An Argument for God (cont.)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
[quote='Heywood Jahblome' pid='283015' dateline='1365102167']
"Unjust suffering" is just a value judgement. You can't prove the suffering is just or unjust. Calling it "unjust" appeals to certain emotions but doesn't add anything to a rationale argument.
[/quote]

So a healthy adult and a 5 year old with cancer are no different in your eyes? If you were not allowed to make a judgement based on emotion, you would find no injustice in that situation? I'd like to see you demonstrate that, all emotions aside, as not unjust.

[quote='Heywood Jahblome' pid='283015' dateline='1365102167']
That being said, Doctor X has it in his capacity to end that little girls suffering by killing her. Since he won't prevent the little girls suffering does that make him guilty of it? Of course not. Preventing or curing the suffering is a red herring. The real question is why did God create a capacity to suffer? Perhaps God created humans capable of suffering so that we would use our intellect to prevent it. Perhaps God gave us problems to solve because we take satisfaction in solving problems.
[/quote]

Yes, that is the real question, I agree. Your answers so far are not very good. Would you put an animal in a box on a hot day so it could use its problem solving skills to try and escape, knowing that it would suffer? Would you do this to thousands of animals? Millions? Your god does far worse, and you love him. I find that beyond logical explanation.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 01:44 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 05:59 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
*****

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Doctor X's post
04-04-2013, 05:18 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 12:22 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 12:04 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I agree, mostly. Projecting love on abusers is not human nature, save the fact that it's often a survival tactic. For instance, the child with an abusive parent must project love onto the parent in order that he might achieve some relief from the abuse. This also serves as a way to avoid the knowledge that he is not loved.

Humans need to feel loved, so much so that infants in orphanage who are deprived of human contact but have their biological needs met often die.

Christianity is merely an extension of that infantile defense mechanism onto the world and the story it tells is exactly the same story told by those who have suffered severe abuse and neglect as infants. The parallels are remarkable...

God works in mysterious ways but he always provides for me - The neglectful parent shows no affection but miraculously, is there to feed and bath the infant when necessary.

God is the light, who appears out of the ether in my time of need. - The neglectful parent appears out of nowhere, brings light to the darkness and tends to the child's needs.

Though I am born sinful, God shows me mercy. - The neglectful parent punishes arbitrarily and often tells the child he is worthless, and sometimes also affords the child a modicum of affection.

God is a perfect and moral being. - The neglectful parent must be made to seem moral and caring, lest the child admit his true nature.

Satan seeks to tempt me with sin/The world is full of evil people - The abused and neglected child must see the entire world as an evil place in order that the tiny amount of affection he receives from the parent seems larger.

The parallels are endless and are shared among all religions. But from a psychological perspective, all religions have their genesis as grandiose fantasies concocted by abused children as defenses.

Yes and that places most people into a couple different categories. Forced helplessness, where the child simply endures the abuse knowing nothing will change. And codependency where the child continues the pattern of searching for approval and someone to give their lives sanction for being.

That's interesting. Just to see if I understand you correctly, would it be safe to say that the former are those who practice their faith as a personal suffrage while the latter are, say, those who visit atheist sites or hold up signs in the street ostensibly for the purpose of proselytizing?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:06 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Yes, he could and should have. If he couldn't, well then... Round the MerryGo round we go.

I don't think He should have. Because I can cry, laughter is so much more the better. I don't like the idea of heaven being a place without any pain or suffering.

The pleasure / intense pain dichotomy is in no way is suggestive of a reasonable let alone loving god. The ultra extremes are far too obscene for words.

Consider five minutes of the greatest delight and compare it with the prolonged and worst imaginable torture. Like the choice?

While pain may comparatively make pleasure feel better the great and unequal polarization we observe makes the theological God concept maifestly perverse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 06:19 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 05:18 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 12:22 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yes and that places most people into a couple different categories. Forced helplessness, where the child simply endures the abuse knowing nothing will change. And codependency where the child continues the pattern of searching for approval and someone to give their lives sanction for being.

That's interesting. Just to see if I understand you correctly, would it be safe to say that the former are those who practice their faith as a personal suffrage while the latter are, say, those who visit atheist sites or hold up signs in the street ostensibly for the purpose of proselytizing?

While I don't disagree with your former synopsis. I'm not at all sure about the latter, while it certainly might be true for some, I'm not sure that it applies to all. But not everyone displays classic codependent qualities.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 07:01 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 06:19 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 05:18 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  That's interesting. Just to see if I understand you correctly, would it be safe to say that the former are those who practice their faith as a personal suffrage while the latter are, say, those who visit atheist sites or hold up signs in the street ostensibly for the purpose of proselytizing?

While I don't disagree with your former synopsis. I'm not at all sure about the latter, while it certainly might be true for some, I'm not sure that it applies to all. But not everyone displays classic codependent qualities.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your thesis applies to members of either group. We can't do that without examining people on an individual basis.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 07:01 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 06:19 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  While I don't disagree with your former synopsis. I'm not at all sure about the latter, while it certainly might be true for some, I'm not sure that it applies to all. But not everyone displays classic codependent qualities.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your thesis applies to members of either group. We can't do that without examining people on an individual basis.

Yes...you're quite right. No need ro apologize.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 08:12 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
To me Heywood personifies the textbook definition of Stockholm syndrome i.e.

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

but in your case, as with all other religious people, the "captor" is imaginary!

So all of us (those of us arguing the absurdity of all religious dogma) read with incredulity and disbelief Christian Aplogists like yourself and your inability to unchain yourselves from the prison in your own minds!

So many of us, in a combination of both pity and sincere wish to be helpful, point out the many incongruencies, contradictions and blatant absurdities in whatever scriptures you cling to.

Scriptures, n.: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
Ambrose Bierce


In the end, I'm afraid, the chains of religious doctrine can only be unshackled by the individual. In the meantime the freethinkers on this board continue to happily share their thoughts and opinions with captives like yourself.

My own personal thoughts include that I am convinced that no god is responsible for any suffering to children or anyone else for that matter BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD.

As for circle jerks those happen every Sunday in churches and in all places of worship across the world.

***edit for spelling

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
04-04-2013, 10:36 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 01:18 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Yes, that is the real question, I agree. Your answers so far are not very good. Would you put an animal in a box on a hot day so it could use its problem solving skills to try and escape, knowing that it would suffer? Would you do this to thousands of animals? Millions? Your god does far worse, and you love him. I find that beyond logical explanation.

What I would do is irrelavent. I am not God.

Do I think God would give humanity challenges? Yes, I believe He would.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:38 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 12:17 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't think He should have. Because I can cry, laughter is so much more the better. I don't like the idea of heaven being a place without any pain or suffering.

Taken to its logical conclusion your argument dictates that we should...

Suffer an infant to starve, so that he appreciates the food we give him.

Force children to sleep in the cold so that they appreciate the warmth and comfort of their beds.

Allow our children to suffer infections and injury so as to increase their appreciation of health.

Deprive our children of compassion and empathy so that they will better appreciate the same.


The above is a list of ingredients needed for the creation of a psychopath. This is what you advocate.
I haven't advocated any of those things. Your just making stuff up in lieu of an argument.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: