Forum
 |  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Reply with quote  #1 
Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why is there so much injustice done to fellow human beings? Sometimes I read the news and I just shake my head in disbelief. How is it people can be so cruel to one another? Out of curiosity does anyone here find solace in the fact that God's ultimate justice will be done in the end?

Edit: Why is it so many people appear to be "searching" for more? I always thought of that as existential suffering.
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome92085
Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why is there so much injustice done to fellow human beings? Sometimes I read the news and I just shake my head in disbelief. How is it people can be so cruel to one another? Out of curiosity does anyone here find solace in the fact that God's ultimate justice will be done in the end?

Edit: Why is it so many people appear to be "searching" for more? I always thought of that as existential suffering.


Answer for me is a cumulative of:
1. Evil as a product of Free Will
2. Corruption of the human nature as the product of the Fall
3. Inherent wickedness of the human heart as a product of 1. and 2. (Jer 17:9)
4. It has been prophesied by Jesus. 
5. Matt 24:22 - God will cut it short when there is no Romans 8:28 situation out of evil anymore.
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome92085
Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why is there so much injustice done to fellow human beings? Sometimes I read the news and I just shake my head in disbelief. How is it people can be so cruel to one another?


Because we are evolved beings with all the flaws that creates.

Its not because some dude ate a apple...


Quote:
Out of curiosity does anyone here find solace in the fact that God's ultimate justice will be done in the end?


No, we should be sorting out our own problems rather than hoping a imaginary god like parent figure will fix it.


Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damoksta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome92085
Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why is there so much injustice done to fellow human beings? Sometimes I read the news and I just shake my head in disbelief. How is it people can be so cruel to one another? Out of curiosity does anyone here find solace in the fact that God's ultimate justice will be done in the end?

Edit: Why is it so many people appear to be "searching" for more? I always thought of that as existential suffering.


Answer for me is a cumulative of:
1. Evil as a product of Free Will
2. Corruption of the human nature as the product of the Fall
3. Inherent wickedness of the human heart as a product of 1. and 2. (Jer 17:9)
4. It has been prophesied by Jesus. 
5. Matt 24:22 - God will cut it short when there is no Romans 8:28 situation out of evil anymore.


Can i play devils advocate. 

1: there is no free will
2: Esoteric garbage
3: Ancestral Animal instinct from our animal cousins (you just call it heart)
4: People are living longer, and crimes are now solved easier and there is now better justices systems in these modern times too. Surely Man is paving his own path to righteousness?
5:What example is there of god doing something good for someone in modern times that is objective?

If i was an atheist this kinda would be my response.... wondering if atheists would agree? 
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noraaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damoksta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome92085
Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why is there so much injustice done to fellow human beings? Sometimes I read the news and I just shake my head in disbelief. How is it people can be so cruel to one another? Out of curiosity does anyone here find solace in the fact that God's ultimate justice will be done in the end?

Edit: Why is it so many people appear to be "searching" for more? I always thought of that as existential suffering.


Answer for me is a cumulative of:
1. Evil as a product of Free Will
2. Corruption of the human nature as the product of the Fall
3. Inherent wickedness of the human heart as a product of 1. and 2. (Jer 17:9)
4. It has been prophesied by Jesus. 
5. Matt 24:22 - God will cut it short when there is no Romans 8:28 situation out of evil anymore.


Can i play devils advocate. 

1: there is no free will
2: Esoteric garbage
3: Ancestral Animal instinct from our animal cousins (you just call it heart)
4: People are living longer, and crimes are now solved easier and there is now better justices systems in these modern times too. Surely Man is paving his own path to righteousness?
5:What example is there of god doing something good for someone in modern times that is objective?

If i was an atheist this kinda would be my response.... wondering if atheists would agree? 


Sure, thought this is probably going to end up as 1-line sloganeering contest  

1. Then you cannot complain about evil and injustice, because everyone is a byproduct of socio-biological conditioning.

If Philos, Logos or even Dr Craig himself decide to ban you tomorrow, tough-titties.

2. Fine, my presupposition is that Christian theism is true after all; just as your presupposition is that naturalism is true.
3. If evolutionary naturalism is true, you mental processes is geared towards the 4Fs rather than truth-finding. Therefore you have no reason to believe that you - and everyone who agrees with you, are rational and reasonable.
4. 20th century state-imposed atheistic regimes killed far more (>100 million) than religious wars and persecution in 1 millennium combined. (~1 million when adjusted for 20th century population)

5. Ima gonna cheat: 
http://www.thesalarmy.org/DTMG/miracle12.htm

Her joy in life despite suffering for 17 years inspired many to hold on despite their troubles. And then, at the right time, she was healed to inspire even more. 

Since her recovery is beyond the opinions of mind, it is therefore objective .
Reply with quote  #6 
Under Atheism, why can you blame people for doing bad deeds? Simply, everyone is a bag of chemicals, some are mixed well, some arent....for ones that are mixed bad, Its not there fault....
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rostos
Under Atheism, why can you blame people for doing bad deeds? Simply, everyone is a bag of chemicals, some are mixed well, some arent....for ones that are mixed bad, Its not there fault....


Because those bags of chemicals have intellect, empathy and comprehension.

Those that lack those things to a point get medical and psychiatric treatment as we accept its not entirely their fault.

Quote:
4. 20th century state-imposed atheistic regimes killed far more (>100 million) than religious wars and persecution in 1 millennium combined. (~1 million when adjusted for 20th century population)


This is a distortion and a typical one used by fundies, they count only holy wars but ignore that there are no atheistic wars. But instead try to assign deaths to regimes that as part of there system were atheistic.

1. If we go by just WARS then wars fought FOR atheism = 0, while we have the holy wars for Christianity etc (so a win for atheism).

2. If you are going to assign deaths to types of regimes (religious vs non religious) rather than just wars you need to add a lot on the Christian side.


SO LETS LOOK FROM A MORE HONEST PERSPECTIVE:

The theistic regimes like the Christian British empire in India and Africa, The Christian Nazi Germany, the Christian Spanish in south America and the Christian colonists in the USA killing native Americans together killed easily as many with far less tech to aid them (so a win for atheism).

And who is the most warlike country on the planet with the most wars going on and the biggest military budget in the world (bigger than the next few countries on the list combined)......that's right its the most fundamentally Christian nation in the world the USA.


Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
This is a distortion and a typical one used by fundies, they count only holy wars but ignore that there are no atheistic wars.


You mean like the French Revolution?

I'm not one for saying "which side has killed more", as religious wars account for less than 4% of the total wars in human history, and religious violence accounts for less than 0.25% of crime in any major city. However you trying to place a divide between "wars started in the name of" and "atrocities committed in the name of" seems to be rather disingenuous. Atheistic atrocities are to be ignored because they were not commissioning land in the process, and were not killing people of a different country than theirs as occurred in mid-evil holy wars?
Reply with quote  #9 

Quote:


Religious violence accounts for less than 0.25% of crime in any major city.


Sorry but we are talking about crimes by the religious not religious crimes:


Quote:

Atheists, who make up somewhere between 3-14% of the population make up just 0.2% of the prison population.
Christians, on the other hand, who make up 81% of the population make up 84% of the prison population.
In fact, a Christian is at least 15 times more likely on average to end up in jail than an atheist.


OUCH..



Quote:
I'm not one for saying "which side has killed more", as religious wars account for less than 4% of the total wars in human history. However you trying to place a divide between "wars started in the name of" and "atrocities committed in the name of" seems to be rather disingenuous. Atheistic atrocities are to be ignored because they were not commissioning land in the process, and were not killing people of a different country than theirs as occurred in mid-evil holy wars?



I am not ignoring anything it is you guys who do that.


You assign deaths to regimes that were atheistic (among other things) but ignore deaths from regimes that were theistic(among other things).

You do not get to do that, if you assign the deaths from the soviet union etc to it being atheistic then you get treated to the same and get stuck with theistic regimes like the Christian British empire in India and Africa, The Christian Nazi Germany, the Christian Spanish in south America and the Christian colonists in the USA killing native Americans.

But you cannot handle being dealt with from a straight deck because wars across history and atrocities have been committed by governments that were just as theistic as Russia etc was atheistic.
Reply with quote  #10 
I sometimes doubt that there will be justice in the end. What justice does the atheist, who is brutally murdered at the age of 20 get? What about the extreme suffering of billions of animals? What reward do they get for their suffering? It seems to me that the only beings who get justice in the end are christians who are wronged.
Reply with quote  #11 
I wrote this for another thread, but it is relevant to this question.

Much of engineering is resource limited. The omnipotence of God removes the limit of resources, which leaves two choices:

  1. A perfect world is possible - I see this world as arguably not perfect. If this is the best of all possible worlds, then I would be inclined to think arguments from evil valid and conclude that God does not exist.
  2. A perfect world is not possible - in this case the best possible world is an optimal world. This idea makes intuitive sense to me as an engineer.


If God made trade-offs when engineering the world some of the trade-offs could look like this:

100% Free Will (no limits of any kind) -> We would all be God.
0% Free Will -> We would all be automatons.

The amount of free will is obviously a trade-off so a natural question then arises: what is the nature of optimum?

1) Optimum could be a single value, say 50% free will.
2) Optimum could be multiple values, say 25% and 75% free will.
3) Optimum could be a range of values, say 45%-55%.

If, however, the values for free will intersect with another variable, say inherent goodness of man, then we have something like two equations and two unknowns.

As with Free Will, inherent goodness becomes problematic at the extremes.

100% inherently good man – If we were perfectly good, our free will wouldn’t mean anything.

0% inherently good man – God would have created a world full of demons.

Now, looking at the intersection of Free Will and Goodness.

The interaction of these two variable yields a range of answers that satisfy the requirements of both equations.

1) The goodness of man interacts with free will at a single point.
2) The goodness of man interacts with free will at multiple points.
3) The goodness of many interacts with free will over a continuum.

And so on, for all the variables God was using in His design.

I hope my point is clear (probably not).  My argument is that God must have made many trade-offs in designing this, the best of all possible worlds. The complexity of the task and number of trade-offs would be astronomically difficult to untangle.   I think this easily explains why it is impossible for a mere human to claim that this world isn't the best possible world because of things like suffering, tsunamis, or anything else people don't like.

Reply with quote  #12 
Based on the evidence, I'd say its circumstantial.
ie. I was going through a family history book a few weeks ago which reminded me of just how systematic life truly is. And that is where the choice or decisions of a single persons can effectively ruin generations of lives afterward. Which is a stark reminder that the entire human race is subject to similar impacts.
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
I am not ignoring anything it is you guys who do that.

You assign deaths to regimes that were atheistic (among other things) but ignore deaths from regimes that were theistic(among other things).

You do not get to do that, if you assign the deaths from the soviet union etc to it being atheistic then you get treated to the same and get stuck with theistic regimes like the Christian British empire in India and Africa, The Christian Nazi Germany, the Christian Spanish in south America and the Christian colonists in the USA killing native Americans.

But you cannot handle being dealt with from a straight deck because wars across history and atrocities have been committed by governments that were just as theistic as Russia etc was atheistic.

I know that, if you had read my post thoroughly you would note me saying that I'm not fond of this numbers game. Its thoroughly pointless. As in your edited post trying to go after prison population, I've seen this fall down into debates about divorce rates, suicide rates, etc, etc.

People have killed eachother in the name of religion, and they've also killed eachother due to the amount of melanin in their skin. In fact if you want to ban the two things that have caused more death and violence then everything else in history combined you'll need to ban money and sex.

The reality is this numbers game doesn't prove anything to anyone, it's just a fruitless exercise. I mean really, think about it, does the fact that Christians were killed and improsoned during the French Revolution actually speak against the ontological reality of the Christian God as a metaphysically necessary being? Does the fact that the Spanish Inquisition tortured and captured "heretics" prove that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event?

The question we should be asking is: Does God exist. Not: Who killed more people, atheists or Christians?

This game of who gets divorced more, who kills more, who yells at people more, who drinks more coffee, or who showers in the morning versus before bed at night is really pointless. By engaging in it you're not seeking to unravel the mysteries of the question, rather you're simply engaging in an exercise of attempting to undercut the character of the belief by attributing it to acts of evil done in the name of it.
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
I sometimes doubt that there will be justice in the end. What justice does the atheist, who is brutally murdered at the age of 20 get? What about the extreme suffering of billions of animals? What reward do they get for their suffering? It seems to me that the only beings who get justice in the end are christians who are wronged.


This is fairly well in line with today's podcast actually. And that is a consequence of naturalism. On naturalism, with no God and no objective moral values, if someone breaks into your house and murders your family, unless they're caught by the police they may live out a perfectly happy life having done this act of horror and you will suffer and die, falling into oblivion and blinking out of existence upon your death with no justice ever done, and no fairness ever sought.

And this is why Nietchze went crazy. lol
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawlessone777

I know that, if you had read my post thoroughly you would note me saying that I'm not fond of this numbers game. Its thoroughly pointless. As in your edited post trying to go after prison population, I've seen this fall down into debates about divorce rates, suicide rates, etc, etc.

People have killed eachother in the name of religion, and they've also killed eachother due to the amount of melanin in their skin. In fact if you want to ban the two things that have caused more death and violence then everything else in history combined you'll need to ban money and sex.

The reality is this numbers game doesn't prove anything to anyone, it's just a fruitless exercise. I mean really, think about it, does the fact that Christians were killed and improsoned during the French Revolution actually speak against the ontological reality of the Christian God as a metaphysically necessary being? Does the fact that the Spanish Inquisition tortured and captured "heretics" prove that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event?

The question we should be asking is: Does God exist. Not: Who killed more people, atheists or Christians?

This game of who gets divorced more, who kills more, who yells at people more, who drinks more coffee, or who showers in the morning versus before bed at night is really pointless. By engaging in it you're not seeking to unravel the mysteries of the question, rather you're simply engaging in an exercise of attempting to undercut the character of the belief by attributing it to acts of evil done in the name of it.



Not to be blunt but as usual it was a christian who started the numbers game as you call it (in post 5 point 4 a typical double standard comment using Stalin's regime etc) and i cannot see you correcting him. It was only when a valid counter was posted and your attempts to try and separate regimes like he did failed that you have now posted this.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.