You certainly should be skeptical, more than skeptical.
I think everyone should be that.
As I said, humans have a second purpose, a purpose aside from knowing and loving God. Suffering is required in order to fulfill our second purpose which is to acquire spiritual qualities.
Sounds like the motto "No pain, no gain." But that's usually from weightlifters who choose to do that for their own goals. But intense suffering and trauma can lead to mental illness, which might put someone in the wrong direction, away from spiritual qualities.
The only way we can know anything about God is from scriptures and there is no indication in the scriptures that God directly causes suffering.
I guess it depends on which scriptures you're looking at. The stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and others would indicate that there have been times where God actually did directly cause suffering. That is, unless those stories aren't true, although one can suggest that all scriptures are/were entire fabrications and concoctions of human imagination.
That might impair the free will of adults if as children they had religious beliefs and dogma drilled and drummed into their head, but it does not take away their free will. The proof of that is that many people who had religious beliefs and dogma drilled and drummed into their heads as children have been able to break free of those beliefs when they entered adulthood.
Well, it helps to also live in a society where humans have rights and collectively agree to protect and honor those rights. But it doesn't mean that their early trauma didn't affect them or alter their thought processes - even if they've been able to overcome it to some degree as adults. Some people end up in therapy or have to go on psych meds. Every individual goes through different stuff in their lives. They have different experiences and different environments, so the fact that some people can break free of their early beliefs is not proof that everyone can do it.
What would you think of a proposal to outlaw the teaching of religion to anyone under the age of 18? To teach religion to children should be considered child abuse, and anyone found guilty of doing so should be put in jail.
If God had just left us alone and let us do whatever we thought was best, all people would have different ideas of what is best for them and some people would want what is bad for them.
Isn't that what people are doing already? What would be the difference if God chose to just leave us alone?
The Messengers off the guidance from God who alone knows what is best because God created humans and God is all-knowing and all-wise.
We don't really know that they're true messengers, though. There's no evidence or proof of such. It takes a leap of faith to reach that conclusion. (And even then, it's not actual faith in God or the messengers, but rather, the messengers of the messengers, who could be lying or just flat out wrong.)
I agree, but where is the duress? It is not coming from my religion.
The duress is there by design (if we're assuming that we were designed). Humans, when they start out as infants, are very small and vulnerable - totally dependent upon the goodwill of their parents or other adults in their lives. Humans require copious amounts of food and water on a daily basis, which also makes us easily vulnerable to duress. The need to sleep is also a vulnerability; people deprived of sleep can go psychotic, which would hamper and taint free will. Humans were also ostensibly imbued with emotions, which can also complicate and confuse rational thought processes. We were also given strong sex drives, yet told by religion that we should not give in to temptation. Pain is also very unpleasant, which is why humans seek to avoid pain - and there have been many times when humans would say anything, do anything, or believe anything - just to stop the pain. Even the threat of such is enough to keep most humans in line. Where is the "free will" in that? You don't think that's duress?
Even the idea of bringing up free will can have the effect of being like Job's comforters who said that he must have done something sinful for God to have punished him. It's a Just World Fallacy. It's far too superficial and oversimplified to sum up the vast complexities of human nature by just a few platitudes.
In any case, if you say that we're here to suffer (regardless of the reasons), then suffering is a form of duress. That is the environment that surrounds us. Religion can often be a source of duress, but not necessarily the ultimate source, which comes from the daily struggles of life and the limitations of our physical nature.
Are you saying it is acceptable behavior to become a homicidal maniac simply because one was deprived of their creature comforts, food, sleep, sonic showers, and/or one's life was in jeopardy over an extended period of time? Are you implying that they did not have a choice except to behave that way? How many people do you think would behave that way? No, I do not think that happens very often because people have a choice as to whether they will behave that way or not.
I never said or even implied that it is acceptable. However, most secular humanists who are informed and educated about the complexities of human nature and the psychology of the human mind can at least understand the cause and effect relationship. This is something that religionists are either unable or unwilling to understand.
Even their portrayals of God would indicate that their perception of an all-knowing, all-seeing benefactor is that of a rather stupid and brutish individual. One would think an intelligent God would understand the subtleties of human nature and how being driven to the edge can often lead people to do things which we both agree would be unacceptable behavior. Unfortunately, the scriptures portray that of a stupid God (or at least reflective of the understanding and cultural perceptions of the people who wrote them). That, in and of itself, should call all scriptures into question.
Many humans understand these things about human nature, not just from science and developments in psychology, but also from being human ourselves. Even the writers of TV shows understand these things. But God is not smart enough to understand that which many of us understand quite well? God doesn't care about these things or take them into consideration? Is that the position that you would hold to?
It is entirely possible that a God could exist under those conditions, and that would be the deist idea of God. However, Bahais do not believe that God is completely aloof and uninvolved, as we believe in a personal God who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), but God is clearly not like a human that has a physical form. Baha'is believe that God is the non-created cause of all existence and the transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained. However, ruling and maintaining does not imply interfering with human free will decisions and ensuing actions.
Honestly, I have nothing against what anyone believes. I'm a strong adherent to the principle of Freedom of Religion, along with a Wall of Separation Between Church and State.
I used to believe, when I was very young and impressionable. I grew up as a Catholic, although even my parents left the Church when I was very young, although my grandparents still took me whenever I was with them. I also looked at other religions. I had a co-worker who was a Muslim, and he gave me a copy of the Quran. It was interesting, and for a time, it seemed compelling. But even that didn't really answer many questions. It prompted even more questions.
I also knew a couple of guys here locally who literally claimed to be the Messiah. I wasn't quite sure what to make of them, but what was especially interesting for me was in watching the exchanges between these gentlemen and the numerous detractors and hecklers they would attract. It was quite a learning experience for me. One of them was actually known to the local atheist community and even spoke at one of their Sunday morning brunches that they used to have. He had a rather boisterous way about him - very dramatic and fire-and-brimstone. He accused a number of churches and local pastors of being apostates and hypocrites (although he did expose one of them as a child molester).
Thing is, he didn't seem like such a bad guy. I actually liked him, but it reminded me of how many cult leaders can often seem likable, charismatic, and usually put out the glad hand at first.
But in the end, they couldn't prove anything either. We're always back to square one because there's no real evidence of anything, other than cryptic writings of questionable origin.
Yes, and you would be referring to Christianity and Islam.
Yes, for the most part, although ultimately, I think that any portrayals regarding the proposed existence of an entity called "God" can invite a great deal of conjecture, vagueness, and is highly open to speculative interpretation. That's why it can be twisted and used any which way. Historically, it's been used to serve a political purpose, and for a time, it might have worked as an organizing principle and an impetus for uniting human communities and promoting cooperation and a sense of common purpose. But as with anything in the political realm, power corrupts.
Religion is politics, and politics is religion.
I certainly did not mean that all humans suffer equally! Nothing could be further from the truth. When I said "We all suffer equally, whether we have a religion or not because suffering is inherent in a life in the material world" I meant that as a group religious believers and nonbelievers both suffer because suffering is inherent in a life in the material world and we all live in the material world.
(Continued on next post)
And this goes with the implication that this material world was created by some powerful entity who ostensibly wants us to suffer for some vaguely-defined purpose. "No pain, no gain." Yet, we're also supposed to believe that this same entity is not responsible for the suffering, even if it's what this entity purportedly wants?
