EthnAlln

Good points. I always think of the faithful old horse Dobbin in George Orwell's "Animal Farm," who was the type of the zealous Communist worker. He didn't see that the pigs were ruthlessly exploiting his devotion to duty. After they worked him to death, they sent him to be knackered. The thing is, if Dobbin had been more intelligent and less generously self-sacrificing, he'd have realized that his laudable hard work was only making things worse. To do any good, he'd have had to get rid of the pigs.

Sheshbazzar

My apologies spin, I was under the impression that you were an "atheist". Usually such scorn as you very often display in your posts and replies towards the believers on these threads is indicative of a contempt for religion, for "believers", and for the claims of Scripture.
I don't recall any instances where you have addressed a post made by an avowed atheist with the aggressive disdain that you consistently display in reply after reply, and thread after thread, towards confessed believers.
It may be noted that I put your word "suffer1ing" in red, to draw attention to your posts, so that by using the "Search this thread" button at the top of each page, he could have easily located each usage of the term in its original context. My obvious intent being to encourage the reading of your "full story", it should not be necessary to re-quote every single post that you have made to tell "the full story".
I also specifically encouraged "Wads4", to take the time to "read the complete thread".
So based on these factors, I do not believe your accusation that I, "falsely represent(ed) what (you) said." is a valid accusation.
I want the readers here to know exactly what you have said.

Wads4

In an effort to catch up upon the rest of the thread as you so reasonably suggested, I found the above. This is another Christian ploy; mocking the complaints of atheists that the God of the Bible is not a Perfect Being;--but surely that is exactly what he is supposed to be, else what is he for? We are not suggesting that he mollycoddles us in the way you describe,--after all, Christians have an escape clause to handle that one: "God helps those who help themselves". All we ask is that he gives a direct confirmation of his existence,-and if he can't be nice, in the way that one could reasonably expect a parent to be nice and loving,--then at least he should refrain from slaughter, smitings and genocide, especially against his so-called Chosen People. This that too much to ask?

Wads4

--because of that damned apple.

Wads4

Considering the faulty designs of alleged Godly creation, I am quite sure we could do a better job, if we had the tools and God's infinite resources; no chronic backacke or faulty vision for a start.
If you did not exist you would have no conscious awareness, so how would you (the you that did not exist) judge whether beginning to exist, with all its pain and problems, would be better than your continued non-existence?
If no human had ever existed I am quite sure the rest of the animal kingdom would have been better off for a start.

Wads4

What is a perfect world?-no such thing; any attempt at perfection would lead automatically to boredom and gluttony,-so on that point I am sure you are correct. Though how would a perfect world made for humans be non-human, and why should it be amoral?--surely the morality would also be perfect,-but then that would conflict with being perfectly gluttonous and self-indulgent; so a perect world is an oxymoron, it could not exist.

As to suffering, it might achieve all kinds of things or might not. That's not my assertion. My point is, a world without suffering, is a world without consequences and hence a world without moral choice and hence a world where life isn't worth living. Of course there's nothing good about a baby getting cancer. That's not the question, the question is What's the alternative? A world without cancer, pain, death, suffering, unhappiness, disappointment, is essentially a world without significance. Nothing would matter. If you think sitting and grinning is a life worth living fine; but if you think life involves insight, self awareness, emotional depth, caring, then this appears to be the very universe where such things are possible, and no other universe. But again, man, give us the alternative. Describe you're perfect world. I bet we can pick it apart in an instance.[/QUOTE]

Suffering is said to be good for the soul,-but would you really think that it was while you were being tortured? Surely it is the cessation of suffering that is actually good for the soul? No doubt you mean to say that we need contrasts in our lives, and I agree, but there are different levels and types of happiness that will provide all the contrasts you need. For instance, when I become bored with the pleasures of sex I can go and have a gourmet meal; so there is both continued happiness as well as contrast. You appear to be saying that I cannot be happy unless my bouts of pleasure are interspersed with sessions of torture?

Wads4

"The fact is famine is caused by human conduct, not God. "

Really?--all of it, volcanos and tsunamis and locust plagues included?
Actually we don't blame God, we don't accept the existence of God; bad things happen because they can, in spite of the best directed human efforts to avoid them. Perhaps you should stop blaming Man and try to join with the rest of humanity in averting suffering instead of wasting time on a love affair with a fictious being?

Wads4

"Nope, there are things that result from our free will -- oppression, violence, war, etc; and there is suffering inherent in living embedded in a physical world with physical limits and laws. Thus, gravity will kill you if you fall off a cliff. But WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? You keep avoiding this question. You seem to want a world without physical limitations, in which we are no longer embedded in a real physical world. No thank, such an existence would not be HUMAN existence, and very likely would have no significance. I think God that I was given a meaningful human existence, even if that means I got to scrape my knees sometime and ultimately I'm going to die, probably painfully. Would you honestly give up your existence to avoid the attendant suffering? I find that nihilistic"

Of course, in your weltanschauung the existence of God is presupposed, and therefore to you he is the giver of so-called freewill; but in the real world it is obvious that there is both determinisim and a degree of freewill; pragmatically, we are free to choose which of the chains we must wear to get through life. Those of us like myself, living in wealthy tax-free Jersey do indeed count our "blessings",-while keeping in mind that our plush existence could be terminated in an instant by some unforeseen calamity. Those less fortunate, living in the third world also carry on living because there is no alternative, and there is hope that their condition might improve; so both the rich and the poor have reason to carry on living,--besides, suicide is so irreversable and we don't want to do anything hasty, so we carry on, enduring the bad bits along with enjoying the good ones. We don't need a God to explain all of this: it just happens. It is not Nihilism, it is Realism.

Wads4

"Optimism and pessimism are both futile. None of us knows the future. The uneasiness I referred to (confessing that I don't know if anyone actually feels it) was merely the uneasiness that a scientist has about his pet theory: "Is this reasoning really an adequate explanation?" In the case of Leibnizian optimism, I submit that it isn't. This is not the "best of all possible worlds," as Gamera claimed."

I am not so sure, Leibnitz (and Gamera) could be right. Voltaire lampooned the concept of the best possible world in "Candide".. I myself have argued that there is no such thing as a perfect world, and as this world and the conditions upon it have evolved,-it makes sense to claim that natural seletion has indeed given us the best possible world.

Wads4

"but instead got the end product -- the gospel of Jesus, which requires us not only to love our neighbors, but our enemies. Don't you find it interesting that this ethic exists in Christianity (and nowhere else) and purports to derive from the OT."

I am quite sure that reciprocal altruism is as old as humanity itself and is the direct cause of the concept of loving your neighbour. Just because Jesus made a song and dance about it and claimed it came from God, and somebody eventually wrote it down, does not mean that humans have not practiced it from time immemorial, if only out of self-interest. What about the compassionate Buddha?--surely "love" and "compassion" are synonymous?