Enough of this crap, I want to hear directly from god

[WinterHold]

The world is not fair, and that in itself is a message from God: this life is not worth it.

I don't arrive at the same conclusion.

The fact that life is unfair, especially considering there is no afterlife, we should enjoy the single one we have while we are alive.

Some don't even have the luxury of enjoying anything in life.
Did you forget about the people born with disabilities and the so poor people or the slave-like children who work for capitalistic sharks?

[The Grand Nudger]

An unfair test is a mercy from God, it gives you a direct hint that this life is worthless.

A test should be unfair, because it's a good thing for you to know that your life is worthless?  Do I have that right?

[Foxaèr]

Some don't even have the luxury of enjoying anything in life.
Did you forget about the people born with disabilities and the so poor people or the slave-like children who work for capitalistic sharks?

A disadvantage in life doesn't prevent them from enjoying life.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some don't even have the luxury of enjoying anything in life.
Did you forget about the people born with disabilities and the so poor people or the slave-like children who work for capitalistic sharks?

Would all of these things be goods things, too, if they help you realize that your life is worthless?

[WinterHold]

An unfair test is a mercy from God, it gives you a direct hint that this life is worthless.

A test should be unfair, because it's a good thing for you to know that your life is worthless?  Do I have that right?

Exactly; if the putter of the test wanted you to learn that life is worthless.
Look at the Roman and the ancient Egyptian monuments, the builders are long gone and dead, so would we. Life is worthless.

[Foxaèr]

It always baffles me how theists resort to the childish taunting of life is worthless in retaliation to logical comprehensions of a world without a deity.

[WinterHold]

Some don't even have the luxury of enjoying anything in life.
Did you forget about the people born with disabilities and the so poor people or the slave-like children who work for capitalistic sharks?

A disadvantage in life doesn't prevent them from enjoying life.

I remembered a video for Carlin regarding you naming the "bad test" a mere disadvantage:






Bad test became "a disadvantage"..

[The Grand Nudger]

A test should be unfair, because it's a good thing for you to know that your life is worthless?  Do I have that right?

Exactly; if the putter of the test wanted you to learn that life is worthless.
Look at the Roman and the ancient Egyptian monuments, the builders are long gone and dead, so would we. Life is worthless.

That's an interesting bridge between what is and what should be - and it looks like it's exposing other fundamental assumptions that you might need to re-consider.

The artifacts of high culture would appear to impart even more worth (if worth, as it seems to be, is something that lasts) to roman and egyptian people than any of the unknown multitudes of tribes and villages and towns lost to history and archaeology.  Even those relative unfortunates, though, still contributed to something which lasted.  Worked hard. Went through the full range of human achievement and failure, and all of the experiences that go with that. Here we are.  

Others may not find life to be worthless, as you do - and this belief...not any god belief, is what looks to be informing your moral conclusion about what tests should or shouldn't be.  I think I could agree with you in principle.  That it's good to know true things.  That knowing some terrible true thing would still be of greater value than remaining ignorant of the same.  The trouble, here, is that I'm also completely certain that your belief that life is worthless is entirely false.  Is this something you could see me telling my children?  Is this something that you would tell yours?  Did someone tell you this, as a child?

[Foxaèr]

Bad test became "a disadvantage"..

I watched the video. The relevance to my post wasn't there.

[R00tKiT]

There's no indication, thusfar, that we're discussing anything god related.  No one is making any assumptions about god aside from yourself.

The observation is that children tend to ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.

Some portion of this, we agree, is down to kids imagining things.  That they're very capable of describing something that is not there.  I don't know what portion of experienced content that accounts for, but we can put a pin in that and say some.  Some of what children see is purely imaginary.  I doubt that the purely imaginary stuff is what you have in mind when you insist that this is evidence for a god.

Still, we might assert that....at least sometimes....children get it right.  I think that's probably more fair than the notion that they always get it wrong.  They ascribe purpose to natural phenomena because it's there.  This is what the term natural teleology explicitly refers to. 

Again, you're describing the content of their imagination, -which, we agree, doesn't say much about reality- instead of the tendency. Children are a more honest version of ourselves, stripped of any cultural or ideological influence, at the same time we observe that they invariably assign big phenomena to big creators -be it a giant unicorn, pixies, or something similar- and/or give them purpose. 

As I already said, children often have no problem with the ideas of heaven, hell, afterlife, they may even invent them themselves without being presented with any religious elements. Death in its raw form isn't conceivable even to adults.

One can of course see this as further proof that religion is man made. But there is an equal probability of it being a creator leaving us imprints making its religion easy to grasp/follow.

So, whether children picture these creators/these vague meanings of purpose accurately is not really an interesting question. To describe even simpler stuff accurately to other people already requires a great deal of linguistic ability and social intelligence.

It either is or isn't possible.  The specific failures of your own imagination are irrelevant.  Nothing has prevented equally religious people from conceiving of an afterlife without any gods and nothing about you believing in some silly god makes that impossible.

That's not how any of this works, at all.

You didn't answer my question. What external power you think will intervene to ressurect the dead ? What kind of power will glue together the ashes of billions of burned people- for example? If you claim you can conceive of an afterlife without an all powerful being, they you can at least conceive of a rudimentary scenario of godless ressurection.

Meanwhile. Here is my logical argument against any possiblity of afterlife absent a god:

1- An afterlife requires supernatural intervention. For natural intervention cannot bring back the dead, or even cure all diseases of the living.

2- Absent a god, there is no supernatural intervention.

3- Therefore, if there is no god, there is no afterlife.

To you, maybe..and perhaps that's why you made yet another assumption.  That other people would share your silly beliefs about god-purpose.  I don't think that god-purpose is worth anything at all. 

The god purpose motivated many people to work for the exact causes you mentioned -preventing famine, genocides, rape, etc. Absent the god purpose, all other purposes are equally appealing.

On a sidenote, if someone tells you he finds purpose in favoring white people over black people, what makes his purpose less valuable than yours ?