allow suffering?

[cynatnite]

Whether it's famine, war, disease or whatever the reason, humans suffer. Children are beaten and murdered, women are raped and oppressed, people suffer torture and even nature can be a cruel force that inflicts misery on the population.

So, why does God allow it? To test us? To make us better? Free will? All of the above?

For those who believe in God and call themselves Christians...what's up with this? How can God be so loving and all powerful, but yet allow such suffering?

:shrug:

[oregonjen]

1. God doesn't allow it, we do

We have each other and some of us choose to hurt instead of help. That is the only thing I can think of. If we all choose to be the best within us, then the rapes, murders, etc. would not exist. The dark forces of our nature are part of temptation?

I'm not a church-going Christian, so this is my naiive opinion.

[cynatnite]

7. What about famine, tsunamis, disease and so on? n/t

[oregonjen]

24. I don't have any idea other than to bring us together and work for a better earth

I don't know if I believe in a Christian God, but I do believe in a higher power. I don't think there is a God that creates or allows natural events like tsunamis and earthquakes. The Earth is a living planet and thus we have powerful events that occur because of it.

Why do you think we have suffering?

[cynatnite]

26. I'm still working on the answer n/t

[Deep13]

94. If that's the best He can do, then...

...we are better off without Him.

[Zynx]

27. Famine very often is caused by poor human decisions.

As far as tsunamis and disease, those most grievously affect those regions of the world that are poor which are so because of human exploitation.

[uppityperson]

34. How about the suffering caused by poor human decisions?

Like mrbush didn't cause Katrina, but compounded the suffering afterwards. I believe there is suffering, but also believe that some thought on God being separate from humans and causing/preventing suffering is flawed thinking. Things happen, people can make them happen, sometimes they just do. Suffering happens. People can make it worse or better, but still it happens.

[Zynx]

46. If you also take the view that this life is only preparation for the next, then when you die

is not exactly relevant. I don't think there is a religious book out there where God promises a long life free of suffering.

[davidinalameda]

112. famines are man-made

God has given us the brains and means to cure diseases

I honestly believe that it's "man" who is blocking the various discoveries

and what people call natural disasters, well, maybe that's God's way of saying that people shouldn't live in certain areas

man and other animals have been primarily migratory forever, and it's only been in the past several centuries that people have established permanent settlements

however many thousands of years its been

people should migrate the way animals do

move south in the winter and north in the summer and stay out of areas that are prove to natural disasters

[Silent3]

125. Drowning babies, burning people alive in lava...

...crushing skulls with flying debris, burying children alive in mud and ash, men watching their families being washed out to sea, never to be seen again... these are all "God's way of saying that people shouldn't live in certain areas"?

Isn't it a lot easier to just admit that their probably is no such thing as God, or, if their is, pretending that He's Kind and Loving takes an absolutely preposterous amount of rationalization?

"Who are we to question God's ways?", "Maybe God is saving them from something worse.", etc., etc. Let the rationalizations begin!

[davidinalameda]

148. let's look at it this way

if you're not in a volcanic area, you're not going to be burnt by lava

if you're not in a coastal area, you're not going to be swept out to sea

[Silent3]

153. That still doesn't account for your God's atrocious...

..."communication skills", nor the fact that there isn't a single spot on the planet which isn't potentially subject to one or another form of natural disaster, nor the fact that many people (especially children) have little or no choice about where they are located.

The world's best farm land is in flood plains. It's the process of periodic flooding that enriches the soil. So, please, play interpreter for your ridiculous version of God and tell me what the "message" is here about where one should live. Is this God's way of saying "Thou shalt live on barren soil", or "Go forth and commute to your farm, keeping a boat nearby just in case of flash floods"?

Face it. Your notion of God sending messages about where to live via natural disasters is simply absurd.

[Deep13]

96. Well, you said it, not me.

Anything bad we are is the result of how we are created. You can't blame the driver when the axle falls off the car. That is the fault of that manufacturer. It is our basic nature to do well for ourselves and our close relations. It is our basic nature to increase our numbers. It is not our nature to feel personally responsible for what happens over the horizon. The fact that we are as united as we are is pretty remarkable.

And of course, much suffering is not the fault of humanity. Or else it is the result of acts by others often with no evil intent and beyond the control of sufferers.

[roguevalley]

166. we have free will. we allow it and God suffers, not the other way around.

[yella_dawg]

2. Seriously?

Because the modern conception of deity is so distorted as to be pathological.

[uppityperson]

25. Indeed.

I don't believe God is a big daddy in the sky making sure nothing bad ever happens. If there is a god, or a God, I don't believe that is her/his/it's responsibility. Things happen. How we deal with them is up to us.

[Warpy]

3. Epicurus was on the right track with that.

"One of the most persistent issues concerning belief in God is the problem of evil. Epicurus's argument still holds up:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

"Epicurus felt that it was useless to argue over metaphysics, that there was no such thing as a soul that lived after death, that we arrived at our present condition by means of evolution, and that we had the quality of free will."

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/latergreeks.html

[keep_it_real]

4. A lot of human suffering is caused by humans & can be ended by us

[bdamomma]

64. exactly.

it all begins/ends with us.

[John Gauger]

136. Why are you apologizing for God?

Why should God get a free pass? If we are to be responsible for our actions, why should Got not likewise be accountable?

[Deep13]

97. So why to those who have no say in things suffer the most?

Anyway, that does not answer the whole question, so you are being a bit evasive.

[librechik]

5. those who believe in God can only guess why he does things

because God doesn't SAY anything (unless you are religiously insane, then you can't trust what God says, becasue it might just be your crazy brain talking. I'm looking at YOU, Junior!)

might as well not have a God, IMO, and just try to live in the REAL.

[TheWraith]

6. A more interesting question philosophically...

...Is why would an omnipotent god allow a universe to exist at all?

[keep_it_real]

18. Ah, indeed, I have pondered that question myself

But have no answer

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

for one who believes in God and is not a Christian

that your premise is that God is separate from humans, and has some sort of mechanism by which He causes or allows suffering. However, kindly realize this is only a concept of God, and one that is not shared by all, even some Christians.

If God is Everything, the Great Mystery that we can never truly comprehend, then perhaps the question to ask is what is truly the nature of suffering? Is it merely an emotional construct created by ourselves, based upon our belief systems? Is it a way to repay karmic debt, or somehow gain merit within our greater being? Or is it yet another way for That to experience completely all that can be experienced?

[uppityperson]

30. Very good. thank you for posting this.

I agree with most of this, but also think that there is suffering that is not merely an emotional construct created by ourselves, based on our belief systems. People get hurt and suffer all the time. Our belief systems can make it worse, but starving to death, being hacked to bits, does involve suffering.

Thank you for this post, about the premise of God being separate from humans, from other living beings, from everything as I believe that God, or god, or the great or not so great whatever, is not separate, but you put it much more succinctly.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

68. Oh, I agree about pain

and that, for many, suffering is involved. But again circumstances can make what would be a painful death or near death experience not a time of suffering, but something else. In the Jain religion, the ideal death is through voluntary self-starvation. In the Lakota tradition, one voluntarily undergoes painful rituals not for oneself, but for others. I think in both cases, the idea is not to suffer, but to use the experience to gain greater knowledge and experience, which comes from taking the body to its limits and beyond. I do not know any Jain, but I know several Sun Dancers, and have been a supporter during the ceremony where they are pierced and break away. I realize this isn't as severe as being hacked to death, but I know that a certain state is achieved through the physical pain that cannot be called suffering.

[uppityperson]

77. I guess I'm thinking of involuntary suffering.

I have desired to experience Sun Dance since being near one in 1970 but was then the wrong ethnicity, now too far away. Voluntary suffering is one thing, and I agree with what you write. Having no control over what happens to you and having it be bad is another. Although I have believed for a long time that while we have only a certain amount of control over WHAT happens, what we have control over is HOW we react. Then I feel guilt because any suffering, any lack that I have experienced, physical/emotional abuse, homelessness, still is minor compared to many others and I do not know that I can speak as to what suffering truly is.

[dmallind]

113. But ineffability is a two edged sword

I find it strange that believers get to the unknowable mystery gambit very quickly when theodicy is under discussion, and yet are often much slower to claim ineffability when the question is what God wants from us or how we should live.

If God is truly unable to be comprehended (which I would say is pretty much a certainty if we postulate anything worthy of the name. How COULD we understand it? Ants can't understand polyphonic harmony or microbiology and surely there's a bigger difference between us andGod tahn between ants and ourselves) then he is by definition irrelevant since we can never know what he wants from us, what he rewards or punishes, how he is or is not involved or even interested in our lives, any more than ants know what we want from them when we have formiaries.

You can't have it both ways. If God is a mystery we cannot understand, then that has to extend beyond apologetics in theodicy.

[John Gauger]

137. That's a very good point. n/t

[Occulus]

8. Perhaps God can do nothing about the suffering in the first place

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/112

About this Talk

It's a classic problem in theology: How can the existence of evil be reconciled with a God who is supposed to be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful? Many Christian thinkers have attempted answers to this question. In the days following the thousands of personal tragedies recorded during the South Asian tsunami of 2004, Tom Honey pondered those answers and found them wanting. Instead, he penned his own, personal, and sometimes dramatic response to the tsunami. This is a courageous talk for a Church of England vicar to have given. It concludes that certain traditional concepts of God just won't do ... and calls for believers and nonbelievers alike to dig deeper in their quest for truth.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Yes yes

One must remember that all we can deal with are concepts of God. And when our concepts become outmoded by what we experience, we must change them. Sufi Inayat Khan said it this way: "Shatter your ideals on the Rock of Truth."

[Deep13]

98. Then he is not God. nt

[Johonny]

9. You would probably enjoy reading

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer (Hardcover)
by Bart D. Ehrman (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-Answer-Important-Question-Why/dp/0061173975/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208279054&sr=8-1

[cynatnite]

12. Just bought it today at the bookstore...

I'm on chapter two. I love all his books.

Thanks :hi:

[Critters2]

165. Or _Job:The Victim of His People_ by Rene Girard. nt

[Lost-in-FL]

11. Like suffering...

God is human-made.

[Perry Logan]

13. It's the law of karma. Our suffering is payback for times we hurt others in the past.

[cynatnite]

17. So, when a child suffers...they're getting what they deserve?

That's a flawed argument.

[uppityperson]

35. All those starving babies are getting paid back for past acts?

[Deep13]

99. Absolute bullshit.

You are making groundless excuses for your god.

[John Gauger]

138. Claims presented without evidnce can be dismissed without evidence. n/t

[TCJ70]

14. Because we haven't held up our end of the bargain?

If you look at the history of Israel(according to the OT)...Every time something bad happens to them, it's because of their disobedience. They knew what would happen, they were warned, they did it anyway, bad things happened. It's the same for us today.

Most people would say to this, "But God is supposed to love us? Isn't He?" Yeah, He is. But if you're a father/mother, and you have a son that you love who is doing something wrong, you don't let them continue in that way. You do love them, but there are consequences.

[cynatnite]

21. So, how when someone suffers, they brought it upon themselves?

like an earthquake or if they're murdered?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. Point is we are all deserving of that and worse..

When I see a tragedy I used to react in one of two ways

1) What did those people do to deserve that!

or

2) Thank God I was not one of them

--

As I have matured as a Christian I now just hope the people were saved in spirit, that someone steps up and comforts those who weep for the loss, that I am not tempted to beliee some how the deserved worse than I..

[opiate69]

111. My, what a lovely, inspiring religion you subscribe to...

"Point is we are all deserving of that and worse.."


:puke:

[ZombieHorde]

130. What did all those dead babies do? nt

[John Gauger]

140. What did the Jews do to deserve to Holocaust?

[ZombieHorde]

144. According to DadOf2LittleAngels

who stated in post 36: Point is we are all deserving of that and worse.., those Jewish people got what they deserved and deserve even worse. Apparently, Hitler was just serving Gods will.

I don't but any of this, and frankly, it seems a bit creepy to me. What can't this philosophy justify?

[John Gauger]

150. Good things.

It cannot justify good things, because we are not deserving of them.

[John Gauger]

139. Where is this assumption coming from?

This assumption that whatever God does to you is justified? If Charles Manson demanded that you go up on top of a hill and kill your son Isaac, we would say he is a sociopath. If God does it he is just testing your devotion to Him. If you disobey Him you receive the ultimate punishment, which in Hebrew times was death, but in the New Testament is the warmer and fuzzier eternal damnation. But why doesn't anybody ever object to that? Why doesn't anyone ever say, "Wait a second, that's not right?"

[TCJ70]

40. I don't think they did bring it one themselves individually

There are examples of this in the Bible, such as when God gives the entire nation of Israel over to another nation.

[cynatnite]

45. And it makes absolutely no sense to me at all n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

32. Also there is origional sin

which is at the root of all suffering.

I get what you are saying but there is one problem with your presentation what about things that were done to Paul and Peter and .... (stoning, crucifixion and the like). I can be acting in accordance with Gods will and still be taken this instant in a very, very gruesome way. This would leave my wife and kids without support without Daddy, or without husband. Why would God do this?

Basically I think Gods all about the big picture and you nor I can really see that picture trying to explain it to us would be like telling a vine why you are pruning it, its just not going to get across..

"The point of every deadly calamity is this: Repent. Let our hearts be broken that God means so little to us. Grieve that he is a whipping boy to be blamed for pain, but not praised for pleasure. Lament that he makes headlines only when man mocks his power, but no headlines for ten thousand days of wrath withheld. Let us rend our hearts that we love life more than we love Jesus Christ. Let us cast ourselves on the mercy of our Maker. He offers it through the death and resurrection of his Son." - John Piper

[JVS]

33. "I can be acting in accordance with Gods will"

That is a very bold claim.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

42. Whats bold?

I did not can *I am* or *I always do* or somehow I am *tapped in* what I am saying is even *if* I am God can still take me for another purpose..

Im being quite humble in saying *I* don't factor into the equation, its all about God..

[TCJ70]

37. God didn't make those things happen to Paul and Peter, though...did he? n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

39. All authority under heaven is granted by God!

That includes the authority of Pilate who sentences Jesus, the city leaders who stoned Paul, and the Romans who crucified Peter..

[uppityperson]

43. Which origional sin? Curiosity? Doing what was told not to?

There is no way that something 2 people did way way back makes me suffer today, if that was simply doing what they were told not to. If you mean people being born with curiosity and wanting to manipulate their environments, well that has caused a lot of suffering as well as a lot of good things.

But then I'm one of those that believes God is part of everything, is not a separate entity.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

47. Sins are passed through the generations

Even were it not for this there is not one of us who is without sin.. but Biblical support of Original sin (some) is here...

Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

Psalms 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (NASB)

Rom. 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." (Also see 1 John 1:8 & 10, Rom. 3:12, 5:12)

--

Like I said even with all this (if one were to throw it out the window) there is none under heaven that according to the bar of OT Law, and Christ reinforcement of that law that are without sin, not one!

[uppityperson]

56. Would you put that in plain language please, not religious jargon.

I hate jargon and try to use as little as possible. I find using jargon (including medical jargon at my work, or simply quoting biblical verses) actually impedes discussion and thought since it makes understanding difficult. Simplify please.

Which origional sin? Curiosity? Doing what was told not to?

Did my mother sin by having sex with my father and therefore I have responsibility for what they did? I believe in personal responsibility, where I am responsible for my acts, and you for yours.

Why would I be responsible for something done by someone in my past? I am responsible for dealing with how things are now, which are influenced by what people have done in the past, but I am not responsible for WHAT was done in the past. Does that make sense to you?

But then I'm one of those that believes God is part of everything, is not a separate entity, and believe in self responsibility. Pragmatic secular humanist here. Edited to add, serious desire for continued discussion here, not insults.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

61. The origional sin

is the sin of rejecting Gods law committed by Adam and Eve.

That sin is a stain on humanity which to this day haunts us and gives all men a debased instinct which rejects God. And yes this sin passes through the generations..

It does make sense to me and often you see cycles of poverty, cycles of violence, cycles of addiction and *nobody questions that*. Yet mention the cycle of sin in which man is trapped and suddenly 'it makes no sense'.

--

I put (b) in there because even *if* you reject original sin you still can not find a man who has not sinned of his own accord..

[uppityperson]

67. Was the sin doing what they were told not to or having curiosity?

One problem is with the words. God, god, sin all have different definitions to different people and many argue based on what they believe, believing what they believe is The Right or Only Way, The Truth.

So. Of course everyone has done something wrong, something harmful. But I believe while I am responsible for dealing with how the world is now, how it has become based on past actions of others and myself, I am not responsible for other's past actions, including anything done by Adam/Eve (what was their sin? Rejecting Gods law means what? Serious question seeking answer in simple terms, not jargon/quotes).

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

70. This was pretty clear..

is the sin of rejecting Gods law committed by Adam and Eve....

The law said dont do X and the did X

[uppityperson]

73. Thank you. So it was doing something they were told not to do.

So why am I responsible for something they did, why must I suffer for something they did?

Though I can see how we are all suffering for what people did in the past, looking at what is going on today.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

78. When you (or I) stand before God

Its not the responsibility for that sin that will hurt so much as the fact the sin nature it imparts on us means that *no one* can stand on their own accord in front of God, we have all sinned. By the law of God and the clarification of Christ (that its about heart and actions) I am a lying, murdering, adulterous, blasphemous, disrespectful, idol worshiping, covetous, thief who deserves judgment and punishment for violating the law.

Its only by the grace afforded in Christ Jesus that I might be pardoned.

I think original sin is one of those areas well meaning people can disagree on and it does not change the gospel message because it is still the grace of Christ that is needed..

[uppityperson]

79. I stand before God every day since God is in me and I am in God.

Since I don't consider God a separate being.

Harm no one, harm no thing is always a good thing to live by. Whatever happens after we die, we will find out then. Thanks for the discussion. Off to be uppity elsewhere.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

82. Thank you for your time

regards..

[cynatnite]

71. I don't understand how rejecting God's law...

committed by Adam and Even is a stain on humanity? :shrug: That makes no sense to me. Why do I suffer their sin?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

91. If you really cant wrap your mind around it

then just realize that even if not for their sin you've committed plenty of your own..

[dmallind]

114. And this is a bigger problem than theodicy!

What possible being who is not utterly malevolent and unbelievably cruel would punish infinitely not only for sins that are finite but for sins comitted by others. To use your own parent analogy if one child steals a cookie do you slit the throat of all your children unless they immediately bow and scrape to you and beg for collective forgiveness? That is far BETTER than your version of God does, since he codemns us all to Hell for eternity by default because of what our remotest ancestors did, and the only way we can avoid that is to grovel to the one who would burn us forever because of Eve's curiosity?

[ZombieHorde]

131. So god is a petty and evil? Basicly GWB with more power?

[cynatnite]

44. So, we're too stupid to know what the big picture is? n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

49. The big picture is glory to God

how event A leads to that is bit bit beyond us as we are bound in time, power, and understanding.

[cynatnite]

54. That line is still as idiotic as it was the first time my mother preached it to me...

It's condescending and insulting. It's simple-minded thinking, IMO, and that's what it encourages.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

55. Sorry you feel that way

regards

[pingzing58]

141. Only a Jew or Christian would ask this question. For Muslims all is God's will. You accept it!!!

[uppityperson]

59. what is "gloy to God"? I know it's a typo, but can't figure out what.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

63. Fixed it, thanks..

[uppityperson]

66. What is "glory to god"?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

69. Some places to start

Isaiah 48:9-11

For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Matthew 5:16; cf. 1 Peter 2:12

In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

l Peter 4:11

Whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength which God supplies – in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

--

I wish I were more gifted at expressing such things..

[uppityperson]

76. I am looking for your thoughts, your descriptions, not biblical quotes/jargon

Interpretations of what was meant, of translations, have been going on for a long long time. That's all I am asking for here, what do you think was meant, what do "YOU" mean by "glory to god".

Again, not snarking but seriously reading. I doubt you will convert me to your way of thinking, but I find it interesting to discuss this stuff, look at how others interpret the words. Gives me a greater understanding of others.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

80. What I mean

Is that God is holy, perfect, sovereign, and powerful. I mean that when man believes he can accomplish anything against God or can himself be like God in nature or capacity (the tempting thought that inspired original sin) It is an affront to God it is a verbal rebuttal of his nature.

To glorify God is to recognize his nature and position in the universe... To obey his law and accept the gospel

[ZombieHorde]

132. So being evil and petty is holy and perfect?

[smoogatz]

104. Did we get to pick which end of the bargain was ours?

Did we have any input at all into the terms of the deal? And if my son does something wrong, I don't give him terminal liver cancer, say, or blow him up with a bomb, or let him die in a famine. Are you saying God is like a hideously sadistic parent?

[jeanruss]

15. free will

Every time something bad happens to someone they blame God. People blame God for the things that THEY cause. We have free will to choose our own behavior. If people get cancer because the environment is polluted, it's our own mistakes that cause this. We make choices and have to live with them because the Universe always seeks balance. I believe we are immortal. There is extensive scientific evidence that points to this. We think we are an advanced society, but really we are just one foot out of the jungle. We still murder each other at will. The only difference between us and the Romans is that our weapons are more deadly. Until we realize that MAN is the only valuable thing in the Universe we can see, we will not realize the potential that is our destiny.

[cynatnite]

20. So, if a few thousand people die as a result of an earthquake....

what did they do to deserve it or how did they bring it upon themselves?

[jeanruss]

123. california

We make choices. I choose not to live in California because I know that it is an earthquake risk, and I choose not to take that risk. Others disregard the risk because they want the great lifestyle and feel the risk is wqorth it. Their choice. Maybe we are causing the earthquakes and aren't aware yet, how this is. Maybe all the oil extraction is a reason. Everything we think and do has consequences. Look at cigarette smoking. People smoked not knowing of the harm. Now they know, and millions choose to continue. All of our choices, small or large contribute to our destiny.

[markbark]

16. Um... because magical thinking solves nothing?

and because some find solace in blaming the Grand Sky Wizard™ for their problems.

1. Life is suffering; anybody telling you different is selling something.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment, so LET GO.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance of this. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable..... if you want it.

Suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of freedom. Freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes and fabrications. This freedom is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4.There is a path to the end of suffering, so pay attention!.

A gradual path of self-improvement. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism)
Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.

You've only got around a hundred years or so to wander about on this planet, the trick is what you emphasize. You can make yourself miserable or you can make yourself happy. The amount of work is the same (to paraphrase Mr. Castaneda)

--MAB

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

52. So according to #2

"2. The origin of suffering is attachment, so LET GO." What about Buddhist killed in an earthquake?

[Lost-in-FL]

58. That's because "shit happens". n/t

[uppityperson]

60. What about it? Let the body go, realize the body is not all there is.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

65. and those who love the person who dies

what of their suffering? Dont weep its just a body... How cold an callous that is..

[John Gauger]

160. Are you telling me that my desire to not die in an earthquake is unreasonable?

Are you seriously saying that I should be quite okay with the prospect of dying in an earthquake?

[ZombieHorde]

133. Life is suffering?

Life is also joyous, funny, sexy, and cute. I don't understand these extremes (God is all good, we just don't understand/life is suffering because everything goes away).

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that amongst many things, life contains some suffering?

[John Gauger]

143. But all things are transient.

Giving up attachment to transient thing means giving up attachment to all things. This is asceticism. I understand why number four was added. It makes sense. It was added because people made the objection that "Of course if you give up all attachment you won't feel suffering, because you won't feel anything." And that's an important revision. It makes the proposed model of living much more viable. The problem is that it squarely contradicts number two. If you wan to add number four than you have to change or discard number two.

"This freedom is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it." -

'You can't understand because of XY&Z' is called 'special pleading,' and it's a fallacy.

That said, I must add that I like the approach of systematically examining the origin of suffering and attempting to alleviate it. It's much better than simply saying "God did it," which is a cop-out. The problem with the approach you have enumerated, however, is that you have to take the good with the bad. If all suffering is to be avoided, then all emotion of any kind goes out the window. Life is a balance, and if you get rid or the bad also get rid of the good.

[LanternWaste]

19. Might I suggest reading...

Might I suggest reading 'The Problem With Pain' by C.S. Lewis. It directly addresses this very question.

[JVS]

22. Because we pissed him off in the garden by listening to the fucking snake

[ItNerd4life]

57. lol

Made me laugh, made my day. thanks.

[provis99]

23. I dunno. Maybe God's evil and he enjoys suffering

The Gnostic Christians certainly think so.

[JVS]

28. Maybe we're evil and God doesn't enjoy us.

[endarkenment]

29. Seriously, did you know that there is a religion forum?

The answer is that there is no god, not in the sense of a supernatural deity involved in the day to day affairs of our planet.

[uppityperson]

38. 3rd really good answer here.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Personally, I believe the universe is the equivalent of an uterus

and all of Earth, including us is a fetus dying off and coming back recycled over and over as it's subdivided in to ever more cells; everything on this physical plane gets recycled. I base this on rudimentary observations of shape, form and function at the micro and the macro level. To me the rocky planets such as Earth roughly resemble barren eggs at the dawn of the Big Bang, hit millions of times by sperm shaped asteroids and comets bringing life giving compounds. I see Dark Matter as the universal placenta; invisible to the eye but necessary to hold everything together. The Universe has expanded since the dawn of time and some scientists believe it will eventually contract, this sounds like labor to me.

Everything good and evil is connected and forming and God or Goddess probably has about as much input in to individual human life as we do with a developing embryo's individual cells. That's not to say we can't or don't mess with individual cells but only in extreme circumstances and that's not to say we don't care.

For a splash of biblical thrown in to my hypothesis, When Jesus said "no one comes to the father except through me", I believe he was referring to his primary teachings of loving one another as we would ourselves because in fact we are the same. I also believe going the other direction of separation only leads to ultimate war and the extinction of species basically causing a miscarriage or stillbirth in which case the father doesn't see the child.

[L. Coyote]

41. For the same reason the moon is made of cheese, seriously!

[OhioChick]

48. Free Will. n/t

[dmallind]

115. Sure

I bet all those starving Ethiopians chose to starev - and all the drowned Indonesians chose to have a massive tsunami flood their towns.

[Lost-in-FL]

50. We ask ourselves questions like this one...

when we put ourselves in a more superior or an elite (no pun intended) position than nature itself. We are selfish beings and many times and many occasions we commit the sin of putting ourselves, principles and desires above everyone. This is very much the problem with religion. everyone is always right.

If humans were to be extint (this more likely as a result of our own), there would be other animals or beings and they would be perfectly fine. We all suffer because we are humans. The earth has flaws too with events like earthquakes its goal is to reach a state of harmony and we humans are just collateral damage when we die as a result of those changes.

[dysfunctional press]

51. because. there. is. NO. god. DUH!!

"believers" piss me off with their stupidity. religion is the bane of mankind's existence, and until/unless the populace decides to grow up emotionally and accept the facts of our existence(i.e. there is NO "concerned and loving creator" watching over and out for us- we're on our own), we may be doomed as a species.

[kanrok]

127. Interesting response

Coming from a "believer."

As an atheist, you too are a believer.

You believe in a concept of God you cannot prove, therefore you
are "religious" under one of its definitions. (See, e.g., Merriam Webster: " : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith").

You have "faith" in your beliefs (See, e.g. Merriam Webster: "b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof").

You express your beliefs with "ardor" (See, e.g. Merriam-Webster: "b: extreme vigor or energy : intensity c: zeal").

Lastly, it appears that you are proselytizing here. (See, e.g. Merriam-Webster: ": to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause.").

So why aren't you pissed off with yourself?

More pointedly, why are your "beliefs" better or less "stupid" than mine, since I am a Roman Catholic and I believe in a personal God?

[lovuian]

53. Know thyself

We are immortal

Physics agrees and Math too
There is Infinity
and Energy isn't lossed
And Mass and Energy are the same
E=MC2

So I guess we have to look at Ego
the sad part about Man we give our power to others
Others who cause mind control causes the biggest crime
but we commit the worst letting them control us

I believe in collective unconscious too
We are all connected whether we like it or not :)

[ItNerd4life]

62. If we're his children, he's a terrible parent.

That's why this is a great question.

The way I understand it is these 2 things are the keys:
1) He has the long term view, it will takes thousands of years for his children to grow into responsible adults. It's only by the path of learning it ourselves will we actually truly learn how to be compassionate.
2) All good people go to heaven and have immortality, thus it doesn't truly matter if they die on earth. As long as they led caring and meaningful lives.

I love good philosophical discussions.

[pansypoo53219]

72. i often ask that question.

why do some people get horribly abused. and why is there georgee? why does he get away with all his shit with few consequences?

[ismnotwasm]

74. As an impartial non-believer

My impression is that it had to do with free will. Wasn't it Kant among those whose philosophy taught this? He was, I believe a devout Christian. (I have a very old copy of Critique of Pure Reason I'm trying to muddle through, is why he's on my mind)

Back in those those days when great minds were trying to figure out Man's place in the universe (not women, women at the time were still considered flawed sperm receptacle baby makers) in the light of advancing science, it seems to me a lot of energy was placed in proving God exists. Once they did that the their satisfaction, they then when on to say evil, or atrocities weren't God's fault. There were always detractors to this of course, the "everything happens for a reason" (Or according to God's will)crowd.

It all paved the way for the existentialists really. (In the Western world anyway, always a couple of spirtual steps behind, it seems to me) Make your own meaning either with, or without a deity.

[pink-o]

75. You question is the one that turned me agnostic

I'm sorry, but by no stretch would a "creator" who singled us out beyond any other species in the universe, allow us to suffer.

So what works for me is understanding that humans are a young species, that we are no more special than any other animal or vegetable, that we are all beholden to the same laws of nature as any other life form, so therefore we are a work in progress.

Our suffering comes from growing pains as we continue to evolve. The same instincts that allowed our ancestors to go from cave-dwellers to creating the internet are no longer necessary in our world. Fear and aggression and fighting hostile elements are now manifested in cutthroat business practices, waging wars and many, many sports competitions. The fear that kept us alive--being afraid of a foreign group who showed up to take what was yours--well, that manifestation is obvious in modern society.

We ate a lot of protein, we grew large brains, we learned to communicate verbally, but we still have the survival instincts that brought us here. Right now, we're in a battle to evolve away from them, but it's gonna take a lot longer than our lifetimes to see any progress.

[THUNDER HANDS]

81. because it's not God's job to make us happy

he's not the freakin' omnipotent butler in the sky.

[Greyhound]

85. But that and, "don't worry, they'll all pay for it after they're dead", are the primary

selling points of these myths.

[LanternWaste]

88. Or so many think.

"are the primary selling points of these myths."

Or so says the trendy and the cynical thoughts of Madison Avenue. But if one looks beyond the Nightly News, bumper stickers, and articles in Cracked, the actual selling points are quite different.

[THX1138]

83. Who? (n/t)

[BlooInBloo]

84. False presupposition.

[JackRiddler]

86. Clearly, it doesn't.

Fictional entities don't do anything except what their creators attribute to them in the fictional realm.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. The same reason that Cinderella allows slow drivers in passing lanes.

Neither exist.

[misanthrope]

89. Occam's Razor...

...apply it.

[Harry Monroe]

90. I got in trouble in Catholic elementary school for asking that question

The nun teaching the class thought I was being a clown and whacked me with a ruler. Maybe I was being a clown and deserved being hit, because I also made the observation that "God" spelled backwards was "Dog". My answer would be that God also gave us brains, intelligence and free will (which we seem to use poorly at times), but I would ask another question of everyone here: If "God" spelled backwards is "Dog", does that mean that God can lick his own balls?? (Oh Jesus, I am so going to hell for that remark!!)

[Fireweed247]

92. It builds character?

I think God is still learning but does not control everything, nor does she want to. We have free will first of all, to give us the ability to make choices, and she likes individuality. We are supposed to all be different and share our uniqueness. Even when we make bad decisions, we learn from them and sometimes that needs to happen. Suffering just is, and perhaps like Buddhism illustrates, it is a lesson to teach us non attachment. I believe that God keeps sending messengers, each religion seems to begin with one. When you look at all of the religions, at the core is the same idea, love and kindness to our fellow humans. I believe Martin Luther King Jr was a messenger from God, sent to US to teach us. In the end he tried to wake us up to the Vietnam war, the cruelty of the Military Industrial Complex, and he told us he would die because of it, and he did. Did we learn from his lesson?

It is not God's fault when bad things happen. Look at Katrina, that was our governments fault. Fema was sending away water, food and boats that were sent to help people. People that had love in their hearts immediately went to help, but they were turned away. That disaster was cruel, unbelievably horrible but we suffered it because of our government. We knew they were evil, look what they did on 9/11, look at the millions of people they killed in Iraq! We should have known how dangerous they are and that no one is safe. We should have taken control of our government before this happened. WE the people are to blame.

[ZombieHorde]

134. So god kill babes to build their character?

[Deep13]

93. The two choices are:

He is unwilling to prevent it.

He is unable to prevent it.

Nonexistence falls into both catagories.

One must then ask why he is unwilling to do so and why we are content to be his lab rats despite his unwillingness. It certainly negates any claims of benevolence. Working in mysterious ways or he's testing us (when he already knows everything) or it is our fault are pretty flimsy excuses that sound an awful lot like the excuses of a battered wife.

If he is unable, then it is pretty silly to call him "God."

[zonmoy]

95. exactly.

it is one of the biggest reasons that I realized that god is not only evil but an abuser of all others.

[Deep13]

100. If He's real, we are screwed.

Convincing me god is real would be pretty difficult since the evidence says He is not. Still, that part is easier than convincing me that if He is real, then He is good and worthy of our worship.

[zonmoy]

102. pretty much the same for me.

I decided to go for maltheism because mom tried to convince me that god exists. If he does exist then there is no way he can be a good being. there is simply too much that is either fucked up or just plain bad for there to be a good god. which is exactly what I told her. now she is trying to convince me with books about near death experiences. I might have to explain to her again that if I did believe in a god he would be an evil one. I tend to be a mix of agnosticism and maltheism now.

[crawfish]

101. It's a matter of perspective...

Part of the assumption of believing in God is that he has a bigger perspective than we do. Our perspective is limited by what we are capable of sensing, and by the point in time at which we sense it. Have you ever made a rash assumption about some event, only to change your mind about it later when you gained some new knowledge?

Imagine that your perspective is not limited by space or time. Imagine that you can see not only the outcome of some event, but its eventual effect on history, and all possible alternatives. It is impossible to imagine you'd make the decisions that you would have without that perspective.

Imagine again that you have a greater purpose, and that purpose is itself just and right. Imagine that for that purpose to be realized, you'd have to choose to limit your interference in the natural progression of things, in order to grant freedom of choice to the players in that purpose.

Imagine also that a person's final destiny does not have to be the scant years that person spends alive, but possibly an eternity of a better life. How long is our life in terms of eternity? 3, 30 or 300 years, it's not even a grain of sand on the beach.

Even as Christians, we aren't made privy to God's ultimate purpose. We can only have faith that God is acting in our best interests and loves us. That faith comes from understanding and acceptance of God's son, and study of God's word.

I realize this won't be sufficient for you, but it is sufficient for me, and I believe it answers the apparent paradox.

[5LeavesLeft]

103. Well stated, Crawfish!

I enjoy this dissertation by Raymond Smullyan, "Is God a Taoist?" Free will is an amazing thing, more specifically free agency. I don't have free will -- I can't fly just because I want to, I can't hit a home run with the bases loaded (or empty!) and I can't sing. So, I wisely chose not to jump off any buildings or try out for the Braves or American Idol. I could have chosen to try these things, but there would be consequences for my choices. We can choose to do bad things, or we can choose to do good things, knowing which is which is a bit tougher.


http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. "Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die"

though that was originally about a situation with incompetent people in charge.

[smoogatz]

105. Because he/she doesn't exist?

That's the most logical explanation I can come up with.

[Kitty Herder]

106. If God exists, God is a sadist. nt

[jody]

107. If a religion believes in an Omni-God; i.e. omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent;

the definition appears to be a contradiction.

[kanrok]

109. Why?

n/t

[jody]

119. A god that has the power to solve a known problem at which it is present cannot also be all-loving

if it does not solve that problem, e.g. why does an omni-god let evil exist?

That discussion has been ongoing for millennium and in Christianity is part of the "free will" debate.

Also associated with it is the question of whether an omni-god,makes mistakes.

One troublesome fact is the verse Genesis 6:6 where an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god repented making man.

[kanrok]

124. See post 108 for my reply

n/t

[jody]

126. The issue has been debated for millennium without resolution. IMO you and I are not going to do

any better.

Since no one has proved that the god of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad exist, IMO it is unproductive to debate the supposed qualities of something that is not know to exist.

Like millions of others, I've ready many excellent papers written by philosophers and theologians on subject issue and find them intriguing but speculative rather than logical.

Have a wonderful day. :hi:

[kanrok]

128. Yoo too, Jody

I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind on this, but there are answers out there for those who seek them. Whether they're satisfying answers is a topic for a book, or a library. Have a great day.

[kanrok]

108. We likely aren't equipped to know why.

Just because you cannot see or imagine a good reason why God might allow bad things to happen doesn't mean there cannot be a good reason. It's as if by asking the question you are asserting that if our minds cannot plumb the depths of the universe for a good answer then there just cannot be any. This argument shows an enormous faith in one's own cognitive abilities.

But there are good reasons for why bad things happen to people. For example, in Genesis, Joseph suffered. He was an arrogant young man who attained the enmity of his brothers. He was thrown into a pit, then sold into slavery. He prayed to God to be delivered from his plight but was initially denied. He grew and learned from his suffering. He ultimately became the equivalent of the prime minister of Egypt, and saved many people (including his brothers) from starvation. So, in his case, it appears that God had a reason to allow bad things to happen to him.

Perhaps the best example (from the Bible) of God allowing bad things to happen for an ultimate good, was when he allowed his son to die a horrible death for our salvation.

You can probably think of examples from your own life where you (or someone you know) benefited from bad things that happened to them ot to their loved ones. Sometimes (some would argue most times) we just don't see the benefit at first.

[Silent3]

159. It doesn't mean there is a good reason either

Sure, if you want to imagine hypothetical deities or advanced beings or whatnot, it follows that they'd likely be capable of doing things we can't interpret or understand. They might do things that appear to us as mistakes or evil acts, yet they are good actions performed for reasons we can't comprehend.

But just because you can imagine such things doesn't prove that (A) those beings exist, (B) that they don't make mistakes, (C) that they aren't capable of malice or cruel indifference.

An ant is completely incapable of understanding humans, who are comparatively like gods, but that doesn't mean when an ant gets stepped on that the Human was doing what was best for the ant, and that it was all part of a Plan.

You can probably think of examples from your own life where you (or someone you know) benefited from bad things that happened to them ot to their loved ones. Sometimes (some would argue most times) we just don't see the benefit at first.

If you aren't capable of understanding the actions and intentions of the deity you propose, you are just as unqualified to attribute positive gains to the good will of your deity as anyone else might be to attribute suffering to the malice or indifference of that deity.

The simplifying assumption that there isn't any deity involved whatsoever, that bad things often happen randomly, but that nevertheless people are often capable of making the best of a bad situation, makes a whole lot more sense to me.

[struggle4progress]

110. Why do you allow suffering? Really, what's up with this?

I mean, if you give a rat's ass about suffering, what's the point of whining this person or that person ought to do something about it? Do something about it yourself

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. Are you addressing that to us, or to the Christian God?

The Christian God has a longer time to answer for this - about 2000 years under the current way he is said to have related to humans.

[dmallind]

120. He's also a bit more capable surely?

I mean if I reduced myself to near poverty levels I could maybe bring five homeless people up to that same barely subsistence level. That's it - the limit of my ability to help suffering. And this would mean much lower federal and state tax revenue for government efforts, since all six of us would pay no income taxes while I pay a healthy five figure sum right now - so probably to be equal that would drop one of those people back below the poverty line. I lack the medical skill to alleviate pain and injury, and I have neither the land nor the skill to alleviate hunger, so money is all I could provide. I could help 4 or 5 people tops escape abject poverty and make us all merely very poor.

God on the other hand is omnipotent, and could have simply designed the human tooth to be more durable and less concentrated with nerves to prevent a billion times more suffering than I could in my best hopes. People often answer that we can't expect God to stop cars from hitting kids etc and that is sensible enough, but couldn't we expect an omniscient omnipotent intelligent designer to give us teeth that last our lifetime, or even teeth that grow back again like he did for sharks? How is having fragile dentition an act of free will?

[struggle4progress]

149. What is the point of expressing bogus outrage against what you regard as a fiction?

If you are concerned about suffering, you will do what you can do to alleviate it

If, instead, you merely complain that something-you-regard-as-a-fiction does nothing about suffering, then the complaint is logically vacuous and materially insincere: logically vacuous, because it pointlessly complains about something you already contend is fictional; and materially insincere, because it substitutes a pointless complaint that nothing-is-done for the meaningful action that would flow from real concern

[muriel_volestrangler]

152. I take it you were addressing us, then

because you do, as far as I remember, believe in God. I'm not sure whether cynatnite does or not, so the OP might be a matter of questioning the nature of God as loving, or all-powerful, rather than its basic existence.

My post was just pointing out that, from your point of view, your question can be asking of God too - who is generally regarded as more powerful even than all of humanity put together. I'm not outraged about this, not am I complaining - but, with some of the replies in this thread being "God wants humans to sort out suffering", then it's worth pointing out that would make God a whiner, who may or may not really give a rat's ass about humanity.

[struggle4progress]

164. Surely if suffering does not concern you one way or the other, then it is just silly

to wonder anything about it at all

[dmallind]

154. Because the hypothesis we reject posits a god who WOULD do something

Or would have designed it so he didn't need to for preference.

The whole point of theodicy from an atheist point of view is it is one of the strongest arguments to use against the positive claims of those who DO believe in the typical "triple omni" god.

[struggle4progress]

163. Nothing in this thread is defined with sufficient clarity to warrant your claim that

that the arguments here are studying testable hypotheses

[raccoon]

116. Harold Kushner's book WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE

helped me a lot with this.

I highly recommend the book.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Things-Happen-Good-People/dp/1400034728/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208352825&sr=1-7

[dmallind]

121. It's not a bad book, but Occam is useful too

Essentially take away the saccharine stuff and what you get out of Kushner is "sometimes things happen for no reason at all and God is not a causal agent for every discrete phenomenon".

Now you can get to that much more simply with taking God out of it entirely.

A further corollary is one that if anything irks me more than the trite "everything happens for the best" and "God doesn't give us more than we can handle" stuff.

If we accept Kushner's premise, why does that not alse apply to the inverse? Why if God can escape blame for undeserved suffering does he almost ALWAYS get credit for the unlikely prevention of it? It riles me up quite a bit to hear sensible people give God credit for rescuing trapped miners (of course he must have hated the ones who weren't rescued) or when one person survives a plane crash that kills 200. The facts that some miners happened to avoid injury and be in places with enough air to wait for very human rescuers, or that the complex interplay of gravity and momentum and intersecting matter meant that one person fell just right when 200 others didn't are just like the facts that some Indonesians lived close enough to the coast to get drowned by the tsunami.

Probability cannot be God when it's positive and "just happens" when it's negative. It's ALL just happens or it's ALL God. Either he takes a hand in discrete phenomena on a human scale or he doesn't. Even if the answer is "sometimes he does" that means by choosing NOT to intervene for the other 200 people on board is a conscious act of his for wheich he is culpable.

No in the final analysis we cannot let God get away with "it just happens" unless that's all there is, in which case God is either nonexistent or irrelevant to our lives.

[Meshuga]

155. Kushner's premise

Kushner's premise is totally against the "everything happens for the best" and "God doesn't give us more than we can handle" stuff. Quite the opposite, as he explains with explicit examples in that very own book. He is not about shifting blame away from God at all. He speaks against such action of trying to find excuses for God when a tragedy happens.

He is a "disciple" of Mordechai Kaplan and adheres to the kaplanian theology of a non-personal deity. To him, Judaism is an evolving civilization and God is a component of Judaism, Jewish folkways, and part of what Jews call creative survival. So God is an important piece in that sense, not the eye in the sky helping people out.

[dmallind]

156. I never said it wasn't

Those are two separate paragraphs. I merely said that the "everything happens for the best" stuff irks me, but not as much as the single-sided view of God that he is to get credit for the good stuff but no blame for the bad stuff.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer I was moving from the one-paragraph direct response to Kushner to another aspect of the central question in further paragraphs.

EDIT - On rereading I see where my problem was. The third paragraph brings the two together but only in the sense that if we accept Kushner's premise that bad things sometimes happen, why can't we accept that good things simply just happen too. Yes I absolutely should have been clearer.

[Meshuga]

157. I see what you mean

Sorry for the misunderstanding and mixing the two. Ooops. :blush:

[dmallind]

158. No prob. I know I get overly vague and convoluted at times. This was one such NT

ljlj

[old mark]

122. God allows suffering because...

He soesn't give a shit.


mark

[Evoman]

129. The reason we suffer is the same reason animals suffer and have suffered for billions of years.

We live in a stark, dangerous universe that doesn't care about us at all. 65 million years ago, 80 or so percent of the species on the planet died by a comet. Not god, not Jesus, A COMET. Pure chance.

The truth? We could all go any second. While we are sitting here, mentally masterbating about a diety that has never existed, there could be a rock hurtlying through space with our name on it. If it's small enough, it could be a slow, lingering death. And if that happens, all your cries to god will be for naught, because there is no god. A comet is not a judgment of god. It is a comet.

We suffer because that's the nature of the universe. We suffer because suffering is a evolutionary adaptation that keeps us alive. If you did not suffer pain, if you did not suffer loss, our species (and you) would not exist. If we did not do our best to avoid suffering, we would not be alive.

All this god talk is stupid. All this original sin talk is ridiculous. It is nothing more than a bunch of egotistical monkeys trying to rationalize something that is completely natural. If your not suffering, count yourself lucky...it isn't god on your side, it is just luck. You could as easily be a Eastern European girl slaved in prostituion, or a African child with a swollen belly and red hair.

Your faith means nothing, your god means nothing.

[ZombieHorde]

135. God is just really really clumsy, sometimes he trips over his robe and kills everyone in sight.

Oopsy!

[John Gauger]

142. Suffering is a negative product of evolution.

The event that we might call suffering, e.g. a famine or a flood, is not caused or affected by any supernatural, mystical, metaphysical entity. There is no God to cause or to stop these disasters. They just happen. One of the most comforting consequences of my coming to atheism was the realization that I could stop asking "Why?" There isn't any "why." There is no ultimate bully up in the sky punishing you for something you don't know you did, or don't know you failed to do, or something committed by your ancestors, or by yourself in a past life.

But the emotion we might call suffering, how we feel as a result of these disasters, is a product of our evolutionary history. Think about a more simple analogue - the feeling of physical pain. When do we feel pain? When something is damaging some part of our body. Organisms that experience a sensation that they naturally wish to end immediately as a result of the presence of something harmful have an advantage above those who don't. If a fish experiences pain when is gets bit by another fish it will try not to get bit, and thus be more likely to reproduce. A fish that doesn't feel pain when it gets bit does nothing and thus gets eaten.

Now think about emotional suffering. One of the things mentioned upthread was famine. If you and your community are in a perpetual state of food shortage, you feel pretty crappy right? So if you tenaciously try to avoid famine, you won't feel that horrible feeling you get from it. And your community benefits thusly. Suppose a loved one dies. The sadness you feel is the result of the emotional connection that you developed. That connection works to ensure that you aid your loved one or others in your community. This is beneficial to the community in which you live. Now, of course everybody has to die sometime, so that feeling can't be avoided. But the grieving of death is still evolutionarily advantageous in other scenarios, and thus it remains.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silent3]

146. Any "what the fuck" attitude is a fiction of your imagination...

...that's not contained in the post you're responding to. So is any sentiment that would lead anyone to ask "why worry what happens to anybody but yourself?".

What does pointing out the randomness of suffering, or the evolutionary value of being able to suffer, have to do with not caring about alleviating suffering, not caring about avoiding suffering, or not caring about someone other than yourself?

[moobu2]

147. Ironic that the holocaust had its roots knee deep in Christianity

and the KKK, who were most identified with lynching blacks, were and are a christian organization.

[John Gauger]

151. ???

... I think you may have responded to the wrong post.

[5LeavesLeft]

161. May be I did respond to the wrong post

But, I certainly apologize for the offensive way I tried to make a point. The point I was trying to make is that if everything is random, and life has no purpose beyond the purpose we assign to it, what is the suffering for? You live, you die, no more suffering. You're not aware of having ever suffered because you don't exist anymore. I may decide to alleviate someone's suffering and pat myself on the back for it, but in the end I have accomplished nothing. Hitler killed 20 million people and then put a bullet in his head. Absolutely no consequences for the suffering he caused. I find that difficult to accept.

P.S. before every atheist here assumes that I am a Christian because I disagree with them or sometimes defend religion, I am not a Christian nor am I religious. I believe that God exists, I'd like to believe that there's a reason I exist, but I haven't gotten much farther than that.

[John Gauger]

162. Well, I don't like it either.

However, reality does not conform to what we want to happen. There is no evidence that Hitler has received any form of punishment for his misdeeds. That's why we have established secular courts. They allow us to bring justice ourselves.

And I have to object to the notion that the suffering has to be "for" something. It doesn't contribute towards anything. I used to believe that God had it out for me, because I was so miserable all the time. The Christians kept telling me that anything bad that happened to me was God's will, so that's what I believed. But then I realized that that just didn't make sense. There is no evidence for God, and it never made any sense when people assigned a deep, universal, theological significance every time they found a penny on the ground. It must be "good luck" (or Divine Providence or good karma or whatever.) But if you think about it, the penny is there regardless of whether or not you find it. So what makes floods and hurricanes and famines any different?

So when you're gone, you're gone. If you choose to help somebody, I think you have accomplished something real, but no, you haven't racked up any points with God or anything. I mean, perhaps there is an afterlife, but there certainly isn't any evidence for it, and by thinking about what why know about the universe it doesn't make much sense. I choose to adhere to my personal moral code because I want to live in a particular type of society. In that society certain behaviors must be maintained, and those are the behaviors that are demanded by my moral code. It's really quite simple, and it doesn't need any supernatural forces behind it to make it work.

[Diamond Dog]

167. Because there is no God.

Christianity has invented a 'perfect world' in which the concept of 'non-suffering' can be reconciled with the world of our senses, i.e. the hereafter. It has done this to placate individuals into accepting their lot, rather than revolting. It denies the perceptual world, and therefore is not only fallacious, but actively harmful.

[beam me up scottie]

168. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Geez, keep it down, will ya?

Do you want evil dictators (and wanna-be evil dictators like Dubya) to find out that religion can be used to control the masses?

Welcome to DU! :hi: