[ SECRET POST #2664 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2664 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #381.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The answer to that question is an easy one, but I suppose you don't want to hear it.

[(Anonymous)]

*tips fedora*

[applemagpie]

LOL.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like nowadays *tips fedora* is the new *tips fedora*.

Anyways, *tips fedora*

[dreemyweird]

Oh, go away. Not everyone is obliged to try and find justifications to all the horrible shit they witness or go through. If you can, good for you. But if somebody can't do that, please don't suggest that they must be a die-hard reddit atheist.

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem with someone saying that they believe that this question is irresolvable and that the most reasonable answer is that God does not exist.

I don't think OP's comment was that. It reads to me as "God's Not Real! You're dumb for having this issue because God's Not Real but you're too blinded or stupid to realize that." And that's a difficult thing. Sorry if I'm reading something into it that's not there, but that's what annoys me about it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, you're reading too much. It's not about calling the other person dumb or stupid, it's just that they are deciding to ignore the facts that contradict their beliefs cause they want to continue believing. Nothing wrong with that, most people do it all the time, and not only with religion. It's like when you read something not so good about a celebrity you like.

[(Anonymous)]

But see the thing is that when I read your comment, I see the same thing, so I'm not sure if I can trust your judgment.

Because when I read your post, it sure as hell looks like you're saying that it's a fact that God does not exists. And that is an attitude that I associate with the attitude OP has. And I'm not sure that 'It's okay that I'm calling religious people stupid or at best willfully ignorant, because I think lots of people are frequently stupid or willfully ignorant all the time' is a great line of defense either.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry then, but usually I assume that if there's no proof that something exists, then it doesn't exists.

[applemagpie]

I thought the anon was making fun of the comment they were replying to, because it sounds like the typical 'enlightened athiest'

[dreemyweird]

I dunno, in hindsight, maybe they are. But to me they sounded like someone who couldn't really see the other side of the argument. Which is not wrong or bad in itself.

[applemagpie]

I'm an atheist myself, but I think the first comment to this thread was a kind of patronizing.

[(Anonymous)]

(Another atheist here.)

I agree, but on the other hand it can be really frustrating to watch people replay the same conflict again and again ("If God is so merciful and loving, why do bad things happen to good people?") without pushing that train of thought any further than, "Welp, guess it's just a mystery we'll never know the answer to" or "He works in mysterious ways, yep, that's it!"

I don't say anything to people who are troubled by this conflict in their beliefs, but I don't particularly admire how the "solution" to that question is inevitably to shrug or come up with some brain-twisting logic where God's not at fault for allowing terrible things to happen to innocent people.

[(Anonymous)]

Go back to your church.

[(Anonymous)]

But it's the only answer. If a good person dies in a natural disaster 8no free will involved here), there are only two options:

-God can save that person but doesn't want to.
-God wants to save that person but can't do it.

If you have a third one, I'd love to read it.

[(Anonymous)]

God could save that person but has a good reason for not doing so.

That good reason would usually be either (A) saving that person would lead to some greater harm down the road - this is the Leibnitz best of all possible worlds explanation and not terribly plausible IMO - or (B) it is in some respect important that the world be left to the control of humans and that God not interfere too much with human existence.

[(Anonymous)]

A is interesting. But regarding B, what's the point of God then?

[(Anonymous)]

A) God, like any parent, can't save the day for their kids every time. If nothing bad ever happens to us then we will never grow as people and as a society.

B) God and Satan are playing on a galactic chess board with the world.

C)God created humans and then just say back to watch and see what his experiment can do.

[iceyred]

-God is not your personal genie and has reasons we don't understand.

[(Anonymous)]

If they were good don't they get to experience eternal bliss in paradise? Not such a bad deal.

[(Anonymous)]

Neither of those options would indicate that god doesn't exist. They would only indicate that god doesn't work the way Christians think.

[(Anonymous)]

OK whenever I see this argument, I know those making it haven't thought it through. Do you know how many overpopulation dystopias have been written? Did you ever stop to consider WHY an overpopulated world where nobody dies, is actually a sucky place to be?

[(Anonymous)]

Third option: God doesn't directly interfere with people's lives, or does so very rarely.

[(Anonymous)]

You read schlock mercenary too?