The righteous suffer and the wicked prosper.

[SalixIncendium]

It seems some people think that all we have to do is change our attitude to an (in my view delusional) attitude that childhood Leukemia is great. The sheep that slowly bleeds to death as it's eyes are pecked out by crows or has magggots slowly chew away at it's brain till it dies are great. The insect that gets eaten from the inside out by the larvae of the wasp are great etc etc.

To those who conclude that life is always great I say you appear to either be not very observant of the tremendous suffering that exists in nature or appear to be delusional about it in my view.

I posted a reply to this yesterday asking who "some people" are, but then deleted it because I didn't feel like debating the topic at the time and decided I didn't feel engaging you yesterday would be productive.

My response essentially said that if you feel people change their attitude to feel great about the misfortune of others, you misunderstand the change in the thought process.

But in subsequent posts, you tipped your hand, so my decision to delete the post appears to have been the correct one.

However, if you really believe what you said above and want to discuss how changing perspective through changing the way one thinks works, instead of just passive-aggressively attacking forum members for their religious views let me know. I'll be here.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's absolutely the key concept of Christianity too.
That the wicked will always prosper because they will victimize the good and the innocent.

I could not understand Job, the book, so I asked my religious studies teacher to explain it to me. High school.
And the explanation made me understand many things.

Satan wanted to convince God that Job was pious, good and pure just because God had blessed him with so much prosperity.
That's why he proposed him the wager: to show that Job would have become filled with hatred in no time.

But Job, despite all the meaningless explanations given by the savants, never stopped being pure and never stopped loving God.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

It seems some people think that all we have to do is change our attitude to an (in my view delusional) attitude that childhood Leukemia is great. The sheep that slowly bleeds to death as it's eyes are pecked out by crows or has magggots slowly chew away at it's brain till it dies are great. The insect that gets eaten from the inside out by the larvae of the wasp are great etc etc.

To those who conclude that life is always great I say you appear to either be not very observant of the tremendous suffering that exists in nature or appear to be delusional about it in my view.

Some consequences are so distant from their cause that they appear to be coincidental. Yet, they are not.

No suffering occurs in a vacuum. Everything -both good and dreadful- has a context and in the contexts of life, we all together, partake.

It is of course true that my niece (now adult), born with a benign, but growing tumour in her brain that eventually left her blind, did not personally do anything to bear this burden. Nor were her circumstances a punishment directed at her parents. But mankind as a whole, lives a polluted life which affects everybody, everywhere, for long periods of time, with a great deal of physical circumstances and it is entirely true to say that what consequence does not display itself in you, shall absolutely do so in someone, somewhere. So, is it not peculiar to believe that anyone in particular should be spared from bearing a share of our collective burdens?

Despite having spent most of her childhood in surgery, despite her blindness and disfiguration; my niece has lived a full and beautiful life. And she did not get to do this by constantly asking “why me?”, for had she taken that perspective, [her] life would neither have been full or beautiful.

So yes @danieldemol , life is the experience of an attitude and if you change yours, your life will change.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[danieldemol]

instead of just passively attacking forum members

More ad-hominem in my view.

The point I was trying to make in my view is that the universe is full of both the good and the bad and acknowledging that the universe contains cruelty (what I see as bad) is simply an honest take on the universe that takes into account *all* the evidence as opposed to cherry picking only the good then declaring those who see it all to have an attitude problem.

 

[danieldemol]

So yes @danieldemol , life is the experience of an attitude and if you change yours, your life will change.

It appears to me that you think I have a bad attitude. I disagree. I would characterise my attitude as honest, and I refuse to barter my honesty away for an empty promise that life will get better. And yes my life is good. Thank you for asking as opposed to assuming in my view.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

It appears to me that you think I have a bad attitude. I disagree. I would characterise my attitude as honest, and I refuse to barter my honesty away for an empty promise that life will get better. And yes my life is good. Thank you for asking as opposed to assuming in my view.

I’d not say that your attitude is great, no, but it is unquestionably your choice and your right to keep it.

I’m gladden to hear that your life is good.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[SalixIncendium]

More ad-hominem in my view.

Before you continue to accuse people of this, you should really educate yourself on what ad-hominem means. Ad-hominem is an attack on one's character. Unless it is your character trait to attack forum members, it's not an ad-hominem. It's an observation on your behavior.

But I digress.

The point I was trying to make in my view is that the universe is full of both the good and the bad and acknowledging that the universe contains cruelty (what I see as bad) is simply an honest take on the universe that takes into account *all* the evidence as opposed to cherry picking only the good then declaring those who see it all to have an attitude problem.

I don't think anyone was intending to cherry pick by just seeing the good in life.

The change in the thought process by changing how one perceives events in life, both good and bad. If one wakes up in the morning and thinks to themselves that traffic on the commute is going to suck today and that work is going to suck today, then the focus is on the negative, and that person has set the stage for a miserable day. However, if one wakes up and thinks to themselves how fortunate they are to be alive, to have a car, and to have a job to drive to, and that meeting new people and interacting interacting with them throughout the day will bring new opportunity, then one has set the stage for a delightful day.

People tend to focus entirely too much on the negative aspects of life and take the positive ones for granted. This is a lesson I'm currently in the process of teaching someone very dear to me in real life.

Are things going to happen in life that suck? Probably. But there is an underlying beauty in life that exists within the suckiness for which one can have gratitude.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

It's like people who post extremely beautiful pictures of nature without realizing the dark underlay by which such extraordinary beauty comes about.

I’m curious as to what it is that makes you say that they don’t realise the dark underlay by which beauty comes about?

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[danieldemol]

Before you continue to accuse people of this, you should really educate yourself on what ad-hominem means. Ad-hominem is an attack on one's character. Unless it is your character trait to attack forum members, it's not an ad-hominem.

So are you saying something has to be a true character trait to be an ad-hominem? I disagree.

It's an observation on your behavior.

So an observation of behaviour is not a character attack? Good. An observation of behaviour is not any sort of "attack" in my view so my observation of the behaviour of those who cherry pick the universe as being all good as being either not very observant or delusional was not an attack.

But this post that I'm replying to is the first serious attempt you've made to refute my point in my view which makes the post before it where you in my view falsely accuse me of attacking forum members does count as an ad-hominem the way I see it because you were smearing my character rather than addressing the point of my assertion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I posted a reply to this yesterday asking who "some people" are, but then deleted it because I didn't feel like debating the topic at the time and decided I didn't feel engaging you yesterday would be productive.

My response essentially said that if you feel people change their attitude to feel great about the misfortune of others, you misunderstand the change in the thought process.

But in subsequent posts, you tipped your hand, so my decision to delete the post appears to have been the correct one.

However, if you really believe what you said above and want to discuss how changing perspective through changing the way one thinks works, instead of just passive-aggressively attacking forum members for their religious views let me know. I'll be here.

The joke is that I am though I am an atheist and for the folk version of religious not that, in effect I am relgious for the overall version of a world-view in the non-English understanding of world-view, so I get the joke, when the "non-religious" attack religion. They don't understand when they are subjective, use beliefs and so on, because they are speical.
In an absurd sense religion is so special that it is not even natural and what not, because it is so unreal as unreal ideas, that it is not a part of how all humans have beliefs about what is and how it matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So are you saying something has to be a true character trait to be an ad-hominem? I disagree.

So an observation of behaviour is not a character attack? Good. An observation of behaviour is not any sort of "attack" in my view so my observation of the behaviour of those who cherry pick the universe as being all good as being either not very observant or delusional was not an attack.

But this post that I'm replying to is the first serious attempt you've made to refute my point in my view which makes the post before it where you in my view falsely accuse me of attacking forum members does count as an ad-hominem the way I see it because you were smearing my character rather than addressing the point of my assertion.

Well, from my understanding you are a folk believer in naturalism and for naturalism I have so far never seen any evidence for that. As for religion it falls withit a natural version of that and not a belief in the supernatural, but it is still religion in effect.
Make of it what you want, but you are in effect religious, but not supernatural.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So are you saying something has to be a true character trait to be an ad-hominem? I disagree.

No. I didn't qualify 'character' with "true." You did that. So your disagreement is based on your qualification, not what I said.

An observation of behaviour is not any sort of "attack" in my view so my observation of the behaviour of those who cherry pick the universe as being all good as being either not very observant or delusional was not an attack.

Correct. It's a misrepresentation of another's views. Nothing that was said here stated or implied one was cherry picking the universe as being all good. For someone who alleged bases their views on logic and evidence, you seem to be outwardly disregarding them in this thread in favor of emotional knee-jerk responses.

But this post that I'm replying to is the first serious attempt you've made to refute my point in my view which makes the post before it where you in my view falsely accuse me of attacking forum members does count as an ad-hominem the way I see it because you were smearing my character rather than addressing the point of my assertion.

You're doing a fine job of this on your own by disregarding the topic and what I said to you in my post regarding the topic and pursuing this side-track.

Are you okay?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The joke is that I am though I am an atheist and for the folk version of religious not that, in effect I am relgious for the overall version of a world-view in the non-English understanding of world-view, so I get the joke, when the "non-religious" attack religion. They don't understand when they are subjective, use beliefs and so on, because they are speical.
In an absurd sense religion is so special that it is not even natural and what not, because it is so unreal as unreal ideas, that it is not a part of how all humans have beliefs about what is and how it matters.

Religion isn't special - as to likely being a natural process within the human mind just as so many thought processes are - but the religious try to make it so and expect a reward from doing this - often having such placed beyond criticism - hence why we have blasphemy laws and such in some religions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...but the religious try to make it so and expect a reward from doing this...

I'm sorry I did this.

Now where is my reward?

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Many, many people believe that if they are good people, that God will bless and protect them, and that the wicked will be punished (in this life). This is true among Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and even just monotheists who have no particular organized religion. Certainly in the Bible, there are many places where it seems to indicate this. I'm not here to say that those passages don't exist.

Yes that’s true that the abrahamic religions have this belief, but obviously our definition of ‘good’ is where we differ about

My purpose here is to say that this is not a consistent teaching, that the Bible also teaches the reverse, that the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper

I think it is a consistent teaching. Sure I agree with you that the wicked people might prosper but we don’t have the ability to change that. What we can change is our shortcomings and try our best to be ‘good’.
From Islamic perspective we say that this temporary life on earth is like hell for the believers and heaven for the unbelievers. Meaning if you believe in god there are things we have to follow so we strive to fight our desires which can go against god.
On the other side we say that the afterlife is heaven for the believers and hell for the unbelievers.
And we can depend on god to protect us and bless us.

that essentially, we cannot depend upon God to protect or bless us, nor does he prevent those who are evil from coming out on top.

If you are good then god will protect you and bless you. Doesn’t mean that if you are ‘good’, everyone will experience suffering.
This life is just a test for the afterlife and We should always put our trust in god and hope he will be merciful to let us in heaven and forgive our mistakes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some consequences are so distant from their cause that they appear to be coincidental. Yet, they are not.

No suffering occurs in a vacuum. Everything -both good and dreadful- has a context and in the contexts of life, we all together, partake.

It is of course true that my niece (now adult), born with a benign, but growing tumour in her brain that eventually left her blind, did not personally do anything to bear this burden. Nor were her circumstances a punishment directed at her parents. But mankind as a whole, lives a polluted life which affects everybody, everywhere, for long periods of time, with a great deal of physical circumstances and it is entirely true to say that what consequence does not display itself in you, shall absolutely do so in someone, somewhere. So, is it not peculiar to believe that anyone in particular should be spared from bearing a share of our collective burdens?

Despite having spent most of her childhood in surgery, despite her blindness and disfiguration; my niece has lived a full and beautiful life. And she did not get to do this by constantly asking “why me?”, for had she taken that perspective, [her] life would neither have been full or beautiful.

So yes @danieldemol , life is the experience of an attitude and if you change yours, your life will change.

Humbly,
Hermit

It's easy to slip into complacency with that attitude, though.

Back in the day, people used to use similar platitudes for kids who got polio: some died and a lot who survived ended up with lifelong debilitating after effects. This was chalked up to providence/karma/God’s divine plan/etc.

... but when we got a polio vaccine, suddenly providence/karma/God’s divine plan/etc. strangely no longer needed to be expressed through polio and its after-effects.

Medical conditions are problems to be solved. We may not be able to say when any specific problem will be solved, but we can find hope in the fact that humanity is chipping away at them one-by-one.

They may be very difficult problems to solve, but none of them are inevitable consequences of fundamental rules of the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion isn't special - as to likely being a natural process within the human mind just as so many thought processes are - but the religious try to make it so and expect a reward from doing this - often having such placed beyond criticism - hence why we have blasphemy laws and such in some religions.

Yeah and some atheists do the same in that they overdo reason:
"Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

If you really want fun, check out Ayn Rand Objectivism.
So yes, some religious people claim in effect objective authority, but that is not limited to religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's easy to slip into complacency with that attitude, though.

Back in the day, people used to use similar platitudes for kids who got polio: some died and a lot who survived ended up with lifelong debilitating after effects. This was chalked up to providence/karma/God’s divine plan/etc.

... but when we got a polio vaccine, suddenly providence/karma/God’s divine plan/etc. strangely no longer needed to be expressed through polio and its after-effects.

Medical conditions are problems to be solved. We may not be able to say when any specific problem will be solved, but we can find hope in the fact that humanity is chipping away at them one-by-one.

They may be very difficult problems to solve, but none of them are inevitable consequences of fundamental rules of the universe.

Well, that we die of old age may even be a medical problem, but I dount we can handle having no biological death at all.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

…/none of them are inevitable consequences of fundamental rules of the universe.

I don’t believe I said anything about “fundamental rules”, did I?

I also did not mention “karma” (I would not say that my niece’s condition, for instance, had to do with “karma”).

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t believe I said anything about “fundamental rules”, did I?

You didn't use that exact term, but that was the implication.

I also did not mention “karma” (I would not say that my niece’s condition, for instance, had to do with “karma”).

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

Humbly,
Hermit

I was referring to this:

But mankind as a whole, lives a polluted life which affects everybody, everywhere, for long periods of time, with a great deal of physical circumstances and it is entirely true to say that what consequence does not display itself in you, shall absolutely do so in someone, somewhere.

If you use a different term for this idea than what I used ("providence/karma/God’s divine plan/etc."), then we can go with yours.