I do sort of see where MADARA is coming from when he wrote that he thinks that denying the existence of God is a billion times worse than denying that the holocause happened. If it really is the case that non-believers will spend an enterny in hell, then this would be infinitely worse than the holocaust and denying the existence of God would genuinly be more dangerous than denying that the holocaust happened. Since he probably believes this, his statement did make a lot of sense.
Eternal holocaust in hell? Maybe within this sick twisted belief system called religion this makes sense.
Sick and twisted indeed. For me, the worst aspect is its forced propagation to children.
When my daughter tires of the fluffy Easter bunny I will not stone her to death (rocks or easter eggs). Neither will I threaten her with some kind of bunny hell afterlife.
ad Colin: Since MADARA was making that statement in response to the fact that you might get jailed (under certain circumstances) if you deny the holocaust, I think he was thinking more along the lines of people denying the existence of God “deserving” another kind of punishment. I might be wrong, but that’s the impression I got (and that’s what lots of “devout believers” of certain faiths demand be done to non-believers).
(…) …then this would be infinitely worse than the holocaust (…)
Worse than being gased and watching your kids getting killed in front of you? I don’t think so.
Unless you put what you believe to be God before anything else, of course.
ad sgilpin80: (…) …Are there other topics beside holocaust denial that are forbidden by law in Austria? I’m curious to know if you think there should be an expansion of these laws to other areas or if there is something unique about holocaust denial. (…)
Holocaust denial per se is not subject to prosecution. If I were to tell you now that I don’t believe the holocaust happened and leave it at that, I would not be punished.
If, however, I told you that it did not happen and the Jews all invented it and that we need to get back at them for their lies, so we should finish what Hitler supposedly never started (and thus consequently never could have finished) and if I invited you to a meeting where we plan further actions, THEN I would be liable to punishment.
I hope you see the difference.
The Verbotsgesetz has to do with our history and it has to do with what the Allies (amongst them the US) demanded from us after the end of WWII to ensure that nazis would never seize power again in our country.
And, yes, I think especially with regard to our history the holocaust is unique in many ways. It is beyond comprehension what happened then.
I know people are killed today as well in many bloody conflicts. Just think of Syria - an indescribable tragedy. Yet, the holocaust was different.
There was no way for you to escape it unless you were lucky enough to find people who hid you. You were hunted down, even when you tried to flee they would go after you. They would slaughter them whereever they could get hold of them.
It was a killing machinery. It must have been hell on earth and to me personally one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that God simply cannot exist - at least not the kind of God so many believers talk about.
I have read many books, I have listened to many stories told by my grandparents and my parents (my mother having lost her father under the nazis) and watched many movies. One scene in a movie managed to show all the horror of those times in a few seconds.
“Sophie’s choice” - I don’t know if you have seen that movie. In the scene I am talking about a mother is given “the choice” to decide if her lil son or her lil daughter will be sent to the gas chambers. She can’t save both of them. If she does not decide, she will lose both the son and her daughter.
I don’t think you can ever forgive people for something like that. This is where I disagree with kimojima. You have to try and live with what happened and do your best to avoid such things from happening again. It is not about revenge, because in the light of such hideous crimes revenge has pretty little comfort to offer. You can never pay for something like that. You will never be absolved of such a crime. This is my conviction.
If God exists, he may be able to do it and I would let him do it. The important thing here is to understand that while you may not be able to forgive you don’t have to retaliate. These are two completely different concepts here.
As for your question if I think that we should “outlaw” talking about other topics, well, no.
As I have tried to explain, you can express your opinion about the holocaust but you are not allowed to use the denial of it as a platform for nazi propaganda.
P.S. Just to be clear, any person getting killed is a sign of how rotten man can be. The death of a child in Syria today is as deplorable as the death of a child in a concentration camp. But the fact that the nazis came up with a proper machinery to exterminate an entire people makes the holocaust unique - this is not to say that the suffering of other people is less worthy of attention or condemnation.
@ Robert (lovelanguagesIII)
“Worse than being gased and watching your kids getting killed in front of you? I don’t think so.”
You think that millions of people being horribly murdered is worse than billions of people being tortured for an infinte amount of time?
lovelanguagesIII:
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I don’t have any problems with how Austrians govern themselves, and I assume they know what is best for their country.
What I’ve noticed about fellow Americans is that the Holocaust is a big part of how they think of themselves as Americans. In particular they are very proud that their grandparents fought in WWII against the Nazis. So Americans are pretty obsessed with WWII and the Holocaust and I’ve never personally heard about anyone denying the Holocaust here in the US so its a bit of a foreign concept for most of us. (There are Neo-Nazis in this country, I just don’t know where they are and I never see or hear about them.)
‘‘I think a lot of atheists are only atheists because they, like many believers, have an infantile view of God and are under the assumption that that is the only option – in other words, there is either a Santa Claus-type God or else there is no God.’’
What nonsense! That’s like saying I choose to disbelieve in flying saucers because, if I did believe in them, I would have to accept that they came from Mars! I’m pretty sure all atheists I know are atheists because they have absolutely no reason to believe, that there’s no evidence to support the case that a God or Gods exist, in whatever terms that God or those Gods may be described.
@ Robert
Talking about freedom of speech in Austria, I just saw on Austrian TV some of the movie Commando, which happens to be one of the greatest movies of all time by probably the greatest Austrian of all time. Unfortunately they had cut out some of the more gory parts. I had to turn it off in disgust when I found that they had cut the bit where Arnie (aka John Matrix) drops Sally off a cliff after saying a badass line. What the hell?
@Robert
I know I said that I wouldn’t be drawn into this thread any more, but since you took the time to reply at such length, I feel that I owe you a considered reply.
“…I don’t think that you are a nazi. You have never given me any reason to think so…”
I’m relieved to hear this. It did seem to me that you were kind of half implying something like this - but if I was wrong, that’s fair enough.
“…However, I believe that you are very lenient with them…”
In what sense am I “lenient”? Because I defend their basic right to freedom of speech!?
Really, freedom of speech means NOTHING if it only applies to nice uncontroversial people with respectable opinions! The test is whether we (as a society) tolerate opinions that most people find utterly repugnant.
“…Whenever we only slightly touch upon the topic of free speech, you come up with people denying the holocaust and how terribly they are treated in Austria. You even once said something along the lines of Austria still being in the dark ages because of our Verbotsgesetz…”
I make no apology for bringing this up with you: this is an Austrian law, and you are, after all, an Austrian guy.
(However, I’m sorry if I have ever given the impression that I have some kind of special animosity towards Austria - that is certainly not the case. I have no doubt that Austria is, in most respects, an excellent place.)
“…I think you are extremely naive when it comes to nazis…”
You have a right to think that.
I think you are naive when it comes to freedom of speech.
“…I think there is no right to incite to violence and YES, at the end of the day every single nazi is doing exactly that…”
I have very often (including on this thread) made it 100% clear that I do NOT support anyone who actively incites violence.
Whether ALL Neo Nazis or Neo Fascists incite violence is nevertheless perhaps a matter of debate? I suppose it depends on how you want to define a “Nazi” or a “Fascist”? I have even seen Silvio Berlusconi described (on this forum no less) as a “Neo Fascist”.
Was he one? And if so, did he incite violence too? I don’t know.
“…I remember you saying in another thread that when you were in Germany you met some guys who were making those infamous “Jewish jokes” and you still thought they were “kinda nice”. You never ever suggested you sided with them or their mentality (and I NEVER suggested that), but I don’t think there is something like a “joke” when we talk about the holocaust…”
The individual in question wasn’t a close friend - it was just an acquaintance. On the occasion in question he told me that his grandfather had died in Auschwitz. When I expressed my deepest sympathy for this he said: “Ach, er war selber schuld - er ist betrunken aus dem Wachturm gefallen!”
It was a crass and dumb thing to say, but I don’t believe for a minute that this person was a Nazi sympathizer or an Anti-Semite.
“…I don’t share that kind of humor…”
Neither do I. (Which is where the notion of “tolerance” comes in, I guess.)
“…And, yes, every time we speak about free speech you come up with holocaust deniers. If you portray the nazi supporters handing out leaflets (as you did in one of your previous posts) as people that in the US for example would simply be laughed at or ignored you are clearly, albeit ever so subtly, suggesting that what the nazis are doing is not really that big a thing. If Americans can just ignore them or laugh at them, why do those “silly” Austrians have to make such a fuss about it?..”
I must point out - again - that the test for tolerance and freedom of speech is whether we allow views which are offensive and repugnant to the majority of people. I guess everyone agrees that mild, reasonable, uncontroversial views should be allowed.
“…Sick people can deny the holocaust (yes, you have to be seriously sick to deny it) as much as they want in their homes. The Verbotsgesetz punishes “Wiederbetätigung”…”
Yes, I get the thing about “Wiederbetätigung der NSDAP”. That nice Uncle Joe Stalin perhaps had good reason to introduce this law in occupied post war Vienna. But is it really and honestly only being used today to target people who are actively trying to reactivate National Socialism? Do you honestly think so, Robert?
For example, was David Irving trying to reactivate the Nazi Party when he was arrested? (Of which more below.)
“…Even if I wrote here that I don’t believe that the holocaust actually happened, NOTHING will happen to me…”
Well, perhaps - but I wouldn’t try it all the same! :-0
“…Holocaust deniers are not just evil, they are criminals […] I think people like David Irving have just as much blood on their hands as those f.cking cowards who smashed that little boy’s head as described in the article I linked to. Just because Irving wears a suit and is protected by lenient laws in other countries, this does not make him less a criminal in my eyes…”
David Irving is, in many ways, a deeply unsavory person. He seems to have ugly racist views, and is probably a Nazi sympathizer. Notwithstanding this it is, in my opinion, simply not rational and reasonable to say that he is exactly the same as thugs who smash the heads of children. What he does is write books presenting what is, in some particular points, a highly biased and perverse view of history. In the 1970s and 80s these books were put out by big publishers in Britain and America, and were - in some cases - very well-reviewed international bestsellers. Would that have been possible if he were writing books crudely inciting violence?
The only book of his that I have ever read is his biography of Joseph Goebbels, which I bought after reading some pretty glowing comments about it by the late Christopher Hitchens in an American newspaper. (Hitchens was right, BTW. it’s not difficult to spot some pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler passages in the book, but even so it is still an outstanding biography.)
“…He is too clever to publicly say “go out there and get them” […] People like David Irving are not simply “historians”, they are the suit-wearing stooges of the new nazi rank and file…”
So are you therefore saying that he was jailed not for what he actually said, but rather for what he was “too clever to say”…?
(On that basis, anyone could be arrested and thrown into jail, couldn’t they?)
“…Jay, I never attacked you personally and I would not do so, unless I felt you gave me a good reason for it. You disagreeing with me on this topic, certainly is no reason for me to not talk to you anymore…”
It’s okay - we disagree about some things, but this isn’t a personal fight. 
For me this forum topic is my example for the value of freedom of speech. As you can see there are different points of views ranging over different topics. These ideas are not the same and range from simple topics to serious topics. It would be unfair to not allow one side to express their opinion. I don’t believe freedom of speech means you can say what you want…as long as I agree. To leave one party without the ability to express their views in unfair, and to remove that privilege from both parties leaves no free speech for anyone. Everyone should have the ability to express their view, whatever that view may be. There are so many views, ideologies, and personal ideals. No one could possibly decide what is right and what is wrong. It is all opinion.
ad Colin: (…) You think that millions of people being horribly murdered is worse than billions of people being tortured for an infinte amount of time? (…)
Yes, absolutely, for at least two reasons:
-
The holocaust was real, while the existence of a hell is a mere hypothesis.
-
Even if hell existed, you could avoid going there by “repenting” and starting to believe in God. If the nazis had chosen you as a target you had no such choice, you were doomed, they would kill you without you being given any option whatsoever.
I don’t measure atrocities by the number of people who fell victim to them, but by the act itself.
Besides, in most religions hell is not a place where you are actually tortured, it is a place where you are supposed to be away from God. That is your punishment. They are not roasting you down there (we don’t even know where it is actually).
ad Stephen: (…) Everyone should have the ability to express their view, whatever that view may be. (…)
I strongly disagree with the “whatever” part. Wanting to kill people is not an “opinion” to me.
(…) No one could possibly decide what is right and what is wrong. It is all opinion. (…)
With all due respect, I don’t think it is that difficult to understand that killing another person is not ok.
We can talk about what people want to wear, how they’d like to talk, if they want to pay taxes or not, if their kids should be sent to school, if you want to pay for social security or not, there are billions of topics on which a wide range of opinions are and should be expressed ----- trying to take away the life of another person and publicly saying that that is your plan (and that’s what nazis do, you only need to listen to one of them to know that) does not fall under freedom of speech for me. But again, people are different and have different views. I merely expressed mine.
And if I suggested that all those having a different opinion should be killed and tortured I sure hope somebody would stop me from saying so and inciting others to join me in my plans.
P.S. I do think, however, that for the most part we agree on freedom of speech. I’m not trying to gag somebody every time he tries to say something I don’t agree with 
@Robert
As an addendum to my previous post, see this this article by Christopher Hitchens:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB114066518886080999
(I don’t agree with C. Hitchens on most things, but I think he was right about Irving…)
ad Jay: I hope you know that I very much appreciate your posts …all of them. We don’t have to agree. As a matter of fact, many of the things you and others say and which are in contrast to my own view help me question some of my beliefs or opinions.
I admit there are people I won’t talk to. If I see that there is not even a minimum of consensus, I’ll just leave it at that. There are people who support the nazi ideology or at least parts of it and you can still talk to them because they might actually be “misguided” and have fallen into a trap.
Then there are people like Gottfried Küssel whom you can’t talk to anymore. Somebody making videos where he is laughing and singing about how he is going to chop off the head of a Jewish child and then make soap of his/her skin simply is beyond that point. Add to this actual physical attacks on Jews, foreigners, gay people and then you know what kind of people I am referring to.
We are not talking about a one-time incident (which would still be extremely disgusting per se). We are talking about a man who has been doing this for decades (!). He even formed armed groups, they had military exercises with real weapons and they made videos saying they would overthrow our democratic government and hang all Jews, gays, socialists, etc.
They said they would want to have concentration camps again. THIS is the kind of people I have been talking about. I am not talking about a 16 year old kid who doesn’t know better and might have been brainwashed and repeating some stupid things he read in a book written by Irving for example (most of these people don’t even read though, except for their supposed “leaders”).
(…) So are you therefore saying that he was jailed not for what he actually said (…)
He knew Austrian laws and he defied them on purpose. He thought he could get away with it and many times he did and as far as I know this was also the case the last time he faced charges in an Austrian court.
He is publishing his books for a reason. He knows he is part, or better saying one of the most prominent proponents, of an international revisionist movement. He knows and obviously is happy with the fact that his books are used by nazi groups all over the world. We call these people “Nadelstreif-Nazi” (“Nadelstreif” is a type of black, elegant suit; I think you call it pinstripe suit in English).
His aim is to clear the nazis of their crimes to make them acceptable again. “Look people, the nazis were not that bad after all, the holocaust is a lie, let’s give them another chance.”
It is the last part which Austrian legislators are most concerned about. I won’t go into details here, but everybody who knows history knows that Hitler lost one election after the other. Once he had eliminated his opponents it was easy to “win elections” and that’s how some people now try to make it look as if he was democratically elected. You have to look at the entire process and not just one specific point in time in a string of historical events.
And as a decent human being you just don’t give murderers “another chance”. That is not the concept of democracy as I see it and obviously the legal experts of our Constitutional Court agree with this. We all know we should all be able to live in freedom and yet we put certain people in jail for specific things they do and/or say.
I mean the US even forbid their citizens to visit Cuba. In the land of the free, enterprises are not even allowed to do business with Cuba because their government says so. Now, I find that a lot more questionable than our Verbotsgesetz.
(…) …It’s okay - we disagree about some things, but this isn’t a personal fight. 
(…)
I really believe we mostly agree and we would not have any problem whatsoever living next to each other. I appreciate input from people who hold views different from mine. I just don’t appreciate and never will, if people spread their hatred and target those who mostly can’t even defend themselves. I know you have never done that and this is why I have always made clear that I wouldn’t even dream of putting you in the same group as the people I was talking about.
(…) But is it really and honestly only being used today to target people who are actively trying to reactivate National Socialism? Do you honestly think so, Robert? (…)
Yes, I do. Come here and you’ll see how much disgusting nazi propaganda is still possible despite our laws. Very rarely
are people jailed. If they are, it is not because of what they said while they were drunk or so.
(…) I suppose it depends on how you want to define a “Nazi” or a “Fascist”? I have even seen Silvio Berlusconi described (on this forum no less) as a “Neo Fascist”. (…)
First of all, fascism is different from nazism. I won’t go into details here, but books have been written about that difference.
The terms “nazi” and “fascist” are often used arbitrarily nowadays and that is counter-productive.
If you disagree with what some people call political correctness you might be called a “nazi” or a “fascist”. People who do that have no idea whatsoever about the actual meaning of these words. Berlusconi might be a crook, but he certainly is no nazi or fascist. He allied with fascist groups in Italy to seize and/or maintain power. Even that does not make him a fascist but rather an opportunist.
In my opinion that’s what he is: a rich opportunist who enjoys power and has a weakness for young women. I don’t know if he was any more corrupt than quite a few other politicians. I know too little about Italy to say if he is the one to blame for the economic problems they have. I most certainly would not vote for him, but that is another matter.
(…) …I think you are naive when it comes to freedom of speech. (…)
Fair enough
And you might be right. See, even my friend, who obviously cares for and about me, thinks I sometimes exaggerate. He would not want me to run this country either. He really said that ;-). And while he takes a firm stance against nazis, he would probably be more on your side when it comes to freedom of speech.
I guess I’m one of a kind here in this forum
So, I realize I have some extreme views in certain cases. Some of them may stem from disgust, others from fear, and some because they are deeply rooted in my ethical code. All of them make who I am as a person, but this is not to say that I am not open to the views of others as long as these views do not include killing other people.
I have no problem talking to people who think I am an aberration of nature. I’d like to know why they think so. But if they suggest that I should be jailed or hanged, well, that’s a different matter then.
I am a non-believer and yet some of my best friends are religious people and I appreciate them for their intelligence, open-mindedness and overall character. I enjoy talking to them and, who knows, maybe somewhere in the back of my mind I hope that one day they will convince me that I am wrong and that there actually is a God who makes all this look worthwhile. I just don’t know.
What I can say is that I firmly believe that religions have caused tremendous harm to mankind. And I have not found anything in any religious book I have read so far that would make me even want to believe in a God as portrayed in these books.
However, I have met quite a few religious people whose kindness and firmness in their belief I admired. Firmness here does not equal stubbornness or having undergone brainwashing. They have a concept of life which is different from mine but which is just as valid as anything else I have found so far. Again, as long as they don’t try to encroach upon the rights of other people.
Those believers who are in support of the bill in Arizona are a totally different kind of people, however, and that’s why I started this thread.
ad Colin: (…) Unfortunately they had cut out some of the more gory parts. I had to turn it off in disgust when I found that they had cut the bit where Arnie (aka John Matrix) drops Sally off a cliff after saying a badass line. What the hell? (…)
I don’t know that movie, but I’m generally not into violent scenes, neither in movies nor in real life.
If they cut out the scene you mentioned (dropping somebody off a cliff and saying a badass line), I very much doubt that they did it because they wanted to censor the movie. You can watch far more gruesome and violent scenes on Austrian TV. They probably had other reasons for that. Which, I don’t know.
I don’t enjoy watching such scenes, but I don’t have to. So, while I dislike such movies or video games, I understand that some people might actually enjoy watching them.
This is not an issue of freedom of speech though.
Where I draw the line is when they come up with video games where you gas Turkish people or other immigrants and you get extra points for raping lil girls etc. The more “foreign” those girls were, the higher the score. That was one of the games distributed by an underground nazi group in Austria. Now, this is where you NEED to have the state interfere. Even if it is “just” a game.
However, I couldn’t care less about what Arnie does in his movies. My most powerful weapon in these cases is my remote control and so far it has never failed me
@Robert: "…His aim is to clear the nazis of their crimes to make them acceptable again. “Look people, the nazis were not that bad after all, the holocaust is a lie…”
Okay - perhaps that is what he says in some of his books? (And I would certainly not support anyone who writes such things.)
As I say above, I can only speak about Irving’s biography of Goebbels because that is the only book of his that I have ever read. In this book he clearly describes how the Berlin Jews were cruelly rounded up on Goebbels’ orders and sent East to their deaths.
I am assuming you have NOT read any of his books, right? (It is arguable that one has no moral right to critique books which one hasn’t read…)
ad Jay: (…) I am assuming you have NOT read any of his books, right? (It is arguable that one has no moral right to critique books which one hasn’t read…) (…)
I know where you are coming from. And, to a certain extent, I agree with you. However, I would not have to read a nazi pamphlet to know I don’t share their views.
Besides, I don’t think you can buy any books by Irvin in Austria and I admit I would not even want to try. I’m not sure if it is legal to buy them. I guess it is, but I am not positive.
The biography he wrote certainly won’t be an issue as far as our laws are concerned.
I know I take a very strict stance and I realize that I sometimes may be going “too far”, not in my opposition to the nazis and their supporters but when it comes to people or their views which I might consider to be sympathizing with the nazis.
In German I’d say: Ich möchte an diesen Leuten nicht einmal anstreifen.
This is what you say when you don’t want to have anything to do with these people. Literally translated it means you don’t even want as much as to “graze them”.
When he was charged in court in Austria, the proceedings were open to the public. I have heard the man say what he had to say. And I have read passages of some of his books online, I admit to never having read an entire book written by him.
True, this is not the best basis if you want to write a review on his books, but I still think I have a fair amount of information available to say I don’t want to have anything to do with this man and what he stands for. Whether this should be reason enough to ban his books or actually jail him is another question.
He certainly was not in court because of the biography he wrote. He said that the gas chambers were a story the allies came up with and even if they existed they could not have worked the way they “supposedly” did. We would have to open another thread to talk about him in detail, and to be honest, I don’t think he or his books are worth my time.
He was denying the holocaust. Do I think that this is enough for a person to be prosecuted? No, not in all cases. Our law does make a distinction here too.
People deny the holocaust every day in this otherwise beautiful country of mine and only a fraction of them are actually taken to court, because our law is not as generally applied as some might think it is. Believe me, there is still enough room to legally say and do disgusting things for anybody who supports nazis in this country.
@kimojima
“Hence, my suggestion to quell the laughter over the religious. At least the religious are consistent and well-rounded. They believe in God as an all-powerful character and they also believe that what they are, at the root, is a character within a story who has a past and a future.”
They also believe that, unless you accept their worldview, nasty things are going to happen to you when you die. This, for me, is the reason why intolerant religious doctrine needs to be laughed at for the utter nonsense it is.
“On the other hand, for the atheist, a halfway view of questioning the existence of a Supreme Being named “God” is just that – a halfway view.”
I accept my view is incomplete; I don’t expect to know everything. But I am not going to use divine interference to attempt to explain the things I don’t know.
“Are you leaving the “Jamie” intact? Totally un-investigated?”
And on what basis do you investigate? Surely only a bedrock of knowledge gained from evidence-based reason and experiment can give you the comparison framework from which you can derive useful and meaningful deductions.
“I accept my view is incomplete; I don’t expect to know everything. But I am not going to use divine interference to attempt to explain the things I don’t know.”
Hell yeah. Saying “I don´t know” is much better than using mental gymnastics to make up one of these “god of the gaps”-arguments.
ad kimojima: (…) …It takes some courage to question the existence of the Grantor of life (…)
Why would it take courage to do that? I don’t consider myself particularly courageous but I do question his existence (I guess you were referring to God since you capitalized the word “grantor”).
I do accept the fact, however, that some people believe in his existence and I don’t think these people are ignorant, gullible or brainwashed - some of them may be, but this probably also applies to people considering themselves to be atheists.
(…) …If we look closely, we will know for sure that there is something incredibly intelligent that has weaved the tissues of the body, brain, ears, eyes, hands, nose, and tongue to be able to think, to be able to hear, to be able to see, touch, smell, and taste. (…)
It seems as if this was a basic assumption of most believers. I don’t know why you would think that “we will know for sure that there is something incredibly intelligent that…”.
What’s with the children that are born without the ability to hear, to see, smell etc.? And I’m not talking about the cases where the mother of the child was causing this through drug abuse or any other unhealthy life style. There is a lot of things that make me believe that whatever stands behind the existence of mankind is anything but great and/or intelligent. Amazing, yes, in many ways, inexplicable too, but intelligent and great, no.
Many religious people talk about life as a “gift”, you said we “receive” life. Both the concept of being given something as a gift and receiving something implies your consent because you need to accept it. I don’t see how any of us could have consented to being born.
Rather, birth happened to us. Something is done to you. Parents decide to have children, the child has no say in it.
And if God really existed, I think he should have found a way to actually make sure those who are born wanted it to be this way.
Otherwise, you don’t give but you impose.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in any way denigrating your beliefs. You have your reasons why you believe in the existence of God and I have mine why I don’t. We only have to find a way to strike a balance so both of us can live in peace. When the time has come, you may end up in heaven while I’ll be in “hell”, whatever this place or “state of mind” may be.
As I see it, however, there is also the possibility that both of our bodies will simply decay and we’ll continue to exist only in the memories of those we leave behind. And, this is not that bad a prospect either, we’ll continue to be part of this universe, just in a different form.