What is behind suffering?

[abelcainsbrother]

Shackles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kFLZSeU6rk

[B. W.]

Nessa,

Here something to enliven the thread and by the way Nessa your Subject line is not vague at all, nor or the questions. So I will post the usual things I heard humanist / atheist answer in regards to questions below:

What is behind suffering?

DNA, Nervous system, flesh and bones, body, and mind all relative to the personal possessor of flesh and blood or a simple nervous system organism. Just how the body handles things.

Is suffering just an impersonal force?

Some say good and bad are relative. Likewise suffering in that case would indeed be merely relative as well, a product of random chance in the case of illnesses, accidents, events, or risky behaviors.

If suffering is cased by other people, then the act of making or causing another to suffer cannot be judge as bad because it is all absolute relative because there is no good or bad accept the law of thou shall not offend me...or else...I give payback.

(suffering) A consequence of something? Bad luck?

No, as all is subjectively relative, thus, there is no right or wrong but rather only the whims of people creating their own worlds of self kingship/rulership and that indeed cannot cause any suffering. Exception is with Christianity as that defies the subjective relativism code and thus its the only bad that objectively exist which includes all concepts of god that does not support relativism.

Please explain to me the evolution of suffering and pain

Biologically, the nervous system. If one gets a splinter, it helps identify location for its remover and avoidance of infection. The Human body, which has an infection, will experience pain which locates the infection to be treated, unless it is untreatable cancer, then dose for pain.

You cannot judge another's affliction of suffering because all things are relative. If one is forced raped and violated, they cannot say they suffered because the needs of the rapist was relative and justified by the rapist.

The suffering or hidden cries of the unborn are relative since they are not heard and fetus rarely seen. Just relative... no big thing.

Suffering caused by bad political policy and foreign deals - all relative - no big deal.

Suffering caused by others is simply relative, get over it, be Vulcan about it. Those guys ISIS slowly beheaded on the beach means nothing - no right or wrong.

However, only one thing that causes suffering is the concept of god an that must be altered to conform to humanism or exterminated to achieve the perfect good; however, suffering goes on nevertheless because it is all relative anyways.
-
-
-

[abelcainsbrother]

Nessa,

Here something to enliven the thread and by the way Nessa your Subject line is not vague at all, nor or the questions. So I will post the usual things I heard humanist / atheist answer in regards to questions below:

What is behind suffering?

DNA, Nervous system, flesh and bones, body, and mind all relative to the personal possessor of flesh and blood or a simple nervous system organism. Just how the body handles things.

Is suffering just an impersonal force?

Some say good and bad are relative. Likewise suffering in that case would indeed be merely relative as well, a product of random chance in the case of illnesses, accidents, events, or risky behaviors.

If suffering is cased by other people, then the act of making or causing another to suffer cannot be judge as bad because it is all absolute relative because there is no good or bad accept the law of thou shall not offend me...or else...I give payback.

(suffering) A consequence of something? Bad luck?

No, as all is subjectively relative, thus, there is no right or wrong but rather only the whims of people creating their own worlds of self kingship/rulership and that indeed cannot cause any suffering. Exception is with Christianity as that defies the subjective relativism code and thus its the only bad that objectively exist which includes all concepts of god that does not support relativism.

Please explain to me the evolution of suffering and pain

Biologically, the nervous system. If one gets a splinter, it helps identify location for its remover and avoidance of infection. The Human body, which has an infection, will experience pain which locates the infection to be treated, unless it is untreatable cancer, then dose for pain.

You cannot judge another's affliction of suffering because all things are relative. If one is forced raped and violated, they cannot say they suffered because the needs of the rapist was relative and justified by the rapist.

The suffering or hidden cries of the unborn are relative since they are not heard and fetus rarely seen. Just relative... no big thing.

Suffering caused by bad political policy and foreign deals - all relative - no big deal.

Suffering caused by others is simply relative, get over it, be Vulcan about it. Those guys ISIS slowly beheaded on the beach means nothing - no right or wrong.

However, only one thing that causes suffering is the concept of god an that must be altered to conform to humanism or exterminated to achieve the perfect good; however, suffering goes on nevertheless because it is all relative anyways.
-
-
-

Sounds like these people have been listening to the Serpent again and believed the same lie.
Genesis 3:4-5

[PaulSacramento]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

[Audie]

When I intitally said good or bad it was said knowing many people think its relative and subjective.
So was meaning it on those terms since this is a question for atheists.

uh ok so what is the question?

Its in the subject heading.
I tried to not make it too complicated...

It isnt comoplicated, its vague.

Possibly it's vague.

But then so are alot of posts.

If you dont care to say what you mean by what is "behind" such things, that is fine.

Whatever your exact intent, I hope you know better than to take BW's
prejudiced bit of cant as representative of anything other than his chosen view of people he does not know.

[Audie]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

I'd certainly agree that there is good and bad.

Nor sure if anything is absolutely good or absolutely bad; perhaps.*
In general we have degrees of, shades of grey, unforeseen and unintended consequences,what is good for one side is bad for the other, and so on. "Road to hell paved with good intentions".

How do you see the relationship between "good and bad", and, "pain and suffering"?

*an example of something absolutely good of bad, or a moral absolute would be welcome here. Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.

[Audie]

Sounds like these people have been listening to the Serpent again and believed the same lie.
Genesis 3:4-5

Yes, people in their vanity always like to think it is those others with the itching ears, listening to and spreading falsehoods, never themselves.

"Satan", should he actually exist, is no doubt quite good at that encourageing sort of deception. And vanity, it is said, is his favourite vice.

But of course, I'm just one of those atheists so what I say does not count.

[PaulSacramento]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

I'd certainly agree that there is good and bad.

Nor sure if anything is absolutely good or absolutely bad; perhaps.*
In general we have degrees of, shades of grey, unforeseen and unintended consequences,what is good for one side is bad for the other, and so on. "Road to hell paved with good intentions".

How do you see the relationship between "good and bad", and, "pain and suffering"?

*an example of something absolutely good of bad, or a moral absolute would be welcome here. Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.

An example of something absolute good or bad is not needed.
What is absolute and objective is that there is SUCH A THING as good and bad.
We can even argue that all there is, is an objective Good and the absence of that is bad.

We can site examples or subjective good, but we all know that ANYTHING can be deemed good with enough mental acrobatics.

Again, the whole notion of subjective good ( what is good) would not exist without the objective ( that there is such a thing as good) good.

[Nessa]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

I'd certainly agree that there is good and bad.

Nor sure if anything is absolutely good or absolutely bad; perhaps.*
In general we have degrees of, shades of grey, unforeseen and unintended consequences,what is good for one side is bad for the other, and so on. "Road to hell paved with good intentions".

How do you see the relationship between "good and bad", and, "pain and suffering"?

*an example of something absolutely good of bad, or a moral absolute would be welcome here. Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.

Torturing a baby or molestering one.

Is there a time when that could be considered good?

[Jac3510]

There are plenty of examples of things that are evil always and everywhere. There is no example of anything that is good always and everywhere. That is because goodness, by its, nature is contingent upon a range of things. The only thing intrinsically, absolutely, and always good is God. Everything else is contingently good and therefore open to exception given some set of circumstances. That, by the way, is why rules based and consequence based systems of ethics (deontological and teological ethics, respectively) ultimately don't work. Against that, since evil is simply the absence of good, some things are always and everywhere evil precisely because it is those very things that contingencies have to take into account. So, yes, molesting a child is evil always and everywhere. On the other hand, telling the truth is, as a rule, good, but sometimes telling the truth is bad. For instance, telling someone a truth they have no business of knowing or telling someone a truth when it violates an oath of trust is wrong. Better in those cases to hold one's tongue entirely. So you see the contingency of good. Even something as supposedly absolute as worshipping God is a contingent good, because while God Himself is necessarily and absolutely good, worshipping Him is an act contingent upon a lot of realities. Cf Matt 5:24 for such an example.

[Audie]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

I'd certainly agree that there is good and bad.

Nor sure if anything is absolutely good or absolutely bad; perhaps.*
In general we have degrees of, shades of grey, unforeseen and unintended consequences,what is good for one side is bad for the other, and so on. "Road to hell paved with good intentions".

How do you see the relationship between "good and bad", and, "pain and suffering"?

*an example of something absolutely good of bad, or a moral absolute would be welcome here. Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.

An example of something absolute good or bad is not needed.
What is absolute and objective is that there is SUCH A THING as good and bad.
We can even argue that all there is, is an objective Good and the absence of that is bad.

We can site examples or subjective good, but we all know that ANYTHING can be deemed good with enough mental acrobatics.

Again, the whole notion of subjective good ( what is good) would not exist without the objective ( that there is such a thing as good) good.

Needed or not, I was curious if you knew of such.

By "such a thing as" (good or bad) do you mean, there is such a thing as that which we perceive as good or bad, or that such kind of exist out there in a platonic ideal sort of way.

The words are, after all, adjectives.

[Audie]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

I'd certainly agree that there is good and bad.

Nor sure if anything is absolutely good or absolutely bad; perhaps.*
In general we have degrees of, shades of grey, unforeseen and unintended consequences,what is good for one side is bad for the other, and so on. "Road to hell paved with good intentions".

How do you see the relationship between "good and bad", and, "pain and suffering"?

*an example of something absolutely good of bad, or a moral absolute would be welcome here. Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.

Torturing a baby or molestering one.

Is there a time when that could be considered good?

I was looking for a general rule, not specifics.

If btw, you agree with BW and think that I am such as he describes, we can
quit now.

[Nessa]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

I'd certainly agree that there is good and bad.

Nor sure if anything is absolutely good or absolutely bad; perhaps.*
In general we have degrees of, shades of grey, unforeseen and unintended consequences,what is good for one side is bad for the other, and so on. "Road to hell paved with good intentions".

How do you see the relationship between "good and bad", and, "pain and suffering"?

*an example of something absolutely good of bad, or a moral absolute would be welcome here. Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.

Torturing a baby or molestering one.

Is there a time when that could be considered good?

I was looking for a general rule, not specifics.

If btw, you agree with BW and think that I am such as he describes, we can
quit now.

I gave you what you asked for.

An example of something absolutely bad or good which actually could be turned into a general rule.

Torturing babies is bad.

[Audie]

There are plenty of examples of things that are evil always and everywhere. There is no example of anything that is good always and everywhere. That is because goodness, by its, nature is contingent upon a range of things. The only thing intrinsically, absolutely, and always good is God. Everything else is contingently good and therefore open to exception given some set of circumstances. That, by the way, is why rules based and consequence based systems of ethics (deontological and teological ethics, respectively) ultimately don't work. Against that, since evil is simply the absence of good, some things are always and everywhere evil precisely because it is those very things that contingencies have to take into account. So, yes, molesting a child is evil always and everywhere. On the other hand, telling the truth is, as a rule, good, but sometimes telling the truth is bad. For instance, telling someone a truth they have no business of knowing or telling someone a truth when it violates an oath of trust is wrong. Better in those cases to hold one's tongue entirely. So you see the contingency of good. Even something as supposedly absolute as worshipping God is a contingent good, because while God Himself is necessarily and absolutely good, worshipping Him is an act contingent upon a lot of realities. Cf Matt 5:24 for such an example.

What general rule might there be? Or, is in your view, everything to be taken case by case, and considered as to the balance of pro and con?

[Audie]

As has been stated before, logically speaking, if what IS good or bad is relative or subjective then THERE BEING a good or bad is objective and absolute.
And, experience and reason and history and, well, pretty much anything you want, tells us that IS the case.
In short, while what is viewed/understood/thought of AS good or bad MAY be subjective but that there IS a good and bad, is not.

I'd certainly agree that there is good and bad.

Nor sure if anything is absolutely good or absolutely bad; perhaps.*
In general we have degrees of, shades of grey, unforeseen and unintended consequences,what is good for one side is bad for the other, and so on. "Road to hell paved with good intentions".

How do you see the relationship between "good and bad", and, "pain and suffering"?

*an example of something absolutely good of bad, or a moral absolute would be welcome here. Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.

Torturing a baby or molestering one.

Is there a time when that could be considered good?

I was looking for a general rule, not specifics.

If btw, you agree with BW and think that I am such as he describes, we can
quit now.

I gave you what you asked for.

An example of something absolutely bad or good which actually could be turned into a general rule.

Torturing babies is bad.

That is pretty specific.

Or maybe not so much an example, but a general rule that could be applied.