Are you sure God does not exist?

[Ali]

Ali: i'm really sorry to hear about your incidents. I can't imagine how you feel..

And I felt similarly. After my rape at  14, hearing "god has a plan" from my father made me completely furious with him. I don't believe that shit. I believe it even less that an all loving god could watch a man rape someone or a child be murdered. So yeah, none of that~
I live my life and not dwell on such bullshit.

Thanks to you and Traveler.

Yeah, it's just amazing to me that people say (and actually believe) things like "God has a plan" when something awful happens.  Like, if I actually believed that, I would HATE god.  I don't believe it, but it does make me wonder what kind of person could worship a god that has a plan involving rape and loss and all of the bad stuff that happens every day all over the world.  I agree with Traveler, if god has a plan, it's a bad one.

So sorry to hear that happened to you.  ((hugs))

[McQ]

The child is loved by their parent.  But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor?  From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)

God doesn't give brain tumors.

Fred Phelps says he does.  

[Ali]

The child is loved by their parent.  But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor?  From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)

God doesn't give brain tumors.

Well, he sure doesn't stop them or give us cancer resistant genes, does he?  

[AnimatedDirt]

God doesn't do anything. o_o

I think Ali is at least trying to have a discussion with me...thanks though.

[Stevil]

The child is loved by their parent.  But why would a loving god give a child a brain tumor?  From YOUR point of view (assuming that you believe that god is a loving god.)

God doesn't give brain tumors.

Because presumably brain tumors are the work of Satan or that random chance thing that atheists go on about (possibly even pre-destined, given the events leading upto the development of the tumor), or maybe even a result of sin being present in the world.

[AnimatedDirt]

Well, he sure doesn't stop them or give us cancer resistant genes, does he?  

Again, in context of KNOWING and not knowing...on what basis do you make the claim that he doesn't stop brain tumors?  This assumes *you know of every case of cancer and that every case has resulted in a non-healing.  And how do you know we don't have the cancer resistant gene?  Does every person develop cancer?

[Ali]

Well, he sure doesn't stop them or give us cancer resistant genes, does he?  

Again, in context of KNOWING and not knowing...on what basis do you make the claim that he doesn't stop brain tumors?  This assumes *you know of every case of cancer and that every case has resulted in a non-healing.  And how do you know we don't have the cancer resistant gene?  Does every person develop cancer?

Okay, how about this...even if he stops some brain tumors, he doesn't stop all.  I personally know 2 people who died of brain tumors.  One was 22 at the time.  So maybe the loving god only loves certain people enough to stop their brain tumors?

[Sandra Craft]

I thought Traveler was very clear about the situations in which pain is useful, even necessary, and can therefore be defined as "good" if you like, tho never agreeable or pleasant.  What was unclear to you, unless you're still stuck in the ALL or nothing problem?

I'm not stuck on the ALL or nothing problem.  The problem I have is the apparent ability of *you to KNOW ALL the reasons one may be purposely inflicted with pain...assuming,

I don't see where I've indicated I know anything, much less all the reasons a god might chose to inflict pain and suffering on its creations.  What I have done is speculate based on what theists have told me, which . . .

as *you may, god is the author of pain and suffering.

as mentioned before, is based on the commonly held belief by theists in America that god is the author of all things, including pain and suffering, which are part of its plan.  If you're using a different version of god, you need to be clear about that up front and establish why we should use your version as the default instead of the commonly understood one.

The reason I thought you were stuck in an ALL or nothing mindset is this: "And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving", followed by your inability to understand Travelers very clear distinction of useful pain.  Maybe you'd like to clarify or revise your "removal of ALL pain" comment?

Not to throw myself a pity party or anything, but I've had a really devastating time over the last year.  I had 2 miscarriages of much wanted babies in less than a year.  

I don't see why you shouldn't throw yourself a pity party over that, that's a terrible thing to endure.  My heart goes out to you and your husband.  But I understand you not wanting to derail the thread, so . . .

And the thing that strikes me, is that some people have tried to tell me stupid bullshit like "God has a plan."  Oh yeah?  Your loving god has a plan that involves dead babies?  And killing little kids with cancer, and all of the awful stuff that happens that isn't anyone's fault.  That's all part of a loving god's plans?  Who is this freak show, and why can't he put together a plan that doesn't involve killing innocents?

This is my question -- granted if there is a god and it's like the one most American Xtians talk about, it's ways are definitely mysterious and it's inability to do in some other way whatever it's doing by inflicting pointless pain and suffering is odd.

God doesn't give brain tumors.

So your version of god is that it is not the author of all things, or that it is not omnipotent or omniscient, or that it is simply indifferent to its works after the moment of creation?  This is one of the problems Gawen was talking about in the OP about theists having so many different version of their god, even those within the same religion.  How is one to know which version is being discussed at any particular moment?

[AnimatedDirt]

Okay, how about this...even if he stops some brain tumors, he doesn't stop all.  I personally know 2 people who died of brain tumors.  One was 22 at the time.  So maybe the loving god only loves certain people enough to stop their brain tumors?

Or it's VERY rare that God intervenes with the flow of life and the hazards and sufferings therein..

No where is the believer (and likewise the non-believer) promised a life free from pain or suffering this side of salvation.

[Sweetdeath]

I'm not talking specifically to you, AD. :x

At this point, believing is things can fate, sin, and destiny is just sort of pointless. Sometimes bad things hapen, the only thing we can do is try to avoid them. Or if unavoidable, try our best to seek out love and understanding from family (doesnt have to be blood related.)
Getting through my mom's recent death was tough, but my best friend and girlfriend made it a lot easier than taking on the burden alone.
I got through it without a diety. Look at that.



Now to you: AD-
when in recorded history has 'god' intervened?

[AnimatedDirt]

Now to you: AD-
when in recorded history has 'god' intervened?

One word - Jesus.  But then again...he's not real so there's no reason to go any further.  If you don't believe or believe the (made up) evidence...then you are in exactly the position you should be.  An Atheist.

[Ali]

Okay, how about this...even if he stops some brain tumors, he doesn't stop all.  I personally know 2 people who died of brain tumors.  One was 22 at the time.  So maybe the loving god only loves certain people enough to stop their brain tumors?

Or it's VERY rare that God intervenes with the flow of life and the hazards and sufferings therein..

But then that begs the question - why?  Why would a loving god allow these things to happen when s/he/it has the ability to stop them?  What's the point? 

[AnimatedDirt]

But then that begs the question - why?  Why would a loving god allow these things to happen when s/he/it has the ability to stop them?  What's the point?

A lot of answers exist.  They may all be wrong or some may be more right than others...  The point is that it's not what is intended nor will it be forever.

[Sweetdeath]

Now to you: AD-
when in recorded history has 'god' intervened?

One word - Jesus.  But then again...he's not real so there's no reason to go any further.  If you don't believe or believe the (made up) evidence...then you are in exactly the position you should be.  An Atheist.

I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<

[Wessik]

Pardon me, but I would like to make a conjecture that might take this discussion in a different direction. I would propose that a negative proposition and the positive assertion of a negative proposition are both simply negative propositions.

I give several reasons for asserting this. First: Any assertion is an assertion, which is therefore by default positive, but on the other side of the garden, it is commonly believed that a negative assertion is a denial of an assertion. As in mathematics, the negative of any positive number is positive. This gives cause for pause, as a positive assertion of a negative would have the form of a positive together with a negative positive. Since the negative positive is already negative(I.E. the lack of the positive assertion), combing this negative with another positive has no effect other than to reinforce the lack of the positive assertion.

Another reason is the impossibility of proving a negative assertion. If one takes the above as valid, however, then it seems possible that one can not prove a negative assertion because a negative is not an assertion at all, but a lack of an assertion. Given that a proof must always operate an an assertion, it could be that "true" simply indicates the assertion proven, and "false" indicates a lack of proof. To give then a positive assertion of the proposition's falseness would be equivalent to positively asserting that there is a lack of proof, which can easily be ascertained.

Given this, it is quite possible that agnostic and atheist positions are utterly more equivalent than previously thought.