[QUOTE="rowdyraven13, post: 155309, member: 17003"][QUOTE]
Susan Green15
[QUOTE As stated by:
The question was really more about that persistent contradiction we see among believers—the way they insist that God is inherently good and just, yet somehow reconcile that with the fact that he allows children to suffer through terminal illnesses, even when he possesses the power to intervene.I don't think so. To be honest, it feels like these questions are being framed specifically to goad believers once again. Does anyone truly believe that you, or any other atheist for that matter, actually care about the answers to these inquiries? Looking at the vast majority of atheist posts regarding religious matters, one can see quite clearly that there isn't even a fleeting attempt to engage in genuine reflection; instead, there is just this staggering display of superficiality and ignorance concerning faith. If the answers actually mattered to you, wouldn't you perhaps find it worthwhile to exert a modicum of effort to actually contemplate them? But you don't—and it shows, both in the nature of your discussions and in the repetitive patterns of your supposed "arguments."
It seems increasingly evident from the ongoing discussions here that many of you remain quite a distance from true faith, held back by deep-seated prejudices and preconceived notions. One can’t help but notice how strikingly these views align with the constant anti-religious brainwashing fed to us through the mainstream media; it really does make one wonder if this is genuine conviction or simply the result of relentless conditioning.
Yours. What is that one deeply held opinion you cling to with such desperation? You know the one—that single conviction you are absolutely terrified to abandon, the kind you refuse to even contemplate questioning because the mere thought of being wrong feels like losing your footing entirely.
You pose these relentless questions regarding God’s plans, His intentions, and His conduct as if He were delivering a morning briefing to us personally every single day. It isn't even as though you are seeking genuine answers—for we all know that such clarity remains beyond human grasp—but rather, you seem to be fishing for some foolishly simplistic statement from the most naive or uneducated believers. There are certainly those among us who take the Bible quite literally and end up uttering something absurd, don't they? And then, like a pack of hyenas, you descend upon them, using their stumbling words to mock the entirety of faith and all who hold it. The motivation behind these inquiries and your endless debates is nothing more than malice, prejudice, and an intolerance fueled by a desire to discredit believers, painting us as a collection of unlettered peasants in contrast to your own supposedly "enlightened" and sophisticated atheism. The trouble is, you find yourselves incapable of sustaining even a single serious or well-reasoned argument, because your atheism lacks any foundation in sound logic, common sense, or even basic human nature.
It seems you all spend your time relentlessly interrogating us, employing a sort of biased, investigative scrutiny reminiscent of an FBI interrogation tactic, all under the guise of seeking explanations that, quite frankly, you aren't actually interested in understanding. You sit atop your self-appointed pedestals of "enlightenment," demanding that we provide justifications and evidence for our faith, yet does it never occur to you to wonder if you possess any evidence for your own convictions? Is atheism anything more than just another form of belief? I hold the conviction that God exists, while you hold the conviction that He does not; neither side can produce empirical proof to settle the matter once and for all. So, why should we be compelled to defend our claims and beliefs when you see no necessity—nor possess the capacity—to defend yours?
You seem to be asking believers why God allows death to take hold of humanity. But tell me, how am I—or any person of faith, for that matter—supposed to know the answer to such a question? It isn't as if I, or any other believer, am God, is it? He doesn't sit us down to explain his grand designs, his underlying intentions, or the specific mechanics of his actions. If you are truly seeking an answer to this, why not direct that inquiry toward God himself? Turn to Him; perhaps He will give you the clarity you seek.
I find myself utterly perplexed by your line of reasoning. Why is it that you, as an atheist who maintains there is no God, feel such a profound need to demand justifications for His actions? If God does not exist—which is the very conviction you hold—how can you possibly expect an explanation for His deeds or His grand designs? And really, what is the purpose behind this? If you believe He isn't there, how can He be categorized as good or evil? What intention drives you to pose such a question? Is this pursuit not inherently contradictory in its own right? Or perhaps, is there a more cynical motive at play?
Allow me to step in and answer on your behalf. It seems you aren’t actually looking for an answer, nor do you truly care to find one. Even if someone were to present you with a perfectly logical response, would you even bother to entertain the thought? It appears quite obvious that questions like these are posed solely to provoke believers, serving no purpose other than to stir up unnecessary conflict.
The question of sickness, suffering, and death is something God has orchestrated exactly as He saw fit. Why He chose this specific design, however, remains a mystery to me; I can only offer my own conjectures. What I do know is that any meaningful progress demands struggle, hardship, labor, and deep reflection—without those elements, growth simply doesn't happen. If a human being, or indeed any living creature, were perfectly comfortable at all times, there would be no impetus to think or strive. One becomes complacent, stagnates, and eventually decays. This principle holds true for individuals, for nations, for entire civilizations, and for species alike. It applies to everything. Real advancement only occurs when we are forced to adapt, to innovate, to devise new solutions, and to push ourselves to achieve them. It is precisely our problems and tribulations that compel us toward that necessity. Have you ever considered the old adage, *per aspera ad astra*? Through hardships to the stars? It rings profoundly true. It is only through the crucible of suffering that true progress is forged.
If you were to raise a child under a metaphorical glass bell jar—shielding them from every potential hardship, insulating them from every possible danger, and smoothing out every bump in the road so they never have to lift a finger—would you truly be considered a good parent? If you provide everything on a silver platter, ensuring they never face a moment of struggle or necessity, what kind of human being are you actually cultivating? Can one truly claim to be nurturing a soul if the very essence of growth is stripped away by overprotection?
I certainly don't take issue with the notion that God endowed us with intelligence and everything else just so we could struggle through life on our own terms. However, if we follow that logic to its conclusion, how can we possibly describe Him as a good or just God while He sits by in silence, watching it all unfold without lifting a finger? It seems to me that we are simply facing a series of contradictions that believers choose to overlook.
It seems you aren't grasping the core of this at all. Truly, not one bit. It isn't as if God granted us intelligence merely so we could "struggle" aimlessly; rather, He gave us the capacity to apply ourselves, to strive through effort, and through that very labor, to evolve and become better versions of ourselves. Furthermore, the notion that God remains idle is simply incorrect. How can one possibly claim that the Creator of everything does nothing? Is that not a fundamental contradiction? And wouldn't a far greater contradiction be the idea that He first equipped and empowered us to think, learn, and progress independently, only to render His own gifts entirely useless by stepping in to solve every single problem on our behalf?
Have you ever paused to consider the sheer horror of lying broken on a street corner after a collision, watching as people simply walk past you without a second glance? Or perhaps even worse—imagine them stopping to grab a sandwich and a soda, sitting right there beside your dying body just to watch the life fade from your eyes, rather than reaching for their phones to call 911. It’s a thought that chills the blood, isn't it? I only want to say this: people capable of such indifference are nothing short of cruel.
Has it ever occurred to you to consider a different perspective? For most of us, death is something we instinctively dread—a terrifying finality that signals the absolute end. If I were to simply sit there and watch you pass away instead of offering my help, assuming only that something horrific awaits you, wouldn't that make me nothing more than a cruel and selfish person? But perhaps we should allow God to know more than we do. Christian doctrine, and indeed many religious teachings, suggest that death is far from being an ultimate conclusion. If God allows a person to die, is it not possible He knows this isn't a sentence to something cruel or terrible, but rather a transition from one phase of existence into the next? Have you ever truly contemplated whether God understands that earthly suffering and death are merely passing shadows rather than the end of our story? It stands to reason that God possesses a wisdom far beyond our own, understanding that everything occurring in this life serves a specific purpose—a purpose He alone fully grasps. There is a certain necessity in letting things take their natural course. After all, if God is the creator of all things, would it not be fundamentally illogical for Him to constantly interfere with the very processes and laws He established just to solve our immediate problems?
If we accept the premise that God designed the world and simultaneously engineered the early viruses and bacteria that cause us to sicken and die, then aren't we forced to admit that this reality was built specifically for us to suffer? If the very foundation of existence is laid with such biological cruelty, doesn't that suggest a world intentionally designed for misery? To me, such a design seems less like divine providence and more like the hallmark of a malevolent being.
God created everything, including viruses. He fashioned us—however imperfect we might be—as the pinnacle of His entire creative journey thus far. Yet, He didn't design the world and the cosmos exclusively for our benefit; He created them for all His creatures, and yes, that includes viruses. Even an atheist could likely concede that in the natural order, every single creation holds its own specific niche and purpose. That role might prove fatal or devastating to one being while remaining beneficial or even necessary to another. It is only through this complex interaction of all living things that life can persist, and that principle applies to humanity as well. Viruses do kill us sometimes; that is an undeniable truth. But they don't kill everyone. Some survive, emerging stronger and more resilient than before. Every instance of suffering, illness, or hardship exacts a toll, but those trials that do not destroy us serve to fortify us. The purpose of adversity, problems, or disease isn't to provide Him with some form of divine entertainment through our misery, but rather to refine us, allowing us to grow stronger and move forward.
And where exactly is this progress—which may seem agonizingly slow to us, yet remains undeniably real—supposed to lead? Truly, I do not know, nor do I possess the capacity to grasp it. Like any mere mortal, I can sense that we are heading somewhere, but the ultimate destination remains obscured from my view. I certainly do not believe such clarity will be granted to humanity anytime soon. However, one might assume that God knows infinitely more than we do, and therefore understands the final destination of our path. Given our inherent ignorance and our lack of maturity, should we really be accusing God of cruelty or malice? Just because certain phenomena and processes remain incompremedible to us, does it follow that they are inherently evil, or that the God governing them is wicked?
Let me put it simply at the end. Imagine you are a fifteen-year-old kid who wants to go out with friends. Your parents clothe you, feed you, and provide a roof over your head—all provided freely, without a shred of effort or merit on your part—and then you ask for pocket money. They give it to you once, twice, a hundred times... But then, the very first time your parents say there is no money available, and you find yourself unable to go out for a soda, what happens? Suddenly, those same parents—the ones who spent years tirelessly raising, feeding, clothing, and supporting you—are viewed as "evil" simply because they denied a single request. This is precisely how those of you who accuse God of being cruel and malicious tend to think.
So you are categorically asserting here that death is nothing to be feared.
You used this logic to justify why God kills people—whether He sends a plague like they did in Egypt, strikes them down directly like the firstborn in Egypt, or simply watches as famine and disease take their toll—because killing isn't inherently bad if you're just moving on to some better place where nothing terrible can happen to you.
rowdyraven13 said:@Susan Green15 I feel compelled to tell you that I have never encountered such a grotesque misunderstanding, nor such a malicious distortion, of my words—or indeed, of religious doctrine itself. After reading the horrors you’ve written here, it becomes impossible to believe you aren't acting out of pure ill intent. It simply isn't possible to twist and misinterpret someone's perspective this inaccurately by accident or through mere confusion.
But let us begin at the beginning. In my view, technically speaking, everyone is an agnostic at least occasionally. There are moments of doubt; there are times when certainty wavers. Every believer faces crises where their faith falters and they begin to question the existence of a benevolent God and the tenets we hold dear. Some abandon their faith because of this, while for others, it serves to strengthen it. That is merely human nature. However, I find you self-proclaimed agnostics quite perplexing. While believers and atheists both possess the courage to commit to a position without empirical proof, you seem, if you'll forgive me, somewhat dishonest. You aren't certain about whether God exists or not, so you shy away from believing while simultaneously hunting for evidence—knowing full well you won't find any—all while masking this hesitation behind a veneer of "reason" or science. On the other hand, you also fear rejecting God entirely, perhaps due to a subconscious dread of what might happen if He actually does exist. Personally, I suspect agnostics are essentially cowards trying to sit on two chairs at once, attempting to hedge their bets so they are covered regardless of whether God exists or not. I generally feel sympathy for true atheists; at least they have the nerve to believe in something firmly and are prepared to live with the consequences, much like believers. But agnostics seem to hover in a state of indecision that looks to me like nothing more than life-calculating cowardice.
And now, let us address the atrocities you have penned.
You assume that death is nothing to be feared, but rather a beautiful new beginning. Therefore, when God kills innocent children and people, you view it as something wonderful, as if He were simply sending them off on a bus to paradise to enjoy eternity.
And when God intentionally torments people through illness and hardship, it is viewed as a good thing because the more you suffer in this world, the better your lot will be in the next; they will have a slightly more perfect experience in heaven than those who didn't suffer as much.
Not a single word of that is accurate. We, like everyone else, have no idea what happens after death. We believe in eternal life, but none of us can claim absolute certainty. Death is terrifying to us, just as it is to anyone else. No believer views death as something inherently "beautiful." You have painted us here as some sort of narrow-minded, frenzied lunatics—maniacs or even potential fanatical killers who see nothing wrong with death or killing, and even rejoice in it, which clearly demonstrates your provocative intentions.
That pathetic sentence regarding "God killing innocent children" (why on earth did you feel the need to bring up innocent children 🙄) only reinforces my point. God does not kill anyone. Death, while certainly not pleasant, is a natural continuation of life. That is how the world is ordered. We are not the idiots or the madmen you are attempting to portray, finding joy in the death of "innocent children" or anyone else, including ourselves. What is wrong with you? How can you possibly write such a malicious absurdity? And then there is your claim that God "intentionally torments people."😲 God does not play a game of "black and white" with humanity, inflicting suffering for His own amusement. Furthermore, the illness or death of one creature always signifies prosperity and life for another. From our perspective, a flu epidemic is a tragedy that brings death, but from the perspective of the virus causing it, it represents life. This may be a drastic comparison, but it illustrates the fundamental nature of the world, life, and death. We fear death just as much as anyone, yet we accept it as a natural occurrence. God is not killing us; death is simply a consequence of the way the universe is structured.
What we hold true, and what we fervently hope for, is that earthly death is not the final chapter of our existence. This shouldn't be misinterpreted as a lack of respect for this life; quite the opposite. This life, while it lasts, is sacred—singular and precious. It is why taking a life, whether it belongs to another or to oneself, is strictly forbidden. We didn't grant this life to begin with, so by what authority would we presume to take it? God operates under the same principle; He doesn't take life, He bestows it. He gave it to us so that we might steward it as we see fit, providing us with both intellect and soul to guide our way. Yet, we must acknowledge that He granted us an earthly existence with a finite duration. If I were to give you a hundred dollars (which I won't 😁), and you spent it all, I haven't "taken" anything from you by refusing to hand over another hundred. I gave, you spent, and it is finished. One cannot accuse me of being malicious simply because I am not obligated to replenish what was already consumed.
Of course, we believe there is something beyond this finite life that God provided, but that isn't the heart of this discussion. The reality is that we—and perhaps most acutely, you skeptics—simply do not know what follows. The only thing we can say with certainty is the nature of this earthly life. Losing it is terrifying, and fearing that loss is entirely human. In our ignorance and anxiety, people often fall into the habit of accusing God of killing or stealing lives, when in truth, He is the giver of life. It is just that life is not infinite. Once it is spent, it is spent. No one, not even God, has snatched it away; it was simply used up, much like those hypothetical hundred dollars I might have given you, hypothetically 😍. I gave it, it served its purpose for as long as it lasted, but I never took it back. Just as God gives life without reclaiming it, He explicitly forbids us from taking it from others.
We may not know, but God, the Creator of all things, likely possesses a broader perspective. Is it possible that regardless of how tragic or premature a death seems, it marks the beginning of a more beautiful existence? Or perhaps it truly is the end. Perhaps one simply returns to the earth. While I struggle to find the ultimate purpose of life if death is merely a biological conclusion—which is why I don't view it as the absolute end—I recognize that neither you nor I possess the answers. God does. What appears to us as a catastrophe might represent something entirely different from His vantage point. Therefore, the fact that He did not extend someone's life or alleviate their earthly suffering does not necessarily mean He has committed an injustice against them.
Besides, try to imagine what kind of actual evil an omnipotent God could possibly commit to be as selfish and malevolent as the version you are describing.
That example above has nothing to do with what we are trying to demonstrate.
If the example were modified in the following way, it would more accurately reflect how God acts:
Imagine asking your father for change a hundred times, and he kills you with the explanation:
"This is your punishment because Adam and Eve sinned."
"I did this because I forced your neighbor to give me today's newspaper."
"I did this because you were ill-mannered."
😲 This is such a tangled and utterly nonsensical distortion of my words that I'm not even sure what you intended to convey. What, exactly, was the point of that? 🤷
If you truly believe that prevents you or any other believer from killing someone you love,...
...then imagine someone acting on those very beliefs by deciding to sacrifice themselves for their loved ones—someone who detonates a bomb at a stadium, feeling a sense of joy knowing they’ve sent dozens of people to their deaths, fully prepared to suffer through an eternity in hell for that single act.
As I have already detailed above, we are not some band of lunatics or fanatics, and what you are suggesting has absolutely nothing to do with our faith. In fact, this is a remarkably crude and insolent provocation—one that insults believers in a way I haven't even encountered on this forum before.
Therefore, the following logical structure is contradictory, which is precisely what I am pointing out:
Killing is bad.
He who does evil is not good.
God kills.
God is good.
The following construction, however, is perfectly fine and contains no contradiction:
Killing is good.
He who does good is good.
God kills.
God is good.
Again, I believe I have clarified my position earlier. It is true that killing is not inherently evil in every context; if we did not kill, we would not eat, nor would other living creatures survive. There are also instances where one must take a life in the interest of self-defense or to protect the innocent. God has clearly delineated the reasons why people commit acts of evil rather than adhering to righteousness (such as the seven deadly sins). Thus, killing driven by greed, cruelty, or mere amusement—actions that stand in direct opposition to fundamental morality—is indeed evil. Furthermore, it is true that he who commits evil is not good. However, most people throughout their lives perform both good and evil acts. What does that make us? Now, we arrive at your complete failure of logic. I have written enough about this, but I will reiterate: God does not kill. Finally, God created the entire world and created us. He bestowed life upon us and all other creatures; He granted us our abilities and all the resources available to us. So, I leave it to each individual to decide whether God is good.
So, basically, believers think killing is good because the victim goes to heaven, whereas most other people don't believe that.
Where on earth did I say that? Or where would any Christian believer here or anywhere else say such a thing? Given this kind of provocation and the blatant disrespect toward believers, you really ought to be banned. Honestly, you are accusing us believers of being dangerous, raving maniacs—human time bombs walking around just looking for an opportunity to kill someone as a "service" to send them to Heaven. For heaven's sake, that is practically an invitation to a preemptive lynching of "dangerous" Christians in the name of protecting "the majority" (though one could certainly argue over who constitutes that majority). Are you actually sane?
Now you’ve contradicted yourself, because suddenly you're claiming you don't know what happens after death—that it might be something bad or it might be something good.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
Is death 100% non-terrifying, as you originally claimed, or do you not actually know if it is? If you think it might actually be something terrible, and if you think that perhaps everything just ends there, then I return to my original question: "How can you be certain that God is good while He is busy killing people, if you aren't even sure if that's the end for them or just the beginning of something wonderful?"
[QUOTE="rowdyraven13, post: 155309, member: 17003"][QUOTE]
Susan Green15
[QUOTE As stated by:
The question was really more about that persistent contradiction we see among believers—the way they insist that God is inherently good and just, yet somehow reconcile that with the fact that he allows children to suffer through terminal illnesses, even when he possesses the power to intervene.I don't think so. To be honest, it feels like these questions are being framed specifically to goad believers once again. Does anyone truly believe that you, or any other atheist for that matter, actually care about the answers to these inquiries? Looking at the vast majority of atheist posts regarding religious matters, one can see quite clearly that there isn't even a fleeting attempt to engage in genuine reflection; instead, there is just this staggering display of superficiality and ignorance concerning faith. If the answers actually mattered to you, wouldn't you perhaps find it worthwhile to exert a modicum of effort to actually contemplate them? But you don't—and it shows, both in the nature of your discussions and in the repetitive patterns of your supposed "arguments."
It seems increasingly evident from the ongoing discussions here that many of you remain quite a distance from true faith, held back by deep-seated prejudices and preconceived notions. One can’t help but notice how strikingly these views align with the constant anti-religious brainwashing fed to us through the mainstream media; it really does make one wonder if this is genuine conviction or simply the result of relentless conditioning.
Yours. What is that one deeply held opinion you cling to with such desperation? You know the one—that single conviction you are absolutely terrified to abandon, the kind you refuse to even contemplate questioning because the mere thought of being wrong feels like losing your footing entirely.
You pose these relentless questions regarding God’s plans, His intentions, and His conduct as if He were delivering a morning briefing to us personally every single day. It isn't even as though you are seeking genuine answers—for we all know that such clarity remains beyond human grasp—but rather, you seem to be fishing for some foolishly simplistic statement from the most naive or uneducated believers. There are certainly those among us who take the Bible quite literally and end up uttering something absurd, don't they? And then, like a pack of hyenas, you descend upon them, using their stumbling words to mock the entirety of faith and all who hold it. The motivation behind these inquiries and your endless debates is nothing more than malice, prejudice, and an intolerance fueled by a desire to discredit believers, painting us as a collection of unlettered peasants in contrast to your own supposedly "enlightened" and sophisticated atheism. The trouble is, you find yourselves incapable of sustaining even a single serious or well-reasoned argument, because your atheism lacks any foundation in sound logic, common sense, or even basic human nature.
It seems you all spend your time relentlessly interrogating us, employing a sort of biased, investigative scrutiny reminiscent of an FBI interrogation tactic, all under the guise of seeking explanations that, quite frankly, you aren't actually interested in understanding. You sit atop your self-appointed pedestals of "enlightenment," demanding that we provide justifications and evidence for our faith, yet does it never occur to you to wonder if you possess any evidence for your own convictions? Is atheism anything more than just another form of belief? I hold the conviction that God exists, while you hold the conviction that He does not; neither side can produce empirical proof to settle the matter once and for all. So, why should we be compelled to defend our claims and beliefs when you see no necessity—nor possess the capacity—to defend yours?
You seem to be asking believers why God allows death to take hold of humanity. But tell me, how am I—or any person of faith, for that matter—supposed to know the answer to such a question? It isn't as if I, or any other believer, am God, is it? He doesn't sit us down to explain his grand designs, his underlying intentions, or the specific mechanics of his actions. If you are truly seeking an answer to this, why not direct that inquiry toward God himself? Turn to Him; perhaps He will give you the clarity you seek.
I find myself utterly perplexed by your line of reasoning. Why is it that you, as an atheist who maintains there is no God, feel such a profound need to demand justifications for His actions? If God does not exist—which is the very conviction you hold—how can you possibly expect an explanation for His deeds or His grand designs? And really, what is the purpose behind this? If you believe He isn't there, how can He be categorized as good or evil? What intention drives you to pose such a question? Is this pursuit not inherently contradictory in its own right? Or perhaps, is there a more cynical motive at play?
Allow me to step in and answer on your behalf. It seems you aren’t actually looking for an answer, nor do you truly care to find one. Even if someone were to present you with a perfectly logical response, would you even bother to entertain the thought? It appears quite obvious that questions like these are posed solely to provoke believers, serving no purpose other than to stir up unnecessary conflict.
The question of sickness, suffering, and death is something God has orchestrated exactly as He saw fit. Why He chose this specific design, however, remains a mystery to me; I can only offer my own conjectures. What I do know is that any meaningful progress demands struggle, hardship, labor, and deep reflection—without those elements, growth simply doesn't happen. If a human being, or indeed any living creature, were perfectly comfortable at all times, there would be no impetus to think or strive. One becomes complacent, stagnates, and eventually decays. This principle holds true for individuals, for nations, for entire civilizations, and for species alike. It applies to everything. Real advancement only occurs when we are forced to adapt, to innovate, to devise new solutions, and to push ourselves to achieve them. It is precisely our problems and tribulations that compel us toward that necessity. Have you ever considered the old adage, *per aspera ad astra*? Through hardships to the stars? It rings profoundly true. It is only through the crucible of suffering that true progress is forged.
If you were to raise a child under a metaphorical glass bell jar—shielding them from every potential hardship, insulating them from every possible danger, and smoothing out every bump in the road so they never have to lift a finger—would you truly be considered a good parent? If you provide everything on a silver platter, ensuring they never face a moment of struggle or necessity, what kind of human being are you actually cultivating? Can one truly claim to be nurturing a soul if the very essence of growth is stripped away by overprotection?
I certainly don't take issue with the notion that God endowed us with intelligence and everything else just so we could struggle through life on our own terms. However, if we follow that logic to its conclusion, how can we possibly describe Him as a good or just God while He sits by in silence, watching it all unfold without lifting a finger? It seems to me that we are simply facing a series of contradictions that believers choose to overlook.
It seems you aren't grasping the core of this at all. Truly, not one bit. It isn't as if God granted us intelligence merely so we could "struggle" aimlessly; rather, He gave us the capacity to apply ourselves, to strive through effort, and through that very labor, to evolve and become better versions of ourselves. Furthermore, the notion that God remains idle is simply incorrect. How can one possibly claim that the Creator of everything does nothing? Is that not a fundamental contradiction? And wouldn't a far greater contradiction be the idea that He first equipped and empowered us to think, learn, and progress independently, only to render His own gifts entirely useless by stepping in to solve every single problem on our behalf?
Have you ever paused to consider the sheer horror of lying broken on a street corner after a collision, watching as people simply walk past you without a second glance? Or perhaps even worse—imagine them stopping to grab a sandwich and a soda, sitting right there beside your dying body just to watch the life fade from your eyes, rather than reaching for their phones to call 911. It’s a thought that chills the blood, isn't it? I only want to say this: people capable of such indifference are nothing short of cruel.
Has it ever occurred to you to consider a different perspective? For most of us, death is something we instinctively dread—a terrifying finality that signals the absolute end. If I were to simply sit there and watch you pass away instead of offering my help, assuming only that something horrific awaits you, wouldn't that make me nothing more than a cruel and selfish person? But perhaps we should allow God to know more than we do. Christian doctrine, and indeed many religious teachings, suggest that death is far from being an ultimate conclusion. If God allows a person to die, is it not possible He knows this isn't a sentence to something cruel or terrible, but rather a transition from one phase of existence into the next? Have you ever truly contemplated whether God understands that earthly suffering and death are merely passing shadows rather than the end of our story? It stands to reason that God possesses a wisdom far beyond our own, understanding that everything occurring in this life serves a specific purpose—a purpose He alone fully grasps. There is a certain necessity in letting things take their natural course. After all, if God is the creator of all things, would it not be fundamentally illogical for Him to constantly interfere with the very processes and laws He established just to solve our immediate problems?
If we accept the premise that God designed the world and simultaneously engineered the early viruses and bacteria that cause us to sicken and die, then aren't we forced to admit that this reality was built specifically for us to suffer? If the very foundation of existence is laid with such biological cruelty, doesn't that suggest a world intentionally designed for misery? To me, such a design seems less like divine providence and more like the hallmark of a malevolent being.
God created everything, including viruses. He fashioned us—however imperfect we might be—as the pinnacle of His entire creative journey thus far. Yet, He didn't design the world and the cosmos exclusively for our benefit; He created them for all His creatures, and yes, that includes viruses. Even an atheist could likely concede that in the natural order, every single creation holds its own specific niche and purpose. That role might prove fatal or devastating to one being while remaining beneficial or even necessary to another. It is only through this complex interaction of all living things that life can persist, and that principle applies to humanity as well. Viruses do kill us sometimes; that is an undeniable truth. But they don't kill everyone. Some survive, emerging stronger and more resilient than before. Every instance of suffering, illness, or hardship exacts a toll, but those trials that do not destroy us serve to fortify us. The purpose of adversity, problems, or disease isn't to provide Him with some form of divine entertainment through our misery, but rather to refine us, allowing us to grow stronger and move forward.
And where exactly is this progress—which may seem agonizingly slow to us, yet remains undeniably real—supposed to lead? Truly, I do not know, nor do I possess the capacity to grasp it. Like any mere mortal, I can sense that we are heading somewhere, but the ultimate destination remains obscured from my view. I certainly do not believe such clarity will be granted to humanity anytime soon. However, one might assume that God knows infinitely more than we do, and therefore understands the final destination of our path. Given our inherent ignorance and our lack of maturity, should we really be accusing God of cruelty or malice? Just because certain phenomena and processes remain incompremedible to us, does it follow that they are inherently evil, or that the God governing them is wicked?
Let me put it simply at the end. Imagine you are a fifteen-year-old kid who wants to go out with friends. Your parents clothe you, feed you, and provide a roof over your head—all provided freely, without a shred of effort or merit on your part—and then you ask for pocket money. They give it to you once, twice, a hundred times... But then, the very first time your parents say there is no money available, and you find yourself unable to go out for a soda, what happens? Suddenly, those same parents—the ones who spent years tirelessly raising, feeding, clothing, and supporting you—are viewed as "evil" simply because they denied a single request. This is precisely how those of you who accuse God of being cruel and malicious tend to think.
In that case, when God sends a global flood and wipes out every living and non-living thing (including innocent children, plants, and animals), that's just a "natural continuation of life" to you. If God strikes down the firstborn (which certainly included innocent children) just to force the Egyptian leaders to let His people go, that's just the "natural course of life." If God sends a plague upon the Egyptians that kills every living thing in sight, that too is just the "natural course of life."
[QUOTE="rowdyraven13, post: 155309, member: 17003"][QUOTE]
Susan Green15
[QUOTE As stated by:
The question was really more about that persistent contradiction we see among believers—the way they insist that God is inherently good and just, yet somehow reconcile that with the fact that he allows children to suffer through terminal illnesses, even when he possesses the power to intervene.I don't think so. To be honest, it feels like these questions are being framed specifically to goad believers once again. Does anyone truly believe that you, or any other atheist for that matter, actually care about the answers to these inquiries? Looking at the vast majority of atheist posts regarding religious matters, one can see quite clearly that there isn't even a fleeting attempt to engage in genuine reflection; instead, there is just this staggering display of superficiality and ignorance concerning faith. If the answers actually mattered to you, wouldn't you perhaps find it worthwhile to exert a modicum of effort to actually contemplate them? But you don't—and it shows, both in the nature of your discussions and in the repetitive patterns of your supposed "arguments."
It seems increasingly evident from the ongoing discussions here that many of you remain quite a distance from true faith, held back by deep-seated prejudices and preconceived notions. One can’t help but notice how strikingly these views align with the constant anti-religious brainwashing fed to us through the mainstream media; it really does make one wonder if this is genuine conviction or simply the result of relentless conditioning.
Yours. What is that one deeply held opinion you cling to with such desperation? You know the one—that single conviction you are absolutely terrified to abandon, the kind you refuse to even contemplate questioning because the mere thought of being wrong feels like losing your footing entirely.
You pose these relentless questions regarding God’s plans, His intentions, and His conduct as if He were delivering a morning briefing to us personally every single day. It isn't even as though you are seeking genuine answers—for we all know that such clarity remains beyond human grasp—but rather, you seem to be fishing for some foolishly simplistic statement from the most naive or uneducated believers. There are certainly those among us who take the Bible quite literally and end up uttering something absurd, don't they? And then, like a pack of hyenas, you descend upon them, using their stumbling words to mock the entirety of faith and all who hold it. The motivation behind these inquiries and your endless debates is nothing more than malice, prejudice, and an intolerance fueled by a desire to discredit believers, painting us as a collection of unlettered peasants in contrast to your own supposedly "enlightened" and sophisticated atheism. The trouble is, you find yourselves incapable of sustaining even a single serious or well-reasoned argument, because your atheism lacks any foundation in sound logic, common sense, or even basic human nature.
It seems you all spend your time relentlessly interrogating us, employing a sort of biased, investigative scrutiny reminiscent of an FBI interrogation tactic, all under the guise of seeking explanations that, quite frankly, you aren't actually interested in understanding. You sit atop your self-appointed pedestals of "enlightenment," demanding that we provide justifications and evidence for our faith, yet does it never occur to you to wonder if you possess any evidence for your own convictions? Is atheism anything more than just another form of belief? I hold the conviction that God exists, while you hold the conviction that He does not; neither side can produce empirical proof to settle the matter once and for all. So, why should we be compelled to defend our claims and beliefs when you see no necessity—nor possess the capacity—to defend yours?
You seem to be asking believers why God allows death to take hold of humanity. But tell me, how am I—or any person of faith, for that matter—supposed to know the answer to such a question? It isn't as if I, or any other believer, am God, is it? He doesn't sit us down to explain his grand designs, his underlying intentions, or the specific mechanics of his actions. If you are truly seeking an answer to this, why not direct that inquiry toward God himself? Turn to Him; perhaps He will give you the clarity you seek.
I find myself utterly perplexed by your line of reasoning. Why is it that you, as an atheist who maintains there is no God, feel such a profound need to demand justifications for His actions? If God does not exist—which is the very conviction you hold—how can you possibly expect an explanation for His deeds or His grand designs? And really, what is the purpose behind this? If you believe He isn't there, how can He be categorized as good or evil? What intention drives you to pose such a question? Is this pursuit not inherently contradictory in its own right? Or perhaps, is there a more cynical motive at play?
Allow me to step in and answer on your behalf. It seems you aren’t actually looking for an answer, nor do you truly care to find one. Even if someone were to present you with a perfectly logical response, would you even bother to entertain the thought? It appears quite obvious that questions like these are posed solely to provoke believers, serving no purpose other than to stir up unnecessary conflict.
The question of sickness, suffering, and death is something God has orchestrated exactly as He saw fit. Why He chose this specific design, however, remains a mystery to me; I can only offer my own conjectures. What I do know is that any meaningful progress demands struggle, hardship, labor, and deep reflection—without those elements, growth simply doesn't happen. If a human being, or indeed any living creature, were perfectly comfortable at all times, there would be no impetus to think or strive. One becomes complacent, stagnates, and eventually decays. This principle holds true for individuals, for nations, for entire civilizations, and for species alike. It applies to everything. Real advancement only occurs when we are forced to adapt, to innovate, to devise new solutions, and to push ourselves to achieve them. It is precisely our problems and tribulations that compel us toward that necessity. Have you ever considered the old adage, *per aspera ad astra*? Through hardships to the stars? It rings profoundly true. It is only through the crucible of suffering that true progress is forged.
If you were to raise a child under a metaphorical glass bell jar—shielding them from every potential hardship, insulating them from every possible danger, and smoothing out every bump in the road so they never have to lift a finger—would you truly be considered a good parent? If you provide everything on a silver platter, ensuring they never face a moment of struggle or necessity, what kind of human being are you actually cultivating? Can one truly claim to be nurturing a soul if the very essence of growth is stripped away by overprotection?
I certainly don't take issue with the notion that God endowed us with intelligence and everything else just so we could struggle through life on our own terms. However, if we follow that logic to its conclusion, how can we possibly describe Him as a good or just God while He sits by in silence, watching it all unfold without lifting a finger? It seems to me that we are simply facing a series of contradictions that believers choose to overlook.
It seems you aren't grasping the core of this at all. Truly, not one bit. It isn't as if God granted us intelligence merely so we could "struggle" aimlessly; rather, He gave us the capacity to apply ourselves, to strive through effort, and through that very labor, to evolve and become better versions of ourselves. Furthermore, the notion that God remains idle is simply incorrect. How can one possibly claim that the Creator of everything does nothing? Is that not a fundamental contradiction? And wouldn't a far greater contradiction be the idea that He first equipped and empowered us to think, learn, and progress independently, only to render His own gifts entirely useless by stepping in to solve every single problem on our behalf?
Have you ever paused to consider the sheer horror of lying broken on a street corner after a collision, watching as people simply walk past you without a second glance? Or perhaps even worse—imagine them stopping to grab a sandwich and a soda, sitting right there beside your dying body just to watch the life fade from your eyes, rather than reaching for their phones to call 911. It’s a thought that chills the blood, isn't it? I only want to say this: people capable of such indifference are nothing short of cruel.
Has it ever occurred to you to consider a different perspective? For most of us, death is something we instinctively dread—a terrifying finality that signals the absolute end. If I were to simply sit there and watch you pass away instead of offering my help, assuming only that something horrific awaits you, wouldn't that make me nothing more than a cruel and selfish person? But perhaps we should allow God to know more than we do. Christian doctrine, and indeed many religious teachings, suggest that death is far from being an ultimate conclusion. If God allows a person to die, is it not possible He knows this isn't a sentence to something cruel or terrible, but rather a transition from one phase of existence into the next? Have you ever truly contemplated whether God understands that earthly suffering and death are merely passing shadows rather than the end of our story? It stands to reason that God possesses a wisdom far beyond our own, understanding that everything occurring in this life serves a specific purpose—a purpose He alone fully grasps. There is a certain necessity in letting things take their natural course. After all, if God is the creator of all things, would it not be fundamentally illogical for Him to constantly interfere with the very processes and laws He established just to solve our immediate problems?
If we accept the premise that God designed the world and simultaneously engineered the early viruses and bacteria that cause us to sicken and die, then aren't we forced to admit that this reality was built specifically for us to suffer? If the very foundation of existence is laid with such biological cruelty, doesn't that suggest a world intentionally designed for misery? To me, such a design seems less like divine providence and more like the hallmark of a malevolent being.
God created everything, including viruses. He fashioned us—however imperfect we might be—as the pinnacle of His entire creative journey thus far. Yet, He didn't design the world and the cosmos exclusively for our benefit; He created them for all His creatures, and yes, that includes viruses. Even an atheist could likely concede that in the natural order, every single creation holds its own specific niche and purpose. That role might prove fatal or devastating to one being while remaining beneficial or even necessary to another. It is only through this complex interaction of all living things that life can persist, and that principle applies to humanity as well. Viruses do kill us sometimes; that is an undeniable truth. But they don't kill everyone. Some survive, emerging stronger and more resilient than before. Every instance of suffering, illness, or hardship exacts a toll, but those trials that do not destroy us serve to fortify us. The purpose of adversity, problems, or disease isn't to provide Him with some form of divine entertainment through our misery, but rather to refine us, allowing us to grow stronger and move forward.
And where exactly is this progress—which may seem agonizingly slow to us, yet remains undeniably real—supposed to lead? Truly, I do not know, nor do I possess the capacity to grasp it. Like any mere mortal, I can sense that we are heading somewhere, but the ultimate destination remains obscured from my view. I certainly do not believe such clarity will be granted to humanity anytime soon. However, one might assume that God knows infinitely more than we do, and therefore understands the final destination of our path. Given our inherent ignorance and our lack of maturity, should we really be accusing God of cruelty or malice? Just because certain phenomena and processes remain incompremedible to us, does it follow that they are inherently evil, or that the God governing them is wicked?
Let me put it simply at the end. Imagine you are a fifteen-year-old kid who wants to go out with friends. Your parents clothe you, feed you, and provide a roof over your head—all provided freely, without a shred of effort or merit on your part—and then you ask for pocket money. They give it to you once, twice, a hundred times... But then, the very first time your parents say there is no money available, and you find yourself unable to go out for a soda, what happens? Suddenly, those same parents—the ones who spent years tirelessly raising, feeding, clothing, and supporting you—are viewed as "evil" simply because they denied a single request. This is precisely how those of you who accuse God of being cruel and malicious tend to think.
Do you believe those commandments apply strictly to humans, or do they bind God as well?
Did God violate one of His own commandments when He carried out judgments in Egypt or sent the Great Flood?
The core issue of this debate—how it originally sparked—is your insistence that God is both good and just, yet He simultaneously kills and torments people, or simply watches them suffer without intervening. Previously, you argued that death is merely a passage to heaven and that suffering on Earth leads to greater rewards in the afterlife, which finally made your logic click for me. However, if it turns out that death might actually be nothing special—or even an absolute end—then you aren't truly certain that death guarantees a better existence. If that's the case, how can you so casually justify all the violence attributed to God, or the violence allowed to happen through His inaction? Why is it that when God wipes out all living things, you find a way to justify it, but if Hitler did the same, it's considered an ultimate evil? I don't follow that distinction.
Some have suggested that this is acceptable because God created us, making us His property, and therefore He can do with us whatever He pleases. Personally, I find that explanation rather unconvincing.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
