5 ms·

You bring up two issues here - the need for evidence, and the problem of pain and suffering. There are of course a lot of resources on both sides of the coin ab

by genegc2 10y ago

You bring up two issues here - the need for evidence, and the problem of pain and suffering. There are of course a lot of resources on both sides of the coin about those issues. I'll just summarize my very limited understanding - my personal approach. My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven, I'm forced to continue to grow in my understanding, and humbly continue the journey. And I have to make a deliberate choice to believe - based on the evidence I see and experience in my life. Also, since it can't be proven, I can't convince you to accept it - you have to do your own searching - you have to make your choice. I believe that this is by design, and I find it to be beautiful. The problem of pain and suffering is a lot harder to address in a brief comment. Nothing I can say in a few short lines will be very satisfying, unless you already believe or are wanting to believe. Here are a few thoughts... Pain and suffering are not good in and of themselves, but good can come from them. In order to escape all pain and suffering, we would have to surrender our freewill - and then what would be the point to life anyway? My level of understanding will always be limited. I have to approach this journey with humility. I can know a lot, but I can't know everything. I will work to alleviate pain and suffering where I can, and trust that in end, all the pain and suffering in the world will have brought about a glorious end that will be worth it.

ajuc 10y ago
> In order to escape all pain and suffering, we would have to surrender our freewill Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer? > and then what would be the point to life anyway? There's no "point to life". It's a sandbox game you have ~80 years to experience. Enjoy, while you can, and don't be a dick.
- genegc2 10y ago
  > Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer? If our choices were reduced to those which could not cause pain and suffering, life would resemble a game; our choices would lack any consequence. Thankfully, life is much more than a game. > and don't be a dick This advice is curious to me. How do you derive this from your beliefs? I can understand you saying "don't be a dick just to be a dick", because that would cause pointless suffering. But if I can advance my own wealth or happiness by being a dick in such a way that I can reasonably avoid retribution, why shouldn't I?
  - ajuc 10y ago
    > our choices would lack any consequence consequences doesn't have to cause suffering. You can live in one country or another - meeting different people, eperiencing different thigs, learning different cultures. How is it less of a consequence than developing a cancer? The rest of your argument is taking a mataphor literally, and asserting it's less true thanks to the existence of evil. Why? How would the life be worse if there were no diseases and wars? > How do you derive this from your beliefs? I'm not special. Other people have their lives too, and by being a dick I decrease their enjoyment of their short lives. I don't have any reasons to value my enjoyement over theirs (or vice versa). I have counter-question BTW - would you go around murdering people and stealing from them if there was no hell and no police? That's what your argument boils down to - "without a stick and a carrot why bother with morality"?
    - genegc2 10y ago
      There are more consequences than just hell and jail - and a faith or belief system purely motivated on hell and/or jail is an immature one. My argument boils down to Natural Law, and it sounds to me like yours does too. When you say "I don't have any reasons to value my enjoyment over theirs" - I would totally agree, but I still don't understand how you arrive at that without a belief in Natural Law. An argument that doesn't rely on Natural Law goes something like this: We have evolved into highly social beings, so our internal physiology naturally rewards us for socially constructive behavior, so we choose to not be a dick because being a dick feels bad. It's a purely selfish motivation because that is what is purely rational. My limited understanding of Natural Law comes from CS Lewis and Thomas Aquinas, but I did a quick search before writing this reply and I see that it has some backing in atheistic thought. Is that where your coming from?
      - ajuc 10y ago
        > I still don't understand how you arrive at that without a belief in Natural Law I don't believe in things that seem unlikely and have no proofs. The theory that my feelings are more valuable than that of other people seems unlikely (why my out of all people) and I have no evidence supporting it. Therefore I assume it's false and act accordingly. Why would you need some external law for that train of thought? All you need is logic and probability theory.
brokenmachine 10y ago
> My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven Actually evidence is proof. You're just writing a bunch of words. All your mysterious and humble, "can't know everything...", "learn for yourself" patronizing garbage that doesn't make sense. blah blah blah. How exactly do you decide which particular ridiculous idea to believe, when you don't need any proof? > in end, all the pain and suffering in the world will have brought about a glorious end that will be worth it. That's also codswallop. See, I've worked in health, and to me that sounds like exactly what someone who has been in the privileged position to never have witnessed or experienced real suffering would write as a flippant, shallow and superficial expression to discount how much needless suffering there actually is in the world. When you see young children struck down with horrible diseases that cause constant pain and ruin the lives of their families, for no reason but an unlucky genetic abnormality, I can't consolidate that with your idea of "a glorious end", and it's also impossible for me to not attribute blame to a supposedly omnipotent being that would allow such needless suffering when they presumably have the ability to prevent it. So take your godly rubbish and go and parrot it to the rest of the congregation in your echo chamber of useless rhetoric, and give up on trying to convert reasonable people.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by genegc2 10y ago

ajuc 10y ago

> In order to escape all pain and suffering, we would have to surrender our freewill Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer? > and then what would be the point to life anyway? There's no "point to life". It's a sandbox game you have ~80 years to experience. Enjoy, while you can, and don't be a dick.

genegc2 10y ago
> Why? I can write a game where you have choice, but no pain or suffering. Is God worse programmer? If our choices were reduced to those which could not cause pain and suffering, life would resemble a game; our choices would lack any consequence. Thankfully, life is much more than a game. > and don't be a dick This advice is curious to me. How do you derive this from your beliefs? I can understand you saying "don't be a dick just to be a dick", because that would cause pointless suffering. But if I can advance my own wealth or happiness by being a dick in such a way that I can reasonably avoid retribution, why shouldn't I?
- ajuc 10y ago
  > our choices would lack any consequence consequences doesn't have to cause suffering. You can live in one country or another - meeting different people, eperiencing different thigs, learning different cultures. How is it less of a consequence than developing a cancer? The rest of your argument is taking a mataphor literally, and asserting it's less true thanks to the existence of evil. Why? How would the life be worse if there were no diseases and wars? > How do you derive this from your beliefs? I'm not special. Other people have their lives too, and by being a dick I decrease their enjoyment of their short lives. I don't have any reasons to value my enjoyement over theirs (or vice versa). I have counter-question BTW - would you go around murdering people and stealing from them if there was no hell and no police? That's what your argument boils down to - "without a stick and a carrot why bother with morality"?
  - genegc2 10y ago
    There are more consequences than just hell and jail - and a faith or belief system purely motivated on hell and/or jail is an immature one. My argument boils down to Natural Law, and it sounds to me like yours does too. When you say "I don't have any reasons to value my enjoyment over theirs" - I would totally agree, but I still don't understand how you arrive at that without a belief in Natural Law. An argument that doesn't rely on Natural Law goes something like this: We have evolved into highly social beings, so our internal physiology naturally rewards us for socially constructive behavior, so we choose to not be a dick because being a dick feels bad. It's a purely selfish motivation because that is what is purely rational. My limited understanding of Natural Law comes from CS Lewis and Thomas Aquinas, but I did a quick search before writing this reply and I see that it has some backing in atheistic thought. Is that where your coming from?
    - ajuc 10y ago
      > I still don't understand how you arrive at that without a belief in Natural Law I don't believe in things that seem unlikely and have no proofs. The theory that my feelings are more valuable than that of other people seems unlikely (why my out of all people) and I have no evidence supporting it. Therefore I assume it's false and act accordingly. Why would you need some external law for that train of thought? All you need is logic and probability theory.

brokenmachine 10y ago

> My faith is evidence based - but it can't be 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since it can't be proven Actually evidence is proof. You're just writing a bunch of words. All your mysterious and humble, "can't know everything...", "learn for yourself" patronizing garbage that doesn't make sense. blah blah blah. How exactly do you decide which particular ridiculous idea to believe, when you don't need any proof? > in end, all the pain and suffering in the world will have brought about a glorious end that will be worth it. That's also codswallop. See, I've worked in health, and to me that sounds like exactly what someone who has been in the privileged position to never have witnessed or experienced real suffering would write as a flippant, shallow and superficial expression to discount how much needless suffering there actually is in the world. When you see young children struck down with horrible diseases that cause constant pain and ruin the lives of their families, for no reason but an unlucky genetic abnormality, I can't consolidate that with your idea of "a glorious end", and it's also impossible for me to not attribute blame to a supposedly omnipotent being that would allow such needless suffering when they presumably have the ability to prevent it. So take your godly rubbish and go and parrot it to the rest of the congregation in your echo chamber of useless rhetoric, and give up on trying to convert reasonable people.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]