Why do so many secularists see pain as innately bad?
Many don't.
Because it's unpleasurable. That's about the long and the short of it.
>>751858
Why do people see something they fear and hate as bad? Gee, I dunno, that's a real stumper!
>>751858
Probably because we are programmed to avoid it.
I will grant you pain can sometimes have positive effects on character, though it can just as easily do the opposite.
Look at it this way, that a cancer survivor might find himself with a new zest for life, in no way makes cancer a net benefit for society
>>751875
Look at it this way: imagine, if humanity, in our state of sin, never had to cope with any kind of adversity, hardship or duress. Imagine what that would do our psychology. If you want to see, take a look at what it does to a child: it makes him spoiled, repulsive, it turns the beauty and majesty that childhood is, into something rotten eggs. If we were not in a state of sin, this might not be the case, but we are, in such a state, we need pain and suffering. Just imagine how our art and literature would be if we never faced any duress.
>>751858
Maybe because it fucking sucks?
But read Nietzsche, or Walter Kaufmann. There's plenty of secular philosophers who recognize the importance of suffering.
>>751950
Nietzsche is a bit unusual because he hated secularism, he just hated Christianity more--but in a way he saw secular thought as an extension of Christianity.
>>751947
Well going by your premise, being in a state of sin necessitates suffering. On the reverse, if suffering was impossible, it would be very hard to do anything bad, as we would have to live in a state without the possibility of negative consequences.
So while it is somewhat relative base pain is to be avoided and base pleasure is not, in fact if pain was not to be avoided, then our early suffering would have done us little good, since they would not have taught us to avoid harmful behavior.
>>751981
Spiritual experience is not identical with psychological or physical, although it can be complementary. It can be described in terms of "pleasure" and "pain", but you have to consider these apart from physical and psychological pleasure and pain, which means you're dealing with conceptions that really are not at all equatable except in the loosest and most figurative of senses. For instance, being fully conscious of the fire and light of God's love permeating every fiber of your being, can be seen in terms of heaven or hell, but it is technically the same exact experience,, the question is whether this experience is embraced or rejected. In our state of sin, our spiritual sense is dreadfully impaired, so we cannot tell we are in heaven/hell. But before the fall, psychological and physical pleasure/pain were not such the paradigm as they are for us now, rather they became so when he ate the fruit and these things became the dominating lenses for our ontological experience.
>>752011
>Spiritual experience is not identical with psychological or physical, although it can be complementary. It can be described in terms of "pleasure" and "pain", but you have to consider these apart from physical and psychological pleasure and pain
Well then OP's question is meaningless, since of course secularist are only talking about physical and psychological pain
>>752032
I am the OP, and I'm talking about physical and psychological pain as well. Trying to bring pre-fall conditions too much into this thought isn't going to be productive, because is like saying legs are bad because inter-dimensional time-traveling tentacles would be better. Pain is extremely important in our fallen state.
>>752047
Well then the problem is the word "innately" I don't think pain is innately bad, but overall, in most situations it is something to be avoided.
Pain is only good in the sense that it is the brain receiving a message of a problem. It is, however, objectively harmful beyond that role. Once you know fire is hot, having your arm feel like it's burning for the rest of your life is useless and harmful to your well-being.
This is simple shit. "Secularists" don't just proclaim pain to be absolutely EBIL, it is simply not preferred in most cases.
Why do so many theists see sin as innately bad?
>>751858
...Because it feels bad? And we innately think pain feels bad?
When functioning correctly, pain is an indicator that something is wrong. So either there's an actual problem associated with it, or the nervous system is malfunctioning which is usually bad.
Pain is a good thing. Not in some wishy washy "It's ennobling", "great art comes from suffering" way, but because it alerts you to some damage to the body. If you didn't feel pain at all you would continually re-injure yourself, and neglect serious wounds, eventually leading to the loss of extremities or to death.
Psychological pain is more complicated than this, of course.
Pain isn't innately bad in a secular world.
It however is in a world that is ruled by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity. There is simply no reason for it to exist in a world ruled by an entity that is both able and willing to take it away
>>753133
>but because it alerts you to some damage to the body.
So whats the problem inherent in the avoidance of pain?
>>752834
We sin as innately sin. The word is harmartia in Greek.
>>753209
Again, if you live in a universe with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, all of the things you just mentioned would be completely unnecessary. There would be no need for either sin, adversity, hardship or duress. Existence itself would satisfy us. Any form of suffering by definition would be taken care of by this being. We wouldn't even get bored, since that's a form of suffering (a somewhat mild one, but still). This entity would even take that away, since it costs him to effort and he's more than willing to do so.
To put it simply, in an Abrahamic worldview, and only in an Abrahamic worldview, suffering and evil makes no sense. In a pagan worldview, suffering is explained by the fact that the gods aren't omnibenevolent or benevolent at all, and in a atheistic worldview, it is explained by the utter lack of a omnibenevolent god. Only the Abarahmic God makes absolutely no sense in the world we live in. His characteristics completely contradict the real world
>>753235
In pagan worldview, people don't have free will either. In order for us to be free, we have to have the agency to do evil. Without that agency, then we cannot love, because love is a matter of choice. Even the angels had to have this agency so they could love, which is what allowed 1/3 of them to rebel under Satan.
>>753245
>In pagan worldview, people don't have free will either. In order for us to be free, we have to have the agency to do evil.
This is false.
>Without that agency, then we cannot love, because love is a matter of choice.
And that choice is completely unnecessary in a world run by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. He would give every person infinite love. This costs him zero effort and he, according to your religion, is more than willing to do so.
My point still stands. Abrahamic religion is the only form of religion that can't explain evil or suffering. All the 'solutions' you present are completely unnecessary in the Abrahamic scenario
>>753268
>This is false.
No, it's absolutely true. If you literally can do nothing but good, you are not a person, you are a machine.
>He would give every person infinite love
Love is a matter of freedom by definition. You can't force someone to love. That's what you call a waifu
>>753245
> love is a matter of choice.
This is bullshit. You can't choose to love someone. How it is a matter of choice?
>>753235
That's utterly ridiculous.
Without pain how can you comprehend pleasure, or anything else for that matter?
Because it usually means something bad is happening to you. People that derive pleasure from pain are relying on endorphine rushes that are part of the fight or flight response to stress. Flagellants and those who eat spicy food are the same.
>>753275
>If you literally can do nothing but good, you are not a person, you are a machine.
So God is a machine? He has no choice? That would make him not omnipotent
>>753277
If someone criticizes you, it is your choice whether you want to respond with love
>>751858
Why do theocrats think their delusions should be standard?
>>753275
> You can't force someone to love.
You can't choose to love someone either. Like with being insane there is no agency over love whatsoever. This proves that love isn't based on your agency or freedom of choice. Not even the slightest.
>>753286
God has freedom here as well.
>>753294
I think you're thinking of eros, which isn't the same concept.
>>753283
>That's utterly ridiculous.
Not in an Abrahamic worldview. In an Abrahamic worldview, the entire universe is ruled by someone who is both able and willing to take away all evil and all suffering. By definition, in an Abrahamic world, neither evil nor suffering should exist. Such a world should contain nothing but pleasure, since the entity that rules it is both able to create a world with nothing but pleasure and, according to every Abrahamic holy text, wants nothing but eternal joy and pleasure. In such a world, evil is by definition completely unexplainable and contradicts everything in it
>>753297
So he can do evil then?
>>753275
The difference between us and other animals is self awareness. We are all based on early protein factories which developed self preservation reactions. In essence we are self aware organic machines. I know that may hurt your ego but self awareness is the only thing that separates us.
>>753275
> If you literally can do nothing but good, you are not a person, you are a machine.
This is absurd. How that kind of argument is different from like... If you literally can do nothing but breathe, you are not a person, you are a machine. Where is my freedom of choice in that matter? Even if I can stop to breath for example, where is my freedom of choice to not obey laws of physics or freedom to escape eternal punishment in hell for example, etc. Is it ok to be a machine in some cases but not in the other? Where is my so called freedom to resurrect good people who are killed by accident for example? There is no. I can be only evil passive bystander in this matter, God give me no choice.
>>753283
> Without pain how can you comprehend pleasure
Yes. You can be bored for example. Pain isn't the only form of discomfort. You don't even need to feel pleasure anyway to comprehend pain because people feel it not in contrast with pleasure but directly.
>>753311
He can but he wouldn't. :^)
>>753308
Your straw man conception of Abrahamic monotheism aside explain to me how exactly the concept of pleasure or any concept at all along the continuum of experience and sensation can exist without pain.
How can you differentiate when there is no difference by definition?
>t-that's God's problem not mine...
No it's very much your problem as you are the one attempting to backseat drive God.
How do you create the Human experience without allowing room for suffering?
Was the very act of creating Life an Evil act in your opinion?
>>753318
You might say the same thing about what separates us from rocks.
>>753311
He could choose to be evil, of course. He's God
>>753322
Of course breathing is a constraint, just like being able to be in once place at once is a constraint. That is not quite the same as not even having the freedom of sentiment or moral action.
>>753334
My argument was addressed to include the concept of boredom under the category of pain. Discomfort is discomfort.
Calling X discomfort evil, but Y discomfort good is subjective hair splitting.
>>753343
The real problem here is that you can argue that you can have freedom of moral action even if you can't choose evil option. There is no need for some sort of moral dualism. What so bad about choice between bigger good and lesser good for example?
>>753365
>Calling X discomfort evil, but Y discomfort good is subjective hair splitting.
That's fucking ridiculous. Are you for real? So for you there's no difference between being hungry and starving to death?
>>753381
No such distinction. You either are of the truth, or of the lie. There is no being of the less truthy truth.
>>753381
What's the objective difference between lesser good and evil?
>>753387
> You either are of the truth, or of the lie.
This is unnecessary dualism. Some truth can be more true than other while not being lie. Same is for beings. God as described or comprehended by humans would always be a less true than God as it is because of his Absolute nature.
>>753386
That is a complicated question.
Literally to death?
Well then all sensation has ceased so a comparison is impossible as there is no valid sample to compare. Starving unto the point just prior to death but not actually to death? Yes that is correct there is no difference.
Hunger is hunger.
>>753342
>How do you create the Human experience without allowing room for suffering?
Why do you ask me? I'm neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. You whine about strawmen, yet your entire post is one big long strawman of my point.
>>753399
Now, that is true. But not always. When those of us who choose Him finally see Him, we will know Him as He knows us.
>>753402
There is a difference you fucking idiot. If you're hungry because you haven't eaten all day, you might feel sluggish and irritable, and maybe you have a headache. If you're hungry enough to be on the verge of death you can't even move around.
>>753393
Suppose that there is none. By this logic only the *most good* act possible would be count as good. Humans are imperfect therefore it is impossible to have moral freedom because there is zero chance to choose *literally perfect* option. In practice you will always do some kind of lesser good therefore you will do only evil. See the contradiction here? You can be moral perfectionist and insist that we have freedom to do good. People aren't capable to find *most good* solutions in most cases.
>>753343
Rocks dont have any mechanical or chemical attributes that would define a machine. Speaking of rocks, are you a creationist? I hear this rock thing a lot from them.
>>753399
All lies contain at least some element of truth, but they are not truth itself.
>>753322
Freedom is not power.
>>753418
If you're not a creationist, you believe that a rock is in your family tree somewhere.
>>753418
A rock is a network of atoms and chemicals, isn't it?
>>753409
> we will know Him as He knows us
To do this you need to be as omniscient as God himself which is highly questionable assumption and very solid case of hubris.
>>753406
How is asking you to explain what you want a strawman?
You seem to want to be human without actually being human, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>>753411
So?
We're talking about the subjective sensation not the person's objective energy level.
>>753427
I never got the whole "if you believe God, you are arrogant" thing.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
>>753437
>A rock has no programs or moving parts.
Then how did it "evolve" into life?
>>753423
Power and freedom are directly connected. You need some kind of power to be free in your acts and other way around.
>>753445
If you are God, sure. Because He's omnipotent.
If you're a human being, no.
You are free to try to jump to the moon. You are powerless to arrive.
>>753417
>Humans are imperfect therefore it is impossible to have moral freedom because there is zero chance to choose *literally perfect* option. In practice you will always do some kind of lesser good therefore you will do only evil
Which is why Christians believe it is impossible for humans to be saved without the grace of God.
The conclusion you arrived at is what is meant when Christians talk of Original Sin.
>>753450
>A machine has moving parts which have certain tasks
By "certain tasks" do you mean in the sense of teleos?
>>753450
Is that your concession speech for "evolution explains nothing of the origin of the universe, the origin of the earth, the origin of life, the rise of consciousness, or how finely tuned the universe is for us"?
>>753457
*telos
>>753438
There is difference between able to see and able to know.
>>753457
It must have parts for the express purpose of work. If a rock all of a sudden had the ability to induce chemical reactions then it would be a machine. Life as we know it probably began as organic hyperclusters with proteins performing specific tasks to keep the whole going and resist entropy.
>>753428
>How is asking you to explain what you want a strawman?
Because I don't possess any of the characteristics that God, according to Abrahamic religion possesses. It's a completely fallacious comparison.
On top of that, you accusing me of using strawmen is also fallacious. I merely take three things that to me are uncontestable: the God of Abrahamic religion possesses omnipotence, so there's by definition nothing he can't do, he possesses omnibenevolence, he is by definition opposed to any forms of evil or suffering. Finally, I observe that the world we live in is filled with suffering, most of which is completely pointless and serves absolutely no purpose, unless you can explain how an African child dying of the HIV he got from his mother serves some deep purpose.
If I take these three facts, we get a massive contradiction. The first two should completely take care of the last. By the way Abrahamic religion defines its own god, suffering shouldn't exist at all. Free will doesn't solve this, because that to was given to us by the same God that is completely able and willing to make all suffering go away. All free will does is shift the blame from an entity with omnipotence and omnibenevolence to entities who don't have this. To blame humans for the sufferings of the world is actually pretty scummy, since even if they were willing to stop it, they would never be able to. It's basically a trick to shift the blame from an entity who can do something about all the sufferings in the world to an entity who can't
Again, to put it simply, the Abrahamic scenario is the only scenario in which suffering is a complete contradiction and the 'solutions' it presents solves nothing. It's basically a form of the divine that has painted itself into a corner, and is now trying to escape by declaring the paint dry, even when everyone can see the footsteps on the floor
>>753471
>It must have parts for the express purpose of work.
So let me get this straight: you're saying the parts have to be teleological in nature? Correct?
>>753461
Yes. Evokution has nothing to do with those. Evolution deals with change over time in life. Of youre going to say god did it you have to back that up with concrete evidence in a scientific manner. This peer review is how every theory we have is acknowledged by the scientific community.
>>753464
If you say so, sport.
1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
>>753455
You are free to jump only because you have some power to do so. There are people like Steven Hawking who can't jump. Different acts require to hold different kinds of power.
>>753471
> the ability to induce chemical reactions
Could you classic this statement please?
>>753471
Rock is a machine. An island building machine. Turns out rocks melt. And harden. And make things.
>>753478
You do, actually. You were made in the image of God.
You have agency.
You have sovereignty.
You are immortal.
>>753481
No, they must suitably have a purpose. Bacteria didnt just invent themselves their components, they developed the components on accident which then served a purpose. Thus they became a part of the biological machine that is a cell.
>>753482
So we agree that "evolution" is useless as a concept, and that everything covered by "evolution" was already covered by "natural selection", "breeding", "adaptation", and "mutations".
>>753492
>No, they must suitably have a purpose.
Do you know what telos is?
>>753478
> filled with suffering, most of which is completely pointless and serves absolutely no purpose
The fact you do not see a point does not render it completely pointless. Your perspective is simplistic and hedonistic.
Do you consider the creation of life, and more specifically human life an evil act?
>>753486
So let's narrow down the focus a bit.
You hare free will in that you are able to choose between the options available to you.
You are not "free" to "do whatever you want", and you will find that your free will choices carry consequences with them that you are not "free" to avoid.
>>751858
But that image is basically talking about pain that leaves you (potentially) the better person afterwards. That's just necessary pain, or at the very least pain that you find outweighed by the benefits brought by the pain.
Most people, I think, would not object to that pain, given sufficient knowledge of the situation. Such information is sadly not a given.
It is unnecessary, pointless and unrewarding pain that I don't find merit in.
Well look at the quote in your picture.
>perseverence, character, hope
But it uses those words like there's something innately "good" about them, a secularist would look at that and call it vague and arbitrary.
>>753497
>Do you consider the creation of life, and more specifically human life an evil act?
Not that guy, but considering that suffering is one of the defining factors of human existence, I'd say it would be easy to argue it as such.
>>753505
Secularists feel the same way about all morality, but that doesn't really address the question.
>>753456
> The conclusion you arrived at is what is meant when Christians talk of Original Sin
It doesn't solve the problem. You can say that it is Original Sin but you still can't do *good*, therefore moral choice doesn't exist.
>>753507
So essentially what you're saying is you'd rather not exist at all then because AIDS babies exist?
>>753516
If you argue a purpose, you are arguing telos. Because "telos" is literally Greek for "purpose"
>>753512
I know, I mean, I look at the quote and I "feel" it. I have friends that do not.
I think without pain there's no point in existing, it's an experience to have. Obviously so is pleasure but less people have experienced pain than pleasure. So I prefer pain. I don't know, I'm not a philosopher. Wish I was smarter in the area thiugh.
>>753524
In the biological community "purpose" is shorthand for nontelos explanations.
>>753521
Correct, from a Christian perspective Christ solves that problem. Also it is not so much that moral choice does not exist so much as it is the case that it is impossible for us to know for certain that we are acting morally.
>>753531
>purpose is shorthand for purposeless explanations
That's incoherent. If you meant it figuratively, that would be one thing, but you're trying to use it as a concrete definition here.
>>753498
Basic question here is why you are machine if you can't choice evil option but somehow you are not a machine for not being able to ignore gravity. World where evil doesn't exist allows freedom of choices.
>>753505
Actually there was researches in psychology that prove that some human virtues are universal. Even secularist can't just disregard this.
>>753540
The fall impaired our freedom significantly. That might include being beholden to gravity.
>>753523
Well, I already exist, so my opinion on that subject couldn't be objective. I'm just saying that bringing a child into the world, or life at all into the world, could be considered a cruel act, as we're ultimately born to die and our existences will be defined in large part by our suffering. It would from there be easy to argue that this is an inherently evil act.
But I'm personally in the camp of atheists that don't think pleasure is inherently good, or pain inherently evil. What brings us pleasure can sometimes easily destroy us, and what brings us pain can sometimes make us greater.
>>753549
I'd be fascinated to see this. Also wouldn't that just be proving that we have social instincts?
>>753537
Organic machines have "goals" of reproduction and entropy resistance to be very basic. They have parts which serve a "purpose" for these "goals". As being self realizing biological machines we have these innate programs in a similar way the machines we create have. A computer which randomly developed programs via mathematical processes in the same way chemistry does for organic life is the best comparison. A machine that through the right conditions randomly generates tools to fulfill a meaningless purpose randomly generated.
>>753149
Perhaps you greatly misunderstand that entity.
>>753577
Oh goddamnit. I fucking hate this image. Why would I bother with religion when I could just read the works of an actual fucking philosopher? Why not skip the Bible and go for the works of Plotinus, or Epictetus, or hell, even Max fucking Stirner?
>>753553
Yes. Actually there is nothing wrong with being a machine from logical perspective. Maybe The Fall was turned humans into machines of some kind? There are some clear connotations here between universal laws like death and deterministic limits that allows creation of machines at the first place.
>>753564
So then you agree with teleological biology?
>>753557
Fair enough I suppose, but I'm of the of the opinion that cruelty is sometimes necessary and I think it's ridiculous to make the choice that some one should never be born just because someone you'll never meet, somewhere you'll never go will experience unpleasant things.
>>753577
Philosophy went to shit after science became a disciplined study rather than being part of philosophy. No one takes fiction seriously in combatting nonfictional problems.
>>753590
It impaired our freedom but it didn't abrogate our agency altogether.
>>753583
>>753583
>Why should I read the works of a philosopher when I could just read the works of an actual philosopher?
Seriously brah?
>>751858
Pain is only effective because it is bad. If you actually enjoy it, it doesn't produce character - but instead degenerates it.
>>753516
I get it. You think "evolution" has a purpose.
What is that purpose, again?
>>753609
Yes, goddamnit. If something like the bible is taken as philosophy, it's Ayn Rand tier philosophy.
>>753590
It turned us from immortal, Spirit filled beings into mortal, spiritually dead beings.
It was horrific. It condemned us all to separation from God, forever.
>>753557
That is the inescapable conclusion of your worldview.
It is not true in mine.
>>753621
I sincerely doubt you have given Proverbs a fair reading.
>>753636
>It is not true in mine.
I'd contend you've just deluded yourself into thinking otherwise.
>>753562
https://thedailyomnivore.net/2015/06/29/character-strengths-and-virtues/
There is some basic introduction. It is far from conclusive but somewhat reliable and empirically tested.
>>753641
And if my worldview is not mine, but one I subscribed to?
>>753577
> he still think that atheism isn't allegory
What would I except from religion memer.
>>753594
>Philosophy went to shit after science became a disciplined study rather than being part of philosophy. No one takes fiction seriously in combatting nonfictional problems.
Lol okay, enjoy OD'ing on pills once you realize "science" won't solve your future existential crisis.
>>753655
Or provide love, meaning, acceptance or purpose to your life.
>>753669
>Or provide love, meaning, acceptance or purpose to your life.
That is philosophy.
>>753655
I'm going to listen to same Harris and just plug my brain into a pleasure machine once neurosciecne invents one! Than I'll just sit on my ass getting my brain zapped with utilitarian fun-time feelings!
Where is your philosophy now :^)
>>753621
Have you even read the Bible? Have you read Ecclesiastes? Job? Any of the Epistles?
>>753685
>Where is your philosophy now :^)
While you become fat, lazy, and repulsive...
...my lats will have grown, my deadlift and squat will have increased by hundreds of pounds; I will have become smarter, stronger, and happier.
Yet, there is only one thing that will separate me from you: I will have purpose.
>>753708
I did. It was boring, awful and completely empty of anything worthwhile. Honestly, nothing in either the Torah, the Bible or the Quran can hold a candle to anything pre-Abrahamic. Whether it's Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek, Germanic, etc. There's something about polytheistic writings that the Bible will never have, a certain sense of richness and complexity that is completely absent in the Bible
>>753734
I'm pretty you're either extremely biased, or just can't stand parataxis.
>>753739
Right, or the thing you've invested your entire life in is just shit, and you're now suffering from Stockholm's syndrome
>>753752
No, I don't think so, since there are numerous atheistic Biblical scholars, such as Robert Alter, who consider it a profound work of philosophy and literature.
>>751858
Because it is bad? Torture is pretty much the worst thing you can do to somebody.
Why do theists need to invent contrived reasons for the world sucking so much balls when God is supposed to be omnibenevolent? Pain is bad, there'd be no need for it if God hadn't created a shitty world full of dangerous things that have to be avoided. It's like people who romanticize manual labour as a virtue-in-itself, even though nobody would want to fucking do that shit if the world wasn't full of scarcity. It's just stockholm syndrome for the status quo.
>>753763
So you're using atheistic Biblical scholars in your argument from authority? That's pretty damn ironic
>>753708
The book of Job is fucked up, dude.
>>753577
>implying the word "entity" is even close to an accurate summation of what it truly is
>implying words can even express the absolute and the philosophical essence of no-thing
>>753643
I see nothing empirical about it, other than you (and the link) asserting it's empirical. The fact that it's a commercial book, not a peer reviewed article, says enough about that.
Also, in the sidebar it lists sources:
>TED
>Urban Dictionary
>Tv Tropes
>Vice
Uh huh. Fucking pop intellectual faggotry.
>>753778
You are arguing from authority as well, albeit your own
>>753780
> Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass? or loweth the ox over his fodder? Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg? The things that my soul refused to touch are as my sorrowful meat.
>What is my strength, that I should hope? and what is mine end, that I should prolong my life? Is my strength the strength of stones? or is my flesh of brass? Is not my help in me? and is wisdom driven quite from me?
>>753827
>if a book has good prose, it can't have an ethically monstrous message
>>753827
>arguing from authority, albeit your own
Otherwise known as 'arguing'
>>753837
There is nothing ethically monstrous about its message, which is that being pious has zero to do with earthly rewards, and can in fact turn everything against you
>>753838
No, regular arguing means presenting a reasoning. An appeal to authority is x says y, therefore y is true. Not x makes y argument, therefore y is true.
>>753846
>regular arguing means presenting a reasoning
>arguing from authority, albeit your own
>An appeal to authority is x says y, therefore y is true
So I argued a point, and because I did it, that makes it true? Where is the argument from authority going on in this?
You are making absolutely no sense right now
>>753861
>So I argued a point
You didn't. You expressed an opinion, you didn't not present any argument.
>>753846
>There is nothing ethically monstrous about its message, which is that being pious has zero to do with earthly rewards, and can in fact turn everything against you
You conveniently omit that God dishes out both, which puts willing agency behind this state of unfairness. Not to mention his disregard for life. His family fucking dies and God just gives him new children at the end, then he fucks his daughters and God is okay with it.
>>753880
Satan is actually the one dishing it out, God just doesn't interfere.
Every's Christians family will die, and will be Resurrected anew.
>>753802
There exists relevant statistic and researches. I linked to popular article on random site to show general idea.
>>753886
>Satan is actually the one dishing it out, God just doesn't interfere.
This is still fucked up. I would be considered cowardly for standing by and allow evil to happen even as a normal human being, let alone if I was a being with omnipotence. Trying to prove a point to Satan or whatever is just petty bullshit.
>Every's Christians family will die, and will be Resurrected anew.
So dying is basically pointless by your own admission. This is just an obvious mental tool to get people to accept their horrible lot, anyway.
>>753923
Where is the real shit then?
I'm not the one you're talking to by the way but I'm also interested.
Perhaps I wouldn't understand more rigorous studies without background in psychology but I wanna know it exists
>>753927
>This is still fucked up. I would be considered cowardly for standing by and allow evil to happen even as a normal human being, let alone if I was a being with omnipotence. Trying to prove a point to Satan or whatever is just petty bullshit.
This is what comes with being devoted to God. Satan is more likely to torment you, as is the world in general. Even God is, because God punishes those he loves (Proverbs 3:12).
>So dying is basically pointless by your own admission
The Orthodox perspective of death is extremely negative: : http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/afterdeath.htm
>>753936
Good question. It isn't that hard to find bunch of relevant articles or whatever. The problem here is to filter serious works from more bullshit ones. The best one from you can find all kinds of other references and general opinion on subject here:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4219388/
I wouldn't regard author of original theory as some kind of pseudo scientist because he got some very legit researches in psychology like problem of learned helplessness. Still I can't really say that this theory is really conclusive and have no problems.
I like to be beaten. I like it when I am in pain. Normally I do things like cut into my toes to make them bleed. I also deliberately infected them once because I like the feeling of the bulbous flesh pressing against my toenails.
>>753956
Oh, hey Constantine.
>This is what comes with being devoted to God. Satan is more likely to torment you, as is the world in general. Even God is, because God punishes those he loves (Proverbs 3:12).
This is what I'm saying. "Punishing those you love" is abusive and fucked up. It's bad when a father does it to his children, and it's worse the higher up on the scale of power you go. Even if you disagree with me, I'm sure you can see why I'd think this way.
>The Orthodox perspective of death is extremely negative
God created everything, so he created the definition of sin and its system of consequences that lead to death in the world.
>>753998
Having contributed a sound theory doesn't prove your other ideas are correct whatsoever. Austrian economists invented the subjective theory of value which is praised, but it's widely regarded as pseudoscience.
>>751858
Because unlike religious people there wont be an afterlife that will reward you for your suffering and punish those who didnt/ acted wrongly.
With no afterlife the pleasure/pain caculation takes on new menaing.
>>757045
>This is what I'm saying. "Punishing those you love" is abusive and fucked up. It's bad when a father does it to his children, and it's worse the higher up on the scale of power you go. Even if you disagree with me, I'm sure you can see why I'd think this way.
No, I really can't. How would you deal with a spiteful and spoiled child?
>God created everything, so he created the definition of sin and its system of consequences that lead to death in the world.
Sin is technically not anything. It's a ruse. That's why Satan is called the father of all lies. Sin is the veil masking God's love permeating everything, but even the veil doesn't exist. It's not a negative, it's a zero. God created only the truth, pursuing sin is pursuing a lie.
>>757121
I would think you'd end up more in line with Mishma's philosophy
>Why do so many secularists see pain as innately bad?
Probably because biology?
What even is a "secularist" anyway kek
>>753290
Because lifelong indoctrination + universalization + psychopathy.
>>757713
>What even is a "secularist" anyway kek
According to 4chan christposters pretty much anyone who isn't a fundamentalist zealot, so anyone who has even the slightest doubts about the Bible being 100% accurate and moral
>>757729
A fundamentalist is someone who takes the whole Bible literally and doesn't recognize any other source of authority. So basically a Sadducee of Christianity.
