Thank God I'm An Atheist (Warning: STRONG Content)

[zanket]

Man are you retarded?

Are you capable of rational discussion?

Christians claim god is benevolent, how the hell can any being be benevolent when evil exists in a world supposedly created by this "benevolent deity"?. It's a contradiction to the word "benevolence".

I have amply shown that the evil is good from a different perspective. Then there is no contradiction.

One can't be all good, and then create evil.

If the evil is good from a different perspective, one can.

 

[zanket]

Amen brother SnakeLord! Puh-raise Gawd!

Were that the best argument I had against someone's position, I'd seriously reconsider my own views.

 

[§outh§tar]

That's another issue entirely, and I don't consider natural disasters evil at all.

evil
a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS

I don't know if you are behaving this way to be funny or if you really mean it..

If your house gets washed away by the Mississippi flooding and you rebuild on the same spot, and it gets washed away again.
Is that Gods' fault?
I don't see how.

Do you know who preordained the Mississippi river to flood at precise locations and times?

I said the vast majority of human suffering.
I said nothing about natural disasters.

So this "vast majority" of human suffering (apart from natural disaster) is (for the most part) man's fault? Simple yes or no.

 

[§outh§tar]

Isn't this thread about a real God rather than a fictional character in a book?

Why again is your version real?

 

[one_raven]

Now that is simply a load of unsupportable crap. Can you name some humans who were responsible for the recent tsunamis, or tornados, or droughts, or floods, or earthquakes?

As I said, I don't think natural disaters are "evil" at all.
That is really no different than saying that death itself is evil (a natural disaster is simply death on a wider scale) and I don't see death as evil in any way.
I don't see how any atheist that beleives in the natural order of things and believes that nature is benign and has no cognizant driving force could possibly refer to natural disasters as "evil". Either he is beiong dishonest, or in denial. Either way, he is being a hypocrite.

Also your claim that humans have free will is NOT found in the Bible. If you can't provide proper and thorough corroboration of this, then your argument is pretty useless.

Please stop with the silly bullshit games.
First of all, neither of the two quotes you just posted are in the Bible, nor is most of what anyone said in this thread.
Does that make it pretty useless?
No.
Besides, there is the direct implication in the Bible toward free-will.
Jesus said you can choose to follow him or not.
That directly implies free-will, regardless of whether the term is used.
How may times is the word tsunami used in the Bible?

I did not say, nor would say that people who are suffering are justly suffering due to their own sins.
I DO think, however, that the humanity is suffering as a result of humanity's sins.
People who are starving to death are not to blame for their own suffering, people who know about starving children, and do nothing (or not enough) about it are to blame (including myself).

 

[one_raven]

evil
a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS

Yes, and the first definition is:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Are you trying to get into this pedantic argument of sematics simply to obscure the real issue?

How can an atheist who claims to believe in a benign nature and natural law claim ANY natural disater is "evil"?
By definition, it is benign.

Do you know who preordained the Mississippi river to flood at precise locations and times?

Well, since I have already stated that I believe in free will, and free will and pre-destination can not fully co-exist then the answer to that would be:
NO ONE DID.

So this "vast majority" of human suffering (apart from natural disaster) is (for the most part) man's fault? Simple yes or no.

I already gave that a simple yes.

 

[§outh§tar]

Yes, and the first definition is:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Are you trying to get into this pedantic argument of sematics simply to obscure the real issue?

How can an atheist who claims to believe in a benign nature and natural law claim ANY natural disater is "evil"?
By definition, it is benign.


Well, since I have already stated that I believe in free will, and free will and pre-destination can not fully co-exist then the answer to that would be:
NO ONE DID.

I already gave that a simple yes.

My comments were in reference to your defense of the Christian God, regardless of whether or not you were a Christian. Now you are back inside the atheist costume all of a sudden. :bugeye:

 

[§outh§tar]

As I said, I don't think natural disaters are "evil" at all.
That is really no different than saying that death itself is evil (a natural disaster is simply death on a wider scale) and I don't see death as evil in any way.
I don't see how any atheist that beleives in the natural order of things and believes that nature is benign and has no cognizant driving force could possibly refer to natural disasters as "evil". Either he is beiong dishonest, or in denial. Either way, he is being a hypocrite.

Like I said before, play the Christian game, then hide in the atheist costume.

Please stop with the silly bullshit games.
First of all, neither of the two quotes you just posted are in the Bible, nor is most of what anyone said in this thread.
Does that make it pretty useless?
No.
Besides, there is the direct implication in the Bible toward free-will.
Jesus said you can choose to follow him or not.
That directly implies free-will, regardless of whether the term is used.
How may times is the word tsunami used in the Bible?

Like I said before, play the Christian game, then hide in the atheist costume.

I did not say, nor would say that people who are suffering are justly suffering due to their own sins.
I DO think, however, that the humanity is suffering as a result of humanity's sins.
People who are starving to death are not to blame for their own suffering, people who know about starving children, and do nothing (or not enough) about it are to blame (including myself).

Like I said before, play the Christian game, then hide in the atheist costume.

 

[one_raven]

My comments were in reference to your defense of the Christian God, regardless of whether or not you were a Christian. Now you are back inside the atheist costume all of a sudden. :bugeye:

I have made no arguments in defense of the Christian God.
If you beleieve otherwise, either you misunderstood me, I wasn't clear enough or you are just seeing what you want to see.
My arguments were simply that, regardless of whether you agree with Christian doctrine, saying that God can not exist simply due to the fact that "evil" exists in thsi world is not a valid argument.

I am not playing any game, nor am I an any costume.
I am not a Christian, nor am I an atheist, actually (nor did I ever claim to be one, in fact, I have specifically stated that I am NOT a Christian).
I am simply making what I see as valid arguments (and here's the key) WITHOUT an agenda. I am doing what seems to be so rare here and arguing HONESTLY.

You seem to have misunderstood one important point.
When I said "I don't see how any atheist that beleives in the natural order of things and believes that nature is benign and has no cognizant driving force could possibly refer to natural disasters as "evil". Either he is beiong dishonest, or in denial. Either way, he is being a hypocrite. "
I didn't call myself an atheist, I am saying that if YOU claim to be an atheist, and claim natual disasters are evil at the same time, then YOU are a hypocrite.

Rather than arguing trying to further the atheistic agenda or the Christian agenda and playing tired old games of hyperbole and shaky semantics and playing both sides of the field at the same time (i.e. "I am an atheist, so I don't beleive in God, therefore nature does not have a cognizant diety lording over it. However, since evil exists God must not, simple proof is earthquakes and other natural disaters." Is simple abject hypocricy and it is a dishonest attempt to simply "win" a debate.).

Please explain to me how

play the Christian game, then hide in the atheist costume.

Follows from

Please stop with the silly bullshit games.
First of all, neither of the two quotes you just posted are in the Bible, nor is most of what anyone said in this thread.
Does that make it pretty useless?
No.
Besides, there is the direct implication in the Bible toward free-will.
Jesus said you can choose to follow him or not.
That directly implies free-will, regardless of whether the term is used.
How may times is the word tsunami used in the Bible?

in any way at all, because I can't see it.

For that matter, how does

I did not say, nor would say that people who are suffering are justly suffering due to their own sins.
I DO think, however, that the humanity is suffering as a result of humanity's sins.
People who are starving to death are not to blame for their own suffering, people who know about starving children, and do nothing (or not enough) about it are to blame (including myself).

Lead to it either?

It makes no sense to me, so maybe I am missing something, or maybe you are just out of arguments, so you are trying to discount mine rather than actually addressing them.
Please address my arguments, or simply don't waste either my time or yours.

 

[one_raven]

Please remember that the simple fact that someone disagrees with an atheist's reasoning does not imply that the person is a Christian.

All of the arguments you have made in this thread and the simplistic attitudes (us vs. THEM) you have displayed in this thread makes it appear (not that it's the truth, just how it appears to me) that you are not an atheist, rather simply an ex-Christian pissed off at the Christian God.
There IS a difference, you know.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yes, that is what I’m saying. I didn’t ignore you. I thought I had already made myself clear.

Yeah, but it's such a perverse and deranged notion, I had to mention it twice just to be certain.

Who says I’m ignoring their misery? I need not ignore it to appreciate it. As I said, some of us enjoy helping them.

You know, it's just the way people say or type things, but in this instance the "some of us", actually implies that you mean anyone other than me. Ok admittedly when this recent tragedy occured I was the only person sitting down saying "woohoo, thousands of people have died, now I know why I love going to the cinema", but in actuality I do care about the starving millions, so the "some of us" doesn't really apply. Of course having listened to your tripe I intend to go to London tomorrow, find the first available street tramp and laugh at him. I will point, laugh and tell him that thanks to him I am now aware of what it's like to have a house. I do wonder if telling him he's a hero will make the situation any better.

As for 'ignoring their misery'.. that's exactly what you do when you try to make it a necessity. We need them, just so we can understand the benefit of thongs and chocolate mousse. Without them, we wont understand anything and life would be boring. As a result, we actually ignore their plight, and instead consider it a requirement to our own happiness. This doesn't mean we don't toss them a £10 note and say; "dig a hole you lazy bastard", but that we don't truly see it from their perspective.

But! Let's explore your way of thinking for a moment..

Instead of saying you need to see a homeless man in order to understand what it's like to have a home, it would serve you much more to not have a home in order to appreciate having a home when you eventually buy one.

From this angle, it would benefit you a great deal to give away everything you own and go live the life of one of these children. Will you do that? It would give you the appreciation you claim is needed so much. Are you all mouth or do you have the bollocks? It's more along the lines of "to appreciate rum and raisin ice cream, one must taste it", instead of; "to appreciate rum and raisin ice cream one must try coffee ice cream" - which is quite clearly the daftest notion any person can adhere to given the subject matter.

You don't need to see poor people to appreciate being rich, you need to be poor to appreciate being rich. Try it on if you have the guts.

That is the way you see things.. no? So.. will you do it?

Agreed, they need not suffer for that.

Earlier you were telling me it's a requirement. I even bought it up a couple of times to which you said: "Yes, that is what I’m saying. I didn’t ignore you. I thought I had already made myself clear."

What you were saying is that these people do need to suffer otherwise, dare I quote, "our lives would suck".

We can ourselves suffer and recover, or empathize with others who have suffered in the past.

And so, with our ability to empathize with others who have suffered in the past, there is no need for people to be suffering now right? There is zero need for these people to be starving to death because by now we already understand what suffering is and as such our lives don't "suck" right? So then, why are these people suffering if, as you say very briefly, "there's no need", even though before that you claimed there is a need otherwise our lives would suck?

So basically in short, god is just fucking up their lives for the sake of it? Don't tell me it's man's fault. We did not arrange the enivronment, we did not dry up their lakes, infect them with diseases or kill their cattle. What we as humans did, was feed them, clothe them, educate them, inoculate them, and with every possible step go against gods design and your need for them to suffer just so you can enjoy your spiderman 2 quilt cover.

“Nice” is a relative term, no?

Dood, it's just a word written in a short forum post. Would you like me to exchange it? But hell, any word could come across as a "relative term". The only thing that comes across as a bonefide absolute to you people is "god did it". Let's explore that angle.. How did we get here? "god did it", how did man come to be? "god did it", why are there two year old children infested with diseases, living in some shithole country? "god did it".

Why give up after the first two? It's bizarre because it's what the religious man does... How did we get here? "god did it", how did man come to be? "god did it", why are there two year old children infested with diseases, living in some shithole country? "oh yeah uhh... yeah uhh.. man did it".

Twats.

Of course it gets even worse than that with the: "we need them to rot", and "gods testing the westerners".

You guys are fucked up beyond all belief. Anything to try an excuse your worthless little lives. "But god, I made one of them my slave and saved him from the burning desert.. don't I deserve a place in your city full of gold and rubies?" or "Hey god, thanks for making the starving millions, it sure made me appreciate being a rich fucker".

Or perhaps my personal favourite: "thanks for drowning everyone with that tsunami, makes me appreciate living in a country that isn't on a fault line".

Were the temperature of everything exactly 72 degrees, would we have a word for temperature? No.

The word temperature would be redundant sure, but 72 degrees would still exist, and be understood by us regardless to whether temperature changed or not. You're evading the issues with a word game. Nobody gives a shit whether the word would be in the dictionary or not, but it does not prevent that temperature from existing. We wouldn't talk about the weather, but we'd still know and understand everything there is to know about living at 72 degrees.

In general, whatever the subject is (taste, temperature, fear, etc.), it must be measurable to be experienced. Without the ability to experience it, it cannot be felt or appreciated or scorned. To be measurable there must be different levels of it, so that any given level can be compared to the other levels.

Ok, as shown earlier, I am left with one question to this... Have you actually experience dying to a disease in a country with nothing, under the scorching sun? So if you haven't experienced it, what are you comparing your own life to? Does a story of their suffering really do it justice? If you say yes here, and a simple story of suffering does suffice, then we can discard your earlier arguments that these people actually need to suffer for you to appreciate your own life. As said earlier, all you'd need is a story of times past or some other suffering story without experience of it, to make our lives not "suck". We have that already, so why is their suffering a requirement, and why is god forcing it upon them?

You have not made your case. If beer were the first thing you ever tasted, your brain would compare it to your saliva, your default taste.

And so if happiness was the first thing you ever experienced, your brain would compare it to the starving millions in Africa? I'm sorry, happiness only becomes happiness once you see someone sad?

The very first thing my child did when she was born was cry. Does that mean her brain had compared it to the non-existant laughter that was to come later? Had she somehow experienced laughter to understand her crying? I don't think so.

Sight is compared at least to when your eyes are closed. You are blind then.

Actually you're not, but I guess you need to experience blindness to realise that. Whoopsie, you haven't experienced blindness. I guess because of that you don't have the ability to see.

I suggest focusing on the temperature, a more clear-cut example. Were the temperature of everything exactly 72 degrees, could we appreciate the temperature?

As explained above. No, you wouldn't have the word "temperature", or acknowledge that the temperature can be different than what it is, but you would still understand that it's 72 degrees. If there were no sadness, you wouldn't know what it's like to be sad, but you would still know how to smile.

I don’t see how this question applies to what I wrote.

Experiencing blindness at last heh?

You didn’t show how it is that.

I don't have to. You made the claim that "life is eternal". It is upon you to back that up. I can relay a hell of a fucking lot of evidence to show life is not eternal. So, as the onus is on you, feel free to show that which you claim.

I gave it; the past life re-experience.

What, your statement is now considered evidence? If so, here's another: There's a big purple orang utan sitting on Mars.

According to me obviously. I am not in the field, nor is it hoo-hah. Go see for yourself, or not, as you wish.

Well as luck would have it, (call it gods will), I am in a related field. In my profession, (psychology), we regard hypnotherapists as a bunch of cowboys. It's like trying to compare a fiat uno with a lamborghini countach. They have zero credibility when it comes to past lives, alien abductions, my wifes mother once upon a time being Ghandi or anything even remotely close to that. I eagerly await just one instance where you can show validity in this field and circumstance. The onus is again on you, because you said it were true. Understand? I mean, what gets to me is the "no im not in the field...." "....but it's all true".

Absolute nincompoopness.

The kids themselves. They are the heroes by their own choice. Whatever their names are, those are the names in this lifetime of theirs.

This has nothing to do with my quote. I didn't ask who the hero was, we all know it's the slave folk who are only there so we can appreciate freedom. What I asked was who chooses for it to be this way? You said "most" of us do. I'm asking you for one name. One person who chooses for little children to die in the most disgusting manner imaginable before they even reach the age of 3.

 

[§outh§tar]

All of the arguments you have made in this thread and the simplistic attitudes (us vs. THEM) you have displayed in this thread...

Don't remember doing this, if you could refresh my memory for me with some quotes.

makes it appear (not that it's the truth, just how it appears to me) that you are not an atheist, rather simply an ex-Christian pissed off at the Christian God.
There IS a difference, you know.

An ex-Christian pissed at something he doesn't believe in. Aah.

 

[§outh§tar]

I have made no arguments in defense of the Christian God.
If you beleieve otherwise, either you misunderstood me, I wasn't clear enough or you are just seeing what you want to see.
My arguments were simply that, regardless of whether you agree with Christian doctrine, saying that God can not exist simply due to the fact that "evil" exists in thsi world is not a valid argument.

I gave some quotes from two writers to show that it is. I guess you just forgot to address those. Oops!

I am not playing any game, nor am I an any costume.
I am not a Christian, nor am I an atheist, actually (nor did I ever claim to be one, in fact, I have specifically stated that I am NOT a Christian).
I am simply making what I see as valid arguments (and here's the key) WITHOUT an agenda. I am doing what seems to be so rare here and arguing HONESTLY.

Maybe you should have read my response to Jenyar first. I said I am only an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in the Christian God. The title of the thread is only borrowed from another article I was reading. Funny how I end up misunderstanding you.

You seem to have misunderstood one important point.
When I said "I don't see how any atheist that beleives in the natural order of things and believes that nature is benign and has no cognizant driving force could possibly refer to natural disasters as "evil". Either he is beiong dishonest, or in denial. Either way, he is being a hypocrite. "
I didn't call myself an atheist, I am saying that if YOU claim to be an atheist, and claim natual disasters are evil at the same time, then YOU are a hypocrite.

In case you didn't read what I wrote to you on the other page, I am trying to say the Christian God is incoherent with the existence of evil. You really should read those quotes through, or at least clarify with me if you don't understand.

Please explain to me how

Follows from

in any way at all, because I can't see it.

For that matter, how does

Lead to it either?

It makes no sense to me, so maybe I am missing something, or maybe you are just out of arguments, so you are trying to discount mine rather than actually addressing them.
Please address my arguments, or simply don't waste either my time or yours.

I'm not sure how I'm "out of arguments" when you apparently never read mine but ok..
If you read your posts carefully, you will find that much of your rhetoric is very similar, if not identical, to that used by Christian apologists. So now you know. Funny how you never cared to even address those quotes and yet you say I'm wasting your time. Har Har Har.

 

[one_raven]

I gave some quotes from two writers to show that it is. I guess you just forgot to address those. Oops!

Actually, the response to those trite arguments was:

I did not say, nor would say that people who are suffering are justly suffering due to their own sins.
I DO think, however, that the humanity is suffering as a result of humanity's sins.
People who are starving to death are not to blame for their own suffering, people who know about starving children, and do nothing (or not enough) about it are to blame (including myself).

Along with all I have said on this thread already.

Maybe you should have read my response to Jenyar first. I said I am only an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in the Christian God. The title of the thread is only borrowed from another article I was reading. Funny how I end up misunderstanding you.

I apologize for that.
Apparently I got confused about who was what flavor of atheist in this thread.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

In case you didn't read what I wrote to you on the other page, I am trying to say the Christian God is incoherent with the existence of evil. You really should read those quotes through, or at least clarify with me if you don't understand.

I did read that.
I understand what you said.
I disagree, and think I clearly pointed out why.
I don't see natural disasters as "evil" as I said, and Mankind is the purveyor of evil in the world under the power of his own free will.
Although I do not agree with Christian doctrine and do not believe in the Christian God, the two (Evil and the Christian God) are not mutually exclusive.

If you read your posts carefully, you will find that much of your rhetoric is very similar, if not identical, to that used by Christian apologists. So now you know. Funny how you never cared to even address those quotes and yet you say I'm wasting your time. Har Har Har.

I know they are.
I have read quite a few arguments on both sides, some I agree with one side, some I agree with the other.
It doesn't matter the least to me if what I say get's an "Amen" from Christians or not.
Likewise, I could care less what atheists or agnostics agree with me or not.
I am just telling my truth as I see it.
I DO think that the Christian God is insoluable for quite a few reasons.
The existence of evil, however, is not one of them. I have read the arguments in this thread, and have not yet seen anything that has changed my mind.

 

[§outh§tar]

Although I do not agree with Christian doctrine and do not believe in the Christian God, the two (Evil and the Christian God) are not mutually exclusive.

Ok, let's rehash and tell me why evil and the Christian God are not mutually exclusive.

 

[zanket]

Why again is your version real?

The question didn't imply it was.

 

[Godless]

Are you capable of rational discussion?

And do you have any clue what "benevolent" means?.

Theist claim god to be benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. For a deity to be all this and let evil exist, happen, cause it, know about it, and do nothing about it. Is a scoundrel I would rather not worship.

I don't see natural disasters as "evil" as I said, and Mankind is the purveyor of evil in the world under the power of his own free will.

Ya! you are right natural disasters just happen it's not evil it's our perception that we cosider natural disasters as evil. However when theist claim a deity with omnipotent power, benevolence and these tragedies do accur they call them "acts of god" thus this contradicts a benevolence of this deity when he has the omnipotent power to will it or not to accur. So if god is omnipotent, and does nothing to stop a Tsunami or cause it. He's a kid throwing a tantrum, and killing children by starvation, or letting a man rape a child, murder, etc...Where is the benevolence?

click

G.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

OK. If “God” is the character in the bible, then yes, “God” obviously does not exist in reality.

It's not obvious to everyone or else there would not be believers .

Isn't this thread about a real God rather than a fictional character in a book?

I think the thread is expressing how the 'logical claim' of 'God' (the
expectation) is contradicted by reality (the actual). SouthStar simply
chose one path to demonstrate it. There are certainly others.

 

[one_raven]

Ok, let's rehash and tell me why evil and the Christian God are not mutually exclusive.

This seems to be a pretty popular theme lately, so I'll just link you to my answer in another one of these threads...
Here's one of the many

 

[zanket]

You know, it's just the way people say or type things, but in this instance the "some of us", actually implies that you mean anyone other than me.

No, by “some of us” I mean some of all people.

I do wonder if telling him he's a hero will make the situation any better.

I don’t see how.

Lots of people—thousands—have had near-death experiences in these days of fairly reliable resuscitation. (Including my own dad, who was an athiest until he did a 180 in his beliefs in all of two minutes.) One story features a well-off lawyer who walks by a begging homeless guy every day on his way to work. In his near-death experience he learns that the homeless person is in the lawyer’s life by choice to help the lawyer learn about compassion. Presumably the homeless guy does not consciously know that.

As for 'ignoring their misery'.. that's exactly what you do when you try to make it a necessity.

I did not suggest ignoring it. I did not say it is necessary.

Without them, we wont understand anything and life would be boring.

We may understand, but the quality of life would indeed be diminished and eventually we’d re-create the suffering. Unless, as I said, we remember their suffering after it is gone.

Look at war. Has the world learned yet that war is hell? No, we keep re-creating war even when war is unnecessary. If people could remember that war is hell, to the point where they could re-experience it in their minds at will, war would cease. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden who survived the bombings were able to do this and have passed some of that ability to their children. But it will fade even there. Society, if it wishes to avoid the hell of war, needs to find a way to remember. And then society can thank those who fought war, not because they were defended but because those who fought war on any side gave us the experience that we can remember to stop ourselves from repeating war.

You don't need to see poor people to appreciate being rich, you need to be poor to appreciate being rich. Try it on if you have the guts.

Either way works, or you can empathize with those who were poor.

So.. will you do it?

No. I already appreciate what I have in comparison to them. I already thank them.

Earlier you were telling me it's a requirement. I even bought it up a couple of times to which you said: "Yes, that is what I’m saying. I didn’t ignore you. I thought I had already made myself clear."

Nope, I didn’t say that about “requirement.” I said that about the bad stuff being a good thing.

What you were saying is that these people do need to suffer otherwise, dare I quote, "our lives would suck".

There needs to have been suffering to appreciate not suffering. That is why those who suffer are heroes. But no suffering need exist forevermore if we can remember the suffering, either our own or empathize with the past suffering of others.

And so, with our ability to empathize with others who have suffered in the past, there is no need for people to be suffering now right? There is zero need for these people to be starving to death because by now we already understand what suffering is and as such our lives don't "suck" right?

There is zero need if enough of us use the ability.

So then, why are these people suffering if, as you say very briefly, "there's no need", even though before that you claimed there is a need otherwise our lives would suck?

There is a need until enough of us realize we need only remember, and do that instead of re-create the suffering. Not everyone realizes that yet. Go back to war. War will repeat ad infinitum, until enough of us remember that war is hell. Go back to the lawyer. There is a need for the homeless until people can empathize with the homeless.

So basically in short, god is just fucking up their lives for the sake of it?

The opposite. Can you not see some of the beauty I am describing here? It’s an exquisitely elegant plan. A plan that we co-wrote.

Those kids do not cease to exist when they die. They merely change form, as all of us do upon death. Then we live again. All suffering is temporary and greatly appreciated, if not by our conscious self then by our superconscious self.

Don't tell me it's man's fault. We did not arrange the enivronment, we did not dry up their lakes, infect them with diseases or kill their cattle.

It’s nobody’s fault. It’s by design. It’s part of the plan. The plan includes the opportunity to have both bad and good experiences. This seems to cover your next few paragraphs.

We wouldn't talk about the weather, but we'd still know and understand everything there is to know about living at 72 degrees.

No. If the temperature of everything were 72 degrees, “temperature” would lose its meaning. We’d know no more about temperature than we do about spritzenfritz. There could be no thermometers—it would be quite impossible to make one.

Have you actually experience dying to a disease in a country with nothing, under the scorching sun?

No.

So if you haven't experienced it, what are you comparing your own life to?

Everything in my experience, including them.

As said earlier, all you'd need is a story of times past or some other suffering story without experience of it, to make our lives not "suck". We have that already, so why is their suffering a requirement, and why is god forcing it upon them?

It is not a requirement (we can remember instead), nor is God forcing it upon them. God forces nothing. We choose; God (the collective consciousness) helps deliver.

I'm sorry, happiness only becomes happiness once you see someone sad?

Or experience sadness yourself, or remember another’s sadness, yes.

The very first thing my child did when she was born was cry. Does that mean her brain had compared it to the non-existant laughter that was to come later? Had she somehow experienced laughter to understand her crying? I don't think so.

She experienced the womb. Babies cry when they are born because birth is not a pleasant experience compared to the womb.

Actually you're not, but I guess you need to experience blindness to realise that. Whoopsie, you haven't experienced blindness. I guess because of that you don't have the ability to see.

You know what I meant.

I don't have to. You made the claim that "life is eternal". It is upon you to back that up.

Then why not ask me to back it up rather than make a counter-claim that it is nonsense?

For the third time, evidence is past-life re-experiences. There are also near-death experiences. Feel free to disregard those. I’m just telling you my opinions.

I can relay a hell of a fucking lot of evidence to show life is not eternal.

Please, do tell.

What, your statement is now considered evidence? If so, here's another: There's a big purple orang utan sitting on Mars.

Not my statement, but the statements of those who have re-experienced past lives. Personal accounts are evidence.

I eagerly await just one instance where you can show validity in this field and circumstance. The onus is again on you, because you said it were true. Understand? I mean, what gets to me is the "no im not in the field...." "....but it's all true".

I didn’t say it’s true. I say it is evidence that life is eternal, that we suffered in past lives. For validity go to the bookstore and read about people’s past life or near-death experiences. They are personal experiences that can be fully treated as fiction, your choice. Nothing can prove to you that it is real. You are free to call the hypnotherapists quacks but I do not dismiss these personal accounts. I have out-of-body experiences myself so I need no convincing from others. Being in the psychology field you may be interested in Carl Jung’s near-death experience which you can google for.

Absolute nincompoopness.

As you choose, so it is for you. Free will is part of the plan.

What I asked was who chooses for it to be this way? You said "most" of us do.

I wish you would include the exact quotes, yours and mine, so I don’t have to search back to verify my quote. I went back through all the pages and do not see a quote of mine where I said “most” in that context. Can you give the exact quote please?

I'm asking you for one name. One person who chooses for little children to die in the most disgusting manner imaginable before they even reach the age of 3.

My answer stands. It is the children who so choose. We all have free will. The children chose that life before they were born. We all choose our lives in general. That is why pity is a wasted emotion. Once while meditating I sought to share the pain of a Middle Eastern woman wailing over her killed child. A voice said, “That grief is hers.” I understood completely. I will not pity again.