Comments on: How to irritate an atheist

By: Sinot

Sinot — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:55:14 +0000

Denis, I am not assuming that at all. Actually, this noble quality make me wonder how human mind works. You said your kindness is upon the likelihood of receiving the same in return. But that’s a probablity. And I also assume you are talking about return from mankind as a whole rather than the particular person you are helping and that’s even more remote. Obviously the act is based on reasons other than cost/reward analysis. What’s inside our side to drive us?

By: AntiRoss

AntiRoss — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:22:29 +0000

#283 Vacuously make the idiotic claim that mankind is responsible for all suffering.

By: Denis Loubet

Denis Loubet — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:16:59 +0000

I hope I didn’t suggest that suffering people were stupid, though many who suffer do suffer at their own hand.

Religion is in no position to criticize others about selfishness, or usurp the concept of charity as their own exclusive invention. The world would likewise be a better place if everyone knew that being nice was in their best self-interest.

It is neither hope nor love, though those have their place, it is the knowledge that being kind and generous to those around me makes it more likely that I will receive the same in return. That acting selfishly damages the society that I depend upon for my survival and well-being.

Are you seriously suggesting that if not for the strictures of your god, you yourself would rather seek nothing but selfish pleasure without regard to consequences?

If YOU wouldn’t, why would you assume anyone else would?

By: Sinot

Sinot — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:52:37 +0000

Denis, I didn’t intend to say stupidity and I didn’t mean to say the people who are suffering are stupid. They may have not done anything wrong. I wanted to refer to mankind as a whole, if men are selfless and are willing to help the others than there will be less people suffer from natural diasters. On wrongdoing, I meant the selfishness of people and I really think that the world is not supposed to be like what it is had Adam and Eve didn’t sin.

On your comment about talking some suffering people from terminating themselves. There are a lot of people just don’t care. You are doing the extra step and you must have a value for life higher than just having pleasure (just my simple assumption of the opposite of suffering). Would it be hope or love?

Epi, yes, loving our neighbour as ourself is something to learn.

By: Epi

Epi — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:30:24 +0000

Sinot,

Your reference to robots is a good example. God loves us and wants us to love Him in return. He doesn’t create robots rather human beings in His image with a free will. Denis makes a good point as well. Our stupidity or our choice to sin brings the human suffering. If men acted as God intended, or in other words loving our neighbor as ourself, the world would be filled with a lot less suffering.

By: Denis Loubet

Denis Loubet — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:29:49 +0000

But now you’re suggesting that suffering is NOT due to sin, but our own stupidity. Oddly enough, I agree with that completely.

Your description of the better world in message 21 was interesting. You are suggesting that what we have now is the best of all possible worlds, and that even the all-knowing creator can’t think of a better one.
=======
Life has no point except the purpose you give it.

“Allow people to terminate themselves”? I have no right to stop them. I can try to talk them out of it, but ultimately they own their own lives, and can do with those lives as they see fit. I would expect the same courtesy.

By: Sinot

Sinot — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:41:53 +0000

Denis, I agree that the world will be a better place if there is no natural disaster. But while we can not stop natural disaster, we can move the people from high risk area to low risk area. If we use the trillions the US spent on bailout to build a better world, there should be a lot less victims. At the end, mankind still have to bear part of the blame. For a large part of the suffering we see around us, it is actually caused by our own wrongdoings.

By: Sinot

Sinot — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:21:59 +0000

Linda, Let’s first look at a world where there is God and let say people want to live in the same capacity. To eliminate suffering, He has to remove death first. Then provide unlimited supply of food. Then everyone should have the same of everything no matter they work hard or not, otherwise there will be jealousy (another kind of suffering). You can imagine this has to be a better form of communism. Or you can see that as a robot’s world. If you have all the resources and the might, how would you like the world be?

On the other hand, if there is no God. What is the whole point about life? For pleasure? Then for person who have no future and are now in suffering, will you allow them to terminate themselves? We all know that they are people who like to lead themselves to miseries, what do we do with them?

What is life about for you?

By: Denis Loubet

Denis Loubet — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:17:09 +0000

Hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters are the result of sin? How does that work exactly? Do sins create low pressure areas? Do they tug at subduction zones? What’s the mechanism?

By stage dressing I’m referring to the millions who suffer in the background. Victims of disease and famine that provide the stage for your facile and self-serving explanations.

By: AntiRoss

AntiRoss — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:46:42 +0000

“Suffering is the result of sin” is a platitude.
A completely mind-numbing one.
Somewhat like your little poem.
Only a deluded person could think that suffering is caused by someone eating of forbidden fruit, or original sin, or whatever.
You’re just mouthing out crap that you were lied to about by other people that pretend to know things that they don’t.

It also seems to just focus on your own species.

I don’t see how you have the confidence to “answer a question” when you only peddle out bronze-age explanations for reality.