He deserved better

Forced love isn't real love. Lucifer for example had everything he ever needed and his greed still made him want to overthrow God.

>So Satan made the almighty a sucker?
He made himself a sucker. He couldn't take out God, or for that matter, the angels at large.
He could mess with humans, but they are ultimately autonomous beings.

How could they disobey God while they were perfect?

They were physically perfect and didn't know the concept of negative emotions and thoughts. But they weren't robots.
Would you rather be programmed to only act a certain way or have free will?

I mean, a theoretical God could create a bunch of exclusively evil creatures too, it doesn't matter. This is just the biblical explanation as to why "kids le cancer" and so on.

That depends on whether you think free will is a liability/flaw or not.

Free will doesn't automatically mean you have to do bad things, that's on you. Every action has a reaction.
You don't *have* to follow God's commandments, nor are you forced to go into heaven. If you don't want to go there, just don't follow God's ways, simple as that.

>be 8yo
>start learning about god and moronic ways
>leave
couldn’t they come up with a believable, flawed god instead of this stupid allpowerful, egoistical god that can’t do anything right

When I say perfect, I mean that in relation to current humans, or more so, a perfect kind of life. Humans were never angels, but they had more free time to explore their own being and it means to be human in the first place.
Free will IS a design flaw, but also what makes people unique. If you didn't have free will, you would be a less advanced being.

That is subjective. If you consider yourself a shit product, that's on you. Not everyone does.
A theoretical God could've created the shittiest product you can imagine from a human perspective and he would still be a God.

>god made a bunch of animals capable of and willing to do shit so horrendous
Then don't be horrendous? The choice is yours.

The humans on Earth are imperfect. The ones in the garden of Eden were. They chose this life and regressed.

They became imperfect when they disobeyed God. But he didn't create them without free will. That can either be a pro or a con depending on your perspective, but the general reason for that is that good things can't happen by force.

>perfect creations are capable of willful disobedience
That's not perfection then

Why not? Do you always do as you're told by others? This was a test of faith. God told them the tree of knowledge would bring nothing of value to them, but a talking snake was enough to convince Eve this is false. The choice was theirs.
The perfect element comes from the fact that they were immortal and didn't have to suffer in all the various ways people on Earth suffer now.

They were perfect in comparison to current humans in that they had no physical disadvantages nor knowledge or negative emotions. But again, free will can always lead to wrongdoing, so yes, they have an inherent flaw, depending on one's perspective.
You could also argue free will is a virtue.

>your master plan for humanity hinges on your creations disobeying you so they can become mortal and spread over the earth
>punish and chastise them anyway
What an butthole

But why punish them for something that he wanted and needed to happen?

Why couldn't he give humans free will without punishing literally every human for an arbitrary reason? He's all powerful after all

why did he put the tree there?

If one human is capable of sin, so is everyone else. But that isn't to say it's impossible for people to learn from this and be better.
And life on Earth is essentially a learning experience.

Those babies dying is a consequence of the original sin. The human organism is flawed. You could die in the womb as a consequence of that.
It has no "divine shielding" as it were. This is a priviledge that people lost upon committing sin.

I'm paying the price of humanity's decisions.
I am a being designed with free will, and whether good or bad things happen to me after my mortal shell expires will be up to me. Essentially, one has to work in order to deserve good things to happen to them. But one could also argue that entering haven is less work than, say, working a job on Earth and trying to attain wealth in order to receive pleasure.

Yes I am, assuming all of this is real. See, at no point did I suggest I know that God even exists.
I'm answering the questions based on what religion dictates.

>I'm paying the price of humanity's decisions
Battered housewife syndrome

I'm simply paying a tax for the fact that my self is imperfect. I could choose to do otherwise perfect things, or I can wreak havoc upon the world.

That person is a sinner. The tax that is being paid is human curiosity, at the cost of God's warning.
It's not unlike the cliff analogy I gave earlier. You can choose to jump off that cliff, but if something bad happens (and it's logical to assume it will), that's on you.

>The tax that is being paid is human curiosity, at the cost of God's warning.
that doesn't make any sense at all

why do you and i get to live and experience a full life but all those babies get is a few short days of agony and unimaginable terror? hows that fair? seems like they're paying a much steeper price for adam and eves sins than you or i

Well, the funny thing is, you're only able to say that because you're a being with free will.
Maybe you'd prefer to live in careless, lobotomized bliss. I've thought about it myself, but I'm not sure if I would.
What value would such bliss even have if I didn't know how bad things could be? That is the tree of knowledge. All of the knowledge was essentially bad knowledge. So can I really blame Eve for her curiosity? I'm not sure.

Maybe being lobotomized would've been a better scenario? That's a far more interesting debate in my opinion. Maybe humanity should've been obedient robots all along, so that they don't have free will and thus don't sin. But of course, now people protest, and it's thanks to their free will that they do. So which is the more optimal scenario?

How? All of this hinges on weather we needed to have free will or not. Without free will, we would be sinless robots.
Wouldn't that be better? Just a lobotomized robot? Are you implying free will is a design flaw or not?

why would you create an AI to follow a script? the fun thing is giving it free will and seeing what it does with it

>l because there's no such thing as free will
Yes there is.

>How do they don't? This entire thread is a perfect example of free will.
Make this thread every day for a month, you'll find that the replies will be almost exactly the same in each.

Yes, and people chose to have these views from their own free will. You weren't forced to think this way. This is coming from within.
No one told you "question these concepts", you did so on your own volition, dummy.

How do they don't? This entire thread is a perfect example of free will.

>But that's kind of a different topic
It's not though. Because entering into the contract you've described is only contingent on being born and coming into existence, and nothing else. Therefore everybody is forced into this fricked up agreement against their will.

Yeah, like I said, anti-natalism works on a similar logic, and you can follow that logic if you chose. I get why you protest. You signed a contract without being consciously aware of doing so. But you don't HAVE to follow said contract, anon. You only need to do so if you care about getting into heaven, it's that simple. If you don't care for that, don't.

>You signed a contract
I didn't sign shit. Have you not been reading my posts? Imagine one morning you wake up and find out someone else signed a contract in your name that says you can either be their perfectly obediently slave or they'll torture you endlessly.

bot detected

What exactly suggests I'm a bot? You're so emotional you can't even understand the religious (AKA potentially mythological and made up) rules of Christianity.
All I'm doing is answering questions as to why such and such happens. Why kids get cancer and all the other shit you find it hard to understand.

you don't know what a tax is
please learn english before visiting this website again

How?

>I didn't sign shit.
No, you signed it without your knowledge. I'm literally repeating your own logic here.
You're mad because you didn't have a say in the matter. But the thing is, you do have a say in whether or not you go to Hell.
>but the game is rigged from the start
You can thank the original sinners for that.

That goes hand in hand with, again, the more interesting debate which is whether Free Will should have been part of humanity's design or not. Because ALL of this hinges on free will.
In a "perfect world", with no free will to do evil, there would be no evil. But also, no true free will.
Humans partake in this Squid Game because they have to prove whether they're worthwhile candidates to enter heaven or not.
So you could say the game is rigged, but that depends on one's perspective.

Why?

Why not just let every human have the same test as Adam and Eve? Why do they get to be born into paradise and then frick up, but not the rest of us? Free will is being tested either way

>Why not just let every human have the same test as Adam and Eve?
They do. A better question would be why humans don't have access to the same starting point Adam and Eve had, A.K.A. paradise.
But in order to get to that point, we would first have to EARN being there in the first place.
Adam and Eve were there and decided it's not necessarily worthwhile.
They said frick heaven and that's what they got.

Because you're God's creation, and as such, will enter heaven or hell.

>Most atheists generally agree on concepts like morals being a net positive for society either way.
God was created by man and therefore man created morals. We don't need God, homosexual.

You can argue in favor of that, but then all of this debating becomes pointless, since none of these questions need answering. The topic at hand is WHY God did such and such. Assuming there is no God, you can just not partake in the discussion since it would all obviously be hogwash.

>Is there a law against a tsunami or a volcano erupting?
>I get that you're trying to be clever here but all you're being is emotional in protest against the laws of life.
Sure, but nobody tries to tell me volcanos or tsunami's are omnibenevolent.
If they did I'd think they were crazy.

>If they did I'd think they were crazy.
That's fine. I'm not telling you to believe, I'm simply explaining how this all theoretically works, in accordance specifically to Christianity.

>Why did God allow Adam and Eve to perform their free will test inside paradise, but I don't get to do that?
Because if you were in paradise, you wouldn't need to do that. The change occurs after Adam and Eve fricked up in paradise.
In order to re-enter paradise, humanity has to prove its worth.
I mean, imagine if all of humanity entered paradise regardless of their invidual qualities and turned it into the shithole we call Earth. Wouldn't be much of a paradise, would it?

>Then why test Adam and Eve?
I don't know since I'm not God and I don't operate with his mindset, if such a word can be used here. To test free will maybe?
Why did he create us at all? I can't say with certainty.
> If it's solely a question of testing free will, then there's zero reason why I don't get to do it in the same comfy place
Because the stipulations are such that once you're in said comfy place, you'll never feel anything other than that anymore.
It wasn't the same with Adam and Eve, but they were the original humans. And again, if humanity turned heaven into Earth 2.0, what fricking good would Heaven be for then? It would just be a shit hole if all people were allowed from the get-go.

you live in the shit yet choose to be angry instead of escaping the shit you're in. What makes you think you'd make a different choice in eve's position, lacking the perspective of show shit things can be?

>why?
because the all knowing god already knows what each and every last person born on earth will do and where they will end up, before they are born, therefore rendering the entire thing meaningless.

I never said omniscience is determinism, just that the test itself is pointless when the outcome is already known.

>why?
Because God knows everything? Therefore he knows what decisions we'll make on this earth before they happen. Otherwise, he's not omniscient.

Question for the free will argument Christians.
Could the original free will "decision" made by Adam and Eve NOT have happened?
Like, theoretically could you imagine it not going that way, them choosing NOT to disobey God, imagine what that type of world would actually look like.
Would it just be Adam and Eve, immortal and functionally mindless (more similar to animals than to humans) living the the Garden of Eden forever? With no death and no suffering and no sadness.
Is that what you picture the "ideal" world looking like? Is that what God actually intended things to be like?

>No, I'm just providing answers you don't agree with.
you saying things is not the same as providing answers
most of what you said isn't even universal within Christianity and doesn't even remotely account for the billions of people who aren't Christian

>Still God, if we are to assume he exists. And you still have an option of whether to enter Heaven or Hell.
You're deflecting. If he's omniscient, then this "test of righteousness through free will" is completely unnecessary. Therefore, all the other nonsense about original sin and free will is completely irrelevant.

>logistical
another word you don't know the meaning of
the issue is very obvious but you choose not to address it for some reason
god is putting humanity through a test, despite already knowing what the results will be, for each and every last person
why?

>That's a real question worth considering, but also not one we can answer.
its a meaningless question because it's based on a false premise
its why any answer you can come up with doesn't make sense and the only thing you can do is throw your hands up and say you don't know, god works in mysterious ways etc

>By your own insistence, the "test" of life only exists to assess whether we're worthy of Heaven or hell
And? Why do we even exist in the first place anon? What's the purpose of any of this?
Existence in itself is so mind-boggling and seemingly without real purpose, there may as well be not just a God, but he may as well be a flying spaghetti monster.

>We're born into existence so God can test our worthiness, even though he already knows
Right, but why?
>The whole things makes no fricking sense
I never claimed it did. But I'm also not claiming it's impossible.
Why wouldn't it be, given how odd existence in itself is?
I don't have an issue with God's existence, I have a curiosity as to why God would exist in the first place.

I don't discount the possibility of there being a God or divine power in general, since I have no answer as to why existence is a thing.

>If God is all-knowing, then there is only the option that God has determined for yo
Nope. That's why free will is a thing. Him knowing what would happen to people doesn't mean he has direct control over what they think and do.
> In this case he rigged the game from the start, because he had already determined where you would place in his world
No, because YOU determine whether you'll end up in Heaven or Hell.

I don't know why God operates the way he does, assuming he's real. There are questions we may never get the answers to.
All I know are the simple rules that have been laid out. Want to get to the comfy place? Act in accordance to that. Want to go to the shitty place? Be a shitty person.
And I'm not claiming any of this is real. But it may as fricking well be, that's the funny part.
Existence is so seemingly without purpose, the Christian, or for that matter any other religious scenario, may as well be real and viable. And this is why I'm an agnostic.

Or is it? I guess we'll find out either way. I don't really have an issue with following it as a guide on how to generally behave, treat others, and so on.
Could it all be hogwash? Sure. A rational person's life is more or less the same as mine either way, thanks to man-made things like laws being in place.

I have. My free will went along the most with Christianity, although as a philosophy, I like Taoism, which embraces the negative as something natural, to an extent.

is* a form of magic
rules of physics can't explain the inception of the universe sadly

I'm not saying this HAS to be the case, I'm saying it's one possible explanation.
Welcome to the concept of conspiracy theories. Until a theory is proven, it won't become a fact.

Explain why things exist then and what's their purpose. Also explain what preceded the big bang and creation in general?

No, what I'm saying is that God is one possible originator.
What you're saying is "It can't have been God! That's a fairy tale! Just ignore the fact that none of this makes any sense in the 1st place!"

>what's their purpose.
When you say purpose what do you mean. You can give something a purpose for a specific goal you have in mind, but other than that as far as I can tell, there is no "purpose".
>Also explain what preceded the big bang and creation in general?
I have absolutely no idea, I think anyone who claims they have knowledge of such a thing should be required to present an incredible amount of evidence to support their claims.

>But it's also why I can't discount the possibility of a grand design.
That's fine, but not discounting something isn't even close to believing it nor suspecting that it's the most likely (or even likely at all) answer in existence.
Do you actually believe? Or are you just playing devil's advocate.

>Why would it be useless?
i already told you, because it's based entirely in unfounded assumptions
you're not getting to the bottom of anything by examining one of several thousand different interpretations of existence, most created by people who lacked basic knowledge about how the world functions, each no more valid than the last

stop deflecting
he very well might not control where you end up but he KNOWS where you will end up
so why put you through it? either he is ALL KNOWING and puts you through life for no reason or he is not ALL KNOWING

That's why I asked several times whether free will is a good thing or not, and didn't get any answers. Yet, all of this hinges on that.
> decided how they would act
He doesn't decide how you act. You could be a good or bad person and it's entirely up to you.
>Frick that
Again, it's up to you whether you agree with God's way or don't.

All knowing doesn't mean all-controlling. What difference does it make if he knows you'll end up committing suicide at the age of 27 when he didn't MAKE you do it?
Trying to understand why God does the thing he does is kind of a fool's errand anyway. We may never know.

>How didn't he make you do it if he created the world?
That's like asking how aren't your parents responsible for you taking your own life.
>He knew you would do it long before you were even born
Knowing you'd do it isn't the same as making you do it.
>He set the stage for you to do so
That he did.
>He created all the things
Right, but the real question is why? And it always boils down to answers we don't have, or may not even comprehend. And that's the real issue.
See, I don't have a problem with God being a cyborg tortoise that pissed all of creation into being one afternoon. I also don't have a problem with the stipulation of entering haven being to wear purple shirts every Sunday.
What I don't understand, and what no one will ever likely understand, is why have this happen in the first place.
But what I can do, is explain God's ways according to Christianity. Anyone can do research on this.
So there are many potential answers to "why do kids have cancer if God is real".
The real question is why do kids and cancer exist in the first place.

We give things meaning, sure, but it still begs the question what exactly happened that led to existence. I never said there has to be a reason, but it's still worth pondering why there is something instead of nothing.

>theres no reason to assume there is a reason
Ergo, there is no reason for it to not be a God, flying spaghetti monster, or anything that could otherwise be categorized as magical.
It's that that we HAVE to prescribe meaning and reason to creation, but if it DID have an origination, it may as well have been Daffy fricking Duck for all we know.
It's illogical to claim otherwise without actually knowing.

>That's like asking how aren't your parents responsible for you taking your own life.
My parents aren't all-knowing and didn't create the world where it was a certainty that I would. Thar's an absolutely moronic comparison that ignores the crux of the problem: God knew I would do it yet created the world like that anyway. He most definitely, 100% is to blame

>How is he to blame for your decisions? Seems like a lack of personal responsibility to me.
Do you not read my posts or something? I have explained several times how God decides the outcome before it happens. A creates a game in which he knows you lose. He set you up to fail. You could never have decided otherwise, because God already created the world where things will happen how they happen. He made the world so you could make the exact choices he determined you would. That's not a choice, because there is no alternate reality where I could make a different one. There is only the universe that God created and what He decided would happen in it

>Him being omniscient doesn't make him have control over you.
But the thing is, he also created the world. If he's both omniscient and the creator, then that means he controlled what reality would be. He decided that he wanted the world to exist where I committed suicide. He controlled that outcome by making sure that the universe was built in that way, and that every thing that happened would eventually lead up to me making that decision
>Assuming he IS omniscient in the first place, which no one even knows for a fact.
True
>That's just one possibility. The only issue I have with militant atheists is that they reject possible answers as to why anything exists. There doesn't need to be a God, but there may as well be one, with how illogical and random existence is.
I agree completely. I'm agnostic, but religions make no fricking sense to me. I'm compeltely open to the Christian God existing, but I can't accept that we actually know enough about Him to say that he's benevolent. Like I said earlier, I can completely believe God is real as described in the bible, but not that he's also all-good. The only way it would make sense for Him to be good in this world, is if at the end of it all he cracks open a beer with each and everyone of us, and we'll all sit back and laugh about the crazy shit we took part in

AI and technology are merely tools at humanity's disposal, and as such, in accordance to how our God designed us. They too, are of God, if we are to assume he exists.

>this is a proven fact.
Is it?
I can't help but read everything you say and be reminded of Nietchze's idea of slave morality, because that's exactly what this is.
Instead of accepting the reality and cold hearted truth of the world (Most suffering, if not all is entirely meaningless), you come up with a cope to hide away this truth.
But rather than overcoming suffering with this tactic you merely become subservient to it, you give up in the face of suffering because it's always been there and will always be there, so what can anyone do? Absolutely nothing. That's the real nihilism if you ask me.
When you accept that suffering is meaningless, you can reject it, you can say that suffering will never be defeated, and I would actually agree, but the point isn't that there will be an inevitable end goal where all suffering is eliminated, rather the fight against suffering itself will at least defeat some of it, as civilization has proven time and time again.
In way it gives meaning back to you, and takes meaning away from suffering, you have a meaning given by yourself, to yourself.
>Ah I should have known, classic communist utopia atheism brain. Yeah bro AI will totally solve death and eradicate disease, just 2 more weeks of research. Billionaires will totally put machines to work and give you the profits while you neet.
I'm not any of those things, you seem to have a lot of preconceived notions that you wish to battle against.
However, what exactly is your problem with the concept of a utopia? I don't disagree that it's probably impossible, but does not everyone in their own mind have an idea of a perfect society that they want to reach? Do you NOT want to attempt to reach something that could be described as "utopia" (And yes, I'm aware of the original meaning of the world, but you understand what it means in this context so don't be smart)

Suffering and negative emotions for the most part are internal, and a choice that can be ignored.
Indian Yogi are particularly adept at doing this, since they have realized that mental suffering is predicated on things that are not actually happening at the moment. People suffer because they live in the past or the future instead of the present. They worry about things that don't even exist in the moment. But true bliss can only come from within. What you get from the outside is just pleasure. But it can't lead to long term bliss or calm.

I agree with that, I'm just saying true content will have to come from within. Plenty of wealthy people kill themselves all the same because they're trying to substitute depression or other such states with fleeting pleasures and objects.
I'm all for getting a nice car but it's good to know that it won't fill the void in your life on its own.

I can thank God for that

>No, you signed it without your knowledge.
I'm pretty sure most countries have laws against contracts like this.
God seems like the most shady car dealership guy in history, he'd give the average telemarketer a run for their money that's for sure.

>Most atheists generally agree on concepts like morals being a net positive for society either way.
God was created by man and therefore man created morals. We don't need God, homosexual.

>You signed a contract without being consciously aware of doing so.
that is literally not signing a contract
you cant unwittingly sign a contract
and you definitely can't claim that the being who forced you into said contract is in any way benevolent

The cancerous cells that grow on a person's body and result in death are a byproduct of the mortal shell.
If humanity redeems itself, it can return to its original form. Also, the innocent don't suffer Hell, so a child dying from a disease won't go to Hell. But if someone kills a child out a malice, they naturally would.

>God makes the cliff, shows it to Adam and Eve and allows a guy who urges Eve to jump just roam around
What a fricking dickhead

How would we resent God if we have no real mind of our own?

>it’s fair to have a possibilty for someone to burn in hell
Yep thanks a lot I’ll just become a robot.You can frick off with your ‘free will’

im saying free will is a scam

how is it fair, moron?

>Because we're born into a mortal shell anon.
nice non sequitur
the question is why does the supposedly loving God allow perfectly innocent creatures, literally incapable of sin, to suffer and die before they can ever even understand the concept of god

Wonder if he created Schizophrenia to have a laugh. Or is that somehow also people's fault? Just choose not to have brain damage dude

when did the schizo choose to be schizophrenic? how is it his fault some b***h thousands of years ago ate an apple, why should he suffer for it?

>It's our decision whether we act on that or not
literally doesnt answer anything I said
what wrong did the sick person do? why is he being punished for eves wrong? a person can do no wrong but still suffer greatly and die through no fault of his own and you'll still turn around and say "muh free will"
you are so full of shit it's incredible

As the other anon said, I am suggesting we are born into sin. Will the child who died go to Hell? Not likely. Will you, as an autonomous adult who does evil things go to Hell? Very likely. So it's up to you which one you prefer to be, and where you'd rather go.

That Anon is arguing that being born is a sin itself. You're born a sinner, so you are subject to pain. There is no argument you can make to him where God will have even a modicum of blame for how humans act. God is a dindu nuffin and the twisted logic behind it is impenetrable, so don't waste your time

He does have blame, although the word blame has a negative connotation. Rather, he is responsible for our existence as autonomous beings with free will.
God offers you a piece of pie but you have to work for it, simple as that. If you don't want to be a good person, you can go be with Satan in Hell. The choice is yours, you're not forced into heavenly dogma.

Yes you have. You are given the choice of whether you want to be in heaven or in hell. What you do with your life here will determine that.
Would it be drastically different if you were already in heaven and then given the choice to instead go to hell? In heaven, you wouldn't need to worry about such things.

And? You didn't know how to spell up until a certain point. What are you trying to say here?

Anti-natalism exists, you know. It's true that no one choses to be born on their own accord.
But that's kind of a different topic.
The fact of the matter is, it's up to you whether you go to heaven or not, based on what you do with your time on this Earth.

>you can either work to get this pie or go frick yourself in torture prison for all time
>your choice though ; ^ )
What a dick

"You work to get into heaven" is just another way of saying you work to avoid hell. You're putting a positive spin on it while ignoring the horrible existence of the forced alternative. It's not a question of getting a pie vs not getting a pie. It's a question of getting a pie vs being put into a torture chamber

>Eve was warned that she shouldn't (or didn't have to) eat from the forbidden fruit but she did anyway.

how is human curiosity being paid as a tax you dumb esl

>jumping off a cliff is a tax
>also death is a tax
>also curiosity is a tax
>a tax on uhhh
Go learn English

>What you're angry about is that actions can have consequences.
What I'm angry about is that you are rambling about nothing. You said curiosity was a tax, now you're saying curiosity has a tax. Learn English.

bot detected

>Eve was warned that she shouldn't (or didn't have to) eat from the forbidden fruit but she did anyway.
But she literally had to in order to be cast out of the Garden so humanity could grow. God both needed and wanted her to disobey in order to set his plan into motion, and now we're all being tortured and punished for it. Ain't that a b***h

>humanity may have lived in paradise without experiencing any suffering or burdens.
That isn't what God wanted though, his plan for humanity wasn't for them to NEET away in Eden for eternity. That is unless you admit that Satan was able to dupe God somehow

Why did God make the alternative literal hell?

>God offers you a piece of pie but you have to work for it, simple as that.
when did i accept that deal? I didn't choose or decide to be born, no one asked my immortal soul if it wished to be thrust into this flawed mortal shell, I never agreed to any terms and conditions

Nah, because it all hinges on God not knowing what will happen, which he does. Besides which, why does free will mean the ability to frick yourself over? Why the frick would God facilitate that. Why give free will but punish Adam and Eve for using it. The tree was planted there as fricking bait and God let the Serpent roam freely, knowing it would frick with Eve. The only explanation I will ever accept about God is that he just likes a good story being told, so he basically rigged the game to create the life we have, but everyone will get into heaven and have a laugh about it afterwards. Otherwise I will never eat the idea that he's benevolent, because he does so much conniving shit while gaslighting humanity into thinking it's their fault

>people born into poverty in third world countries suffer the same amount of sin as the child of the king of england

>Yeah, but God didn't create a world where that scenario would play out.
He did. If I tell you you shouldn't go swimming with sharks and you do it anyway, that's on you, as an autonomous being who is not under my mind control.
> because they made decisions that he created the very possibility of, based on emotions and wants he instilled
Right, but it's those same emotions that make us the complicated autonomous machine we are.
It's up to you whether you want to be a dickhead or not. If you're not, good things will presumably follow.

>why not give your suffering meaning to strive to overcome it?
because I don't need to make things up in my head to motivate myself to overcome suffering, nor do I wish to do that

Nothing about his post implies he lives a sad existence

>Wouldn't the fact that suffering is meaningless give even more incentive to get rid of it?

and how would you do that? people suffer in different ways. you cant just fling a magic wand and make it all go away. there some suffering you just have to overcome or learn how to live with.

you absolutely right. there is no meaning in suffering. i just made it the frick up to troll athiest having a god debate in board for television.

god bless.

>this is a proven fact.
Is it?
I can't help but read everything you say and be reminded of Nietchze's idea of slave morality, because that's exactly what this is.
Instead of accepting the reality and cold hearted truth of the world (Most suffering, if not all is entirely meaningless), you come up with a cope to hide away this truth.
But rather than overcoming suffering with this tactic you merely become subservient to it, you give up in the face of suffering because it's always been there and will always be there, so what can anyone do? Absolutely nothing. That's the real nihilism if you ask me.
When you accept that suffering is meaningless, you can reject it, you can say that suffering will never be defeated, and I would actually agree, but the point isn't that there will be an inevitable end goal where all suffering is eliminated, rather the fight against suffering itself will at least defeat some of it, as civilization has proven time and time again.
In way it gives meaning back to you, and takes meaning away from suffering, you have a meaning given by yourself, to yourself.
>Ah I should have known, classic communist utopia atheism brain. Yeah bro AI will totally solve death and eradicate disease, just 2 more weeks of research. Billionaires will totally put machines to work and give you the profits while you neet.
I'm not any of those things, you seem to have a lot of preconceived notions that you wish to battle against.
However, what exactly is your problem with the concept of a utopia? I don't disagree that it's probably impossible, but does not everyone in their own mind have an idea of a perfect society that they want to reach? Do you NOT want to attempt to reach something that could be described as "utopia" (And yes, I'm aware of the original meaning of the world, but you understand what it means in this context so don't be smart)

>okay so what you mean by meaning?
When I say suffering is meaningless, I mean that the reason for its existence is simply coincidental. It was not specifically created for an intended end goal, it merely exists because things ended up that way, and we're left to deal with the consequences of that. You could contrast meaning and meaninglessness by ascribing that meaninglessness is "random". I'm aware of the implications of calling it "random" but let's not get too esoteric, fighting over definitions forever gets nowhere.
>And what does rejecting suffering look like?
One can reject suffering and accept its inevitability at the same time, rejecting it means simply fighting against it and never giving up in the face of it, one cannot know what suffering will never be defeated and what suffering can be defeated if you do not fight it at all. To me, your "acceptance" implies a level of giving up.
>Also nietzsche wasn't a nihilist.
Neither am I, but Nietzsche did think that slave morality was nihilistic, which is what I was telling you.
>How did he "reject" his suffering in a way that baldwin didn't?
I don't quite understand what you think I meant by the word "reject". When I say rejecting suffering I'm saying to not accept that it MUST exist, not denying that it DOES exist.
>because the best society imaginable would still not eradicate suffering.
That's not the point, don't let perfect be the enemy of good, in the ATTEMPT to achieve perfection (all suffering being gone) I believe you are more likely to approach good (Some, possibly even most suffering being gone).

The fact that many Christians have done well in developing mankind is not necessarily an argument for the validity of Christianity itself, that some continued to fight against suffering does not preclude the many who simply accepted their lot in life.
I could just as easily make the argument myself that statistically the Atheist population commit less crime, are better educated, make more money and are disproportionately represented amongst the sciences than other demographics, but that would be missing the point.
None of this gets at the heart of the issue for me, which is that suffering does not have an inherent meaning and does not need to exist in all its forms.
If you say that suffering has a deeper meaning, answer me this, when a specific type of suffering is eliminated from someone's life, does their life has less or more meaning? Hypothetically imagine someone who lived a life with no suffering, would you say that they lived a less meaningful life?

homies say shit like this and then believe in le hecking simulation theory and "I can't die now, I have to consoom funko pops for 50 years and then upload my brain to facebook"

i don't believe any of that

yeah what if car meant train and apple meant machine gun
we can make anything make sense if we choose to believe words mean whatever we feel like
the Christian religion teaches an all powerful, all knowing god
who's us and who's them?