Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Good to see you admitting that you worship a deity that kills and tortures children.

If a theist accepts that pain and death is an intrinsic part of the human experience, and if worship of said deity helps you as a theist cope with the pain of your loss and suffering or the loss and suffering of loved ones, and worship changes your perception of yourself and your situation, why wouldn't you worship?

Experience indicates that the pain of death, loss, suffering are functions of having consciousness and a nervous system https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201409/feeling-pain-is-not-there- therefore pain seems to be an intrinsic part of the human condition. Consciousness also appears to be necessary to ponder on abstract concepts such as supernatural entities and spiritual experiences that allow pain to be part of the human condition.

If experience indicates that worship of the deity reduces the pain, then worship seems a reasonable choice to make even if the deity is also ultimately responsible for the pain if the deity is a god of the omnis.

People engage in actions such as worship to change themselves/ their emotional reactions/ their perceptions and outlook.

[Nearly Sane]

If a theist accepts that pain and death is an intrinsic part of the human experience, and if worship of said deity helps you as a theist cope with the pain of your loss and suffering or the loss and suffering of loved ones, and worship changes your perception of yourself and your situation, why wouldn't you worship?

Experience indicates that the pain of death, loss, suffering are functions of having consciousness and a nervous system https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201409/feeling-pain-is-not-there- therefore pain seems to be an intrinsic part of the human condition. Consciousness also appears to be necessary to ponder on abstract concepts such as supernatural entities and spiritual experiences that allow pain to be part of the human condition.

If experience indicates that worship of the deity reduces the pain, then worship seems a reasonable choice to make even if the deity is also ultimately responsible for the pain if the deity is a god of the omnis.

People engage in actions such as worship to change themselves/ their emotional reactions/ their perceptions and outlook.

If the deity choses to create child leukemia, then you would be worshipping the torturer and killer of children. Your post ignores that.

[Nearly Sane]

You are shifting the goal posts here, replacing death with Kill and pain with torture.
A God of everything would be the God of pain and death but not in the propagandists sense which you wish to convey. We have to ask ourselves what it means to be God of pain and death.

If you do not worship the God of everything then by your logic you hate love, life, goodness, healing etc.

Well  I don't believe in a god so that doesn't follow but you do, and you believe in one that you think tortures and kills children, and you worship that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If the deity choses to create child leukemia, then you would be worshipping the torturer and killer of children. Your post ignores that.

No it doesn't. My post addresses the point about theists whose children have child leukemia who also derive comfort from worship of the deity that is ultimately responsible for the existence of child leukemia. 

I said in my previous post "If experience indicates that worship of the deity reduces the pain, then worship seems a reasonable choice to make even if the deity is also ultimately responsible for the pain if the deity is a god of the omnis."

[Nearly Sane]

No it doesn't. My post addresses the point about theists whose children have child leukemia who also derive comfort from worship of the deity that is ultimately responsible for the existence of child leukemia. 

I said in my previous post "If experience indicates that worship of the deity reduces the pain, then worship seems a reasonable choice to make even if the deity is also ultimately responsible for the pain if the deity is a god of the omnis."

No, that doesn't address the issue at all. If you think that your god created child leukemia then you are also worshipping the torture and murder of those children, and not all parents do derive comfort from a belief in God so you worship that god making them suffer too, and delight in that pain.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, that doesn't address the issue at all. If you think that your god created child leukemia then you are also worshipping the torture and murder of those children, and not all parents do derive comfort from a belief in God so you worship that god making them suffer too, and delight in that pain.

I did not say all parents derive comfort from a belief in God. You really need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills or just be less in a rush and excitable when you post on this forum.

Sometimes I feel like I am training an intern when having discussions with you on here. Read through what I wrote and it will probably help you to respond more accurately to the actual point I made if you quote the relevant line you are addressing.

Try again but this time try to quote the line you are referring to rather than the whole post, and try to comprehend the words written - take a moment to use a dictionary if it helps.

[Nearly Sane]

I did not say all parents derive comfort from a belief in God. You really need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills or just be less in a rush and excitable when you post on this forum.

Sometimes I feel like I am training an intern when having discussions with you on here. Read through what I wrote and it will probably help you to respond more accurately to the actual point I made if you quote the relevant line you are addressing.

Try again but this time try to quote the line you are referring to rather than the whole post, and try to comprehend the words written - take a moment to use a dictionary if it helps.

You might want to take your own advice because ai didn't say you did but rather you ignored thar, and the pain of the children.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well  I don't believe in a god so that doesn't follow but you do, and you believe in one that you think tortures and kills children, and you worship that.

Yes I know what you are driving at but Someone who worships "My God" worships the God who is over death and pain and determines their ultimate effects and consequences and has promised an end.

Your equation of torture with pain remains dubious.
Beyond that, Do you have any experience or understanding of worshipping anything?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I know what you are driving at but Someone who worships "My God" worships the God who is over death and pain and determines their ultimate effects and consequences and has promised an end.

Your equation of torture with pain remains dubious.
Beyond that, Do you have any experience or understanding of worshipping anything?

  Is the child with leukemia in pain, and dying. Did the god you worship create that leukemia? Could it stop it? Then it seems a perfectly sensible equation. Why do you think it is dubious?


As to your courtier's reply, not sure what you mean by worship, I was just going on the general definition of it. Why don't you explain what you mean by it?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You might want to take your own advice because ai didn't say you did but rather you ignored thar, and the pain of the children.

This is what you wrote. I did not mention "comfort" in my post, so why did you write "and not all parents do derive comfort from a belief in God" in response to my post?

and not all parents do derive comfort from a belief in God so you worship that god making them suffer too, and delight in that pain.

What I wrote (for the 3rd time) is "If experience indicates that worship of the deity reduces the pain, then worship seems a reasonable choice to make even if the deity is also ultimately responsible for the pain if the deity is a god of the omnis."

What are you suggesting instead - that theist parents of children with leukaemia are in pain at seeing their children suffer and if experience shows them that worship reduces their pain, they should still choose not to worship because worship would upset some other atheist parents?

If atheist parents are in pain - it's up to them to figure out and do whatever helps them cope that isn't against the law.

Why would I as a theist stop doing what I am doing to reduce my pain because an atheist parent doesn't want to do the same thing? 

 

[Nearly Sane]

This is what you wrote. I did not mention "comfort" in my post, so why did you write "and not all parents do drive comfort from a belief in God" in response to my post?
What I wrote (for the 3rd time) is "If experience indicates that worship of the deity reduces the pain, then worship seems a reasonable choice to make even if the deity is also ultimately responsible for the pain if the deity is a god of the omnis."

What are you suggesting instead - that theist parents of children with leukaemia are in pain at seeing their children suffer and if experience shows them that worship reduces their pain, they should still choose not to worship because worship would upset some other atheist parents?

If atheist parents are in pain - it's up to them to figure out and do whatever helps them cope that isn't against the law.

Why would I as a theist stop doing what I am doing to reduce my pain because an atheist parent doesn't want to do the same thing?

Yes, it is what I wrote and all it's doing is pointing out that not all such parents do feel derive comfort from a belief in a god and that your post ignored that, so wasn't dealing with the issue.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Is the child with leukemia in pain, and dying. Did the god you worship create that leukemia? Could it stop it? Then it seems a perfectly sensible equation. Why do you think it is dubious?


As to your courtier's reply, not sure what you mean by worship, I was just going on the general definition of it. Why don't you explain what you mean by it?

We have been through this before. We know the evolutionary purpose of pain so the verdict pain is bad is doubtful and I notice people now talk about unnecessary suffering rather than equate it with torture which seems hyperbolic. You seem to be asking for either a world where God works on a whim or one where nothing happens.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, it is what I wrote and all it's doing is pointing out that not all such parents do feel derive comfort from a belief in a god and that your post ignored that, so wasn't dealing with the issue.

I can't ignore something I wasn't asked to address. Just to clarify so I know what you want a response to - are you suggesting theists should stop worshipping because theist worship upsets atheists?

If you are suggesting that, it sounds like the argument by some prejudiced people that Muslim women who wear hijab should stop wearing hijab because it upsets some other people to see women in hijab.   

[Nearly Sane]

We have been through this before. We know the evolutionary purpose of pain so the verdict pain is bad is doubtful and I notice people now talk about unnecessary suffering rather than equate it with torture which seems hyperbolic. You seem to be asking for either a world where God works on a whim or one where nothing happens.

None of that follows. If your god chooses to create pain, and can stop it, and chooses not to, then it's torture. The deliberate infliction of pain.

You worship that.

Will there be leukemia in heaven?

[Nearly Sane]

I can't ignore something I wasn't asked to address. Just to clarify - are you suggesting theists should stop worshipping because a theist worshipping upsets atheists?

If you are suggesting that, it sounds like the argument by some prejudiced people that Muslim women who wear hijab should stop wearing hijab because it upsets some other people to see women in hijab.

I raised that you hadn't addressed it. Now you are still ignoring it.

I have no idea how you get to your second paragraph.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I raised that you hadn't addressed it. Now you are still ignoring it.

Ignoring what? That atheists parents are upset their children have leukaemia? I didn't ignore it - I suggested atheist parents find a strategy to try to reduce their pain about seeing their children suffering. What is it you wanted me to say for you to feel that I am not ignoring it?

You are ignoring my question - are you suggesting theists should stop worshipping if a theist worshipping upsets atheists?

I have no idea how you get to your second paragraph.

I'll tell you how after you answer the question - do you think theists should stop worshipping a deity if theist worship upsets atheists? 

[Nearly Sane]

Ignoring what? That atheists parents are upset their children have leukaemia? I didn't ignore it - I suggested atheist parents find a strategy to try to reduce their pain about seeing their children suffering. What is it you wanted me to say for you to feel that I am not ignoring it?

You are ignoring my question - are you suggesting theists should stop worshipping if a theist worshipping upsets atheists?
I'll tell you how after you answer the question - do you think theists should stop worshipping a deity if theist worship upsets atheists?

No, I don't think they should. I think it's entirely irrelevant to the issue of worshipping a god that tortures and murders children.  I'm suggesting that worshipping such a god  is  an odd choice but you can obviously do that if you want. Perhaps you are suggesting a version  of Stockholm syndrome.

And I didn't specify atheist parents, though they would be in the group of those not deriving comfort from a god, they would not be the complete set.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, I don't think they should. I think it's entirely irrelevant to the issue of worshipping a god that tortures and murders children.  I'm suggesting that worshipping such a god  is  an odd choice but you can obviously do that if you want. Perhaps you are suggesting a version  of Stockholm syndrome.

If you want to make a case that theists have a version of Stockholm syndrome, it's up to you to try to argue it.

Perhaps start by defining your terms - for example how are you defining Stockholm syndrome?

Then go on to explain how you would establish that I was a captive of or held hostage by a deity that you don't believe exists.

Then I suggest you lay out how you established that the deity that you don't believe exists is delighting in the pain of torturing children and their parents. For example what criteria would you use to establish the presence of an emotion such as "delight" and how would you apply it to a deity? Over to you. This should be interesting.

And I didn't specify atheist parents, though they would be in the group of those not deriving comfort from a god, they would not be the complete set.

And I only specified theist parents who find their pain reduces when they worship their deity - I didn't specify all theist parents. What's your point? We have established that you think theist parents who have children with leukaemia and who find their pain reduces through worship, should continue to worship if they wish. Does it matter whether the ones who don't find their pain reduces through worship are theist or atheist? 

Whether people people prefer to take aspirin or ibuprofen to reduce pain or whether they prefer to sing, do breathing exercises or Qigong to reduce pain or whether they worship a deity to reduce pain is a matter for them to decide, so long as they are not breaking any laws. Some Kung Fu practitioners find that Qigong does not help them reduce pain. Some people find paracetamol works better for them than aspirin or ibuprofen in reducing pain. Clearly we're not all exactly the same. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of that follows. If your god chooses to create pain, and can stop it, and chooses not to, then it's torture. The deliberate infliction of pain.

You worship that.

Will there be leukemia in heaven?

First of all. When pain stops, who stops it.
Secondly worship is derived I believe from worth or value.
Is it possible to find value in death? Is it possible to find value in pain?
Thirdly your equation of pain and torture. I feel you are asking me to choose between pain being a survival warning mechanism or pain being torture which it could be argued that it is the misuse of pain. torture


[ tawr-cher ]

Phonetic (Standard)
IPA
noun
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
a method of inflicting such pain.

I take it this is what you are driving at.

Will there be leukaemia in heaven I would say no.
I also worship pain relief and pain elimination by your logic.

[Gordon]

First of all. When pain stops, who stops it.

Death, drugs or recovery.

Secondly worship is derived I believe from worth or value.

Smashing.

Is it possible to find value in death?

Only as a release from suffering.

Is it possible to find value in pain?

Only as a warning to seek medical advice or to stop doing whatever is causing the pain (such as banging your head on a brick wall).

It is you, I presume, who believes in an interventionist 'God' (which is why you pray to it) and that this 'God' is all-good and all-loving. It's called the 'Problem of Evil', Vlad, and it is for you to address that problem - so feel free, but no fallacies please.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Death, drugs or recovery.

Smashing.

Only as a release from suffering.

Only as a warning to seek medical advice or to stop doing whatever is causing the pain (such as banging your head on a brick wall).

I don't think it's as simplistic as that.

MRI scans of the brain have shown that meditation can make pain undetectable  in the brain https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/04/08/135146672/even-beginners-can-curb-pain-with-meditation

A Shaolin monk was able to submerge his hand in ice cold water while undergoing an MRI scan and the monk's brain measured very little pain points.

So it is not just death, drugs and recovery that stops pain. Your brain can be trained to not register pain.

And learning to overcome or minimise pain can be a useful skill to have, given we have the ability to feel pain (as well as pleasure). So you don't always have to take the option to just stopping doing whatever is causing the pain. Shaolin monks can train whereby they can break wooden sticks over their head without getting injured even though an ordinary person would end up with concussion. One of the ways they achieve this is by training to deal with pain and physical blows.

It is you, I presume, who believes in an interventionist 'God' (which is why you pray to it) and that this 'God' is all-good and all-loving. It's called the 'Problem of Evil', Vlad, and it is for you to address that problem - so feel free, but no fallacies please.

Given that whether a person believes in some concept of God or not, they are still going to encounter pain and will have to figure out a way to manage it - whether it is at the altar of alcohol or via some medication/ drugs or through meditation or suicide or euthanasia, just trying to clarify what point atheists are attempting to make here about theists managing pain or pleasure or any other emotion or feeling by worshipping deities?

[Gordon]

 
Given that whether a person believes in some concept of God or not, they are still going to encounter pain and will have to figure out a way to manage it - whether it is at the altar of alcohol or via some medication/ drugs or through meditation or suicide or euthanasia, just trying to clarify what point atheists are attempting to make here about theists managing pain or pleasure or any other emotion or feeling by worshipping deities?

That isn't a point I'm making though - I'd simply like to understand how theists who believe in an interventionist, all-loving and good 'God' that they pray to are able to reconcile their beliefs to, say, the death of children from various childhood cancers.

It seems to me that their theistic beliefs are not a good fit with what happens to some small people.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That isn't a point I'm making though - I'd simply like to understand how theists who believe in an interventionist, all-loving and good 'God' that they pray to are able to reconcile their beliefs to, say, the death of children from various childhood cancers.

It seems to me that their theistic beliefs are not a good fit with what happens to some small people.

It depends on the theist and their particular belief so I can only speak for myself.

If theists believe in a god that has the power to intervene but doesn't, I think theists just assume there is a spiritual reason for the lack of intervention.

My concept / belief is that there is a lot I can't know or understand about why things happen. Becoming a theist has not given me any more knowledge about why any particular event happened to me or someone I love compared to when I was an atheist.

As a theist I can frame my ideas in a different language but obviously I can't "know" in the demonstrable sense of the word any more than I did when I was an atheist. My theistic beliefs feel like a good fit with what I observe in the world, in so much as I think a lot of the stories about god are there to illustrate a view or perspective or lesson about life e.g. on ways you can manage your experiences and your reactions to experiences in the context of both believing in a spiritual aspect to our existence and creating some kind of moral guidance to navigate community interactions.

I have no idea what you mean by "all-loving" or "good" - there is no one standard meaning in morality and different people have different understandings of what "love" or "good" is or means to them, especially in relation to  spiritual concepts and spiritual development.

I have different expectations when it comes to experiences of spiritual development compared to my expectations in a relationship with another human being.

I also have different expectations of relationships from a global community perspective to the ones I have for inter-personal relationships so while I won't shoot some stranger walking down my road, I did sign up for the army at university so presumably I was prepared to shoot complete strangers if required to, in that context of being part of a nation on the global stage. I have no idea if that makes me a good, bad or loving person - depends on your perspective I suppose. 

As I said, I don't take religious stories literally, so that probably explains why my beliefs fit with the stories - I think religious stories are just a vehicle to convey a lesson or perspective in a particular situation or context that can also be translated to other situations, because story-telling can be an effective engaging way to to communicate with many people. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Death, drugs or recovery.

Yes those are the what’s of stopping suffering

Only as a release from suffering.

Only? Some would say that is of huge value. Some would say it is an aid to ecological stability

Only as a warning to seek medical advice or to stop doing whatever is causing the pain (such as banging your head on a brick wall).

Again, that’s pretty important isn’t it?

It is you, I presume, who believes in an interventionist 'God'

Any suspension of the laws of physics, I would argue , is so rare that it has a specialised terminology. It strikes me that atheist commentators would have God suspending physics in all kinds of peculiar and contradictory circumstances leading to an unreliable and unreasonable universe, in order to satisfy their own definition of goodness.
In other words, God, for some atheists, isn’t interventionist enough.

(which is why you pray to it) and that this 'God' is all-good and all-loving. It's called the 'Problem of Evil', Vlad, and it is for you to address that problem

I think we have to deal with the problems of the terms all good and all loving. There are some for whom all good means the eolimination of any suffering whatsoever. Personally alarm bells go off when people put all good, an immeasurable, in with the same category as something like all knowing or all powerful. I prefer the term maximally good, maximally powerful so we are left with the question would any other physics or level and type of divine intervention be any more good than the world we have? Given the promises of God including the certainty and coherence of God’ laws of nature, I would say this is as good a God as it is possible to have. As for evil. That is the privation of good.
[/quote]

[Gordon]

As I said, I don't take religious stories literally, so that probably explains why my beliefs fit with the stories - I think religious stories are just a vehicle to convey a lesson or perspective in a particular situation or context that can also be translated to other situations, because story-telling can be an effective engaging way to to communicate with many people.

It seems then that your conception of 'God' is more of a personal idea, where stories about it are illustrative of various approaches to navigating one's way through life, where 'God' for you doesn't actively interact with what passes for reality as you live it on a daily basis.

This is very different to the 'God of the Omnis' that some Christian tend to expound - such as Alan's thoughts about each of us having our very own slice of 'God' constantly operating in our daily lives and thinking (his 'soul' notion).