free will paradox

[Esquilax]

Yeah. It's called justice. You think people should get away with bad stuff?

Oh, not at all. People should be punished for crimes. I just don't feel like there's any measure by which the bad things I'm responsible for are worth the infliction of pain, or require punishment at all. I've suffered the consequences of my actions in this life, atoned to the people I should atone to, and learned from them. Why on earth should there need to be more? Moreover, by what measure does god assume he has the right to impart such punishment? My father had a hand in creating me too, he has no right to raise a hand to me, even so.

"Hellfire" lol. Sounds scary doesn't it. Of course you're trying to say you're own slight disdemeanours don't warrant the same punishment as a serial murderer right? Well who said you did? If God is just, as I believe, how do you rationalise that? Because I cant. What I've been talking about here is hell on earth. this life where what comes around, goes around, You reap what you sow. Your own negativity, no matter how small, limits your own enjoyment of life. I'm sure you'd agree with that on a secular level.

I do agree, and if it stayed at that level, without a hell after death, then that'd be about right.

Here you're presented with an idea that you are given an opportunity to achieve perfection although you are not perfect. The only aim of which is to give you happiness. What would your response be to such a gift? A: "This benefactor must be forcing this crap life upon me because I'm not perfect like it is, therefore I'm not happy with it."

My position is more that there's no reason to punish anyone for living a normal life. That my life is my own, and that god shouldn't take any responsibility for either the good or bad things in my life; let me live and learn on my own, and don't think to punish me once it's over unless I've truly hurt somebody. Hands off, essentially; let me walk on my own.

Pardon me if it don't take the author nations' word over yours.

By all means, if you want. The problem is that every religion makes similar claims about the ultimate good of their own religious texts; do you believe them too? After all, they wrote it. Self reported virtues are by design somewhat biased, don't you think?

A lot of modern societies laws are built upon the moral guidelines found in this book. As we become further departed in our understanding of it, we become more primitive in our morals, that is, less moral.

A lot of our laws have advanced beyond the bible too; we have a prohibition on slavery now that the bible doesn't have. Would you argue that this is more primitive than the biblical ideals about that? We also don't make rape victims marry their rapist, isn't this a good thing? I would argue that we have a more nuanced legal system now because of its secular nature.

If it's harmful to you, do you not want to deal with that? This is your personal hell.

Sure, but I want to deal with it myself. I don't want to be compelled toward it by an outside force, that robs me of agency in doing so. Let me rise or fall on my own.

Well the basis of Christianity is that assumption that people aren't born perfect. This is very clearly illustrated in the story of Adam and Eve. Man is fallible/ has the predisposition to fall. This seems to be the common zeitgiest too. People on here concur, when I've asked. What is your opinion then EsQ? Do you think that people are perfect and have no need of improving themselves?

Of course people aren't perfect, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this requires punishment upon their death. Certain actions require punishment yes, but I don't think in my ground state I deserve hell, nor that the moderate immorality that a normal life accumulates should do so either; these things are necessary for us to learn, and I'd prefer to atone to the people I've wronged in these small ways, rather than just suffering meaninglessly until I've fulfilled the metric of some heavenly father.

I didn't claim any exclusivity on goodness. I didn't even claim any exclusiveness on ultimate goodness. Morality, rooted in ultimate good always trumps morality rooted in the mediocre. Seems to me she's turned her back on some very worrying craziness that I don't recognise even slightly. What the hell was she? Where does she believe goodness comes from now then? From the good deeds of people? A secular realist fights against the mediocre.

Personally, I feel that good actions should be done for the fact that they're good, not because there's some reward on the other side of life. Whether or not a god exists, we should do good because it's the right thing to do, no? My sole point at the beginning of this portion of the response was that one can disbelieve in god, without doing the same to goodness.

Doing good stuff, like you say you are doing, is very similar to what I'm promoting. Somehow I'm involved in some deep rooted evil where I see you as nice people doing what I would want all people to do. Why are you attcking me?

I'm not attacking you, and I apologize if it's come across that way. This has been quite a measured and interesting exchange, so I wouldn't want to come across as hostile. I just disagree with you, is all.

You're using the english language innacurately. People post examples of people using the opposite in lazy speech thanking God that gets ridiculed. Rightly I guess you'd think?

Why? I wasn't invoking luck as a supernatural force, and beyond that, why should there just be a single definition for the term? "Fortunate" and "lucky" can just mean "having come to a positive outcome through negative circumstances." It often does.