Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2013, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 07:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(04-09-2013 02:11 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: You really want me to lie for Jebus don't you.
Honesty seems to be unimportant to you. I suppose I should not be surprised.
You people in the religion business have little use for honesty.
Amazing that in 2013, an elderly adult can still think in such infantile terms.
How sad.
I do find it interesting that you NEED, (NEED), to explain it away to yourself, to minimize the cognitive dissonance resulting from honest unbelief.
"No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him".
What ? You never read your Babble, SPJTJ ?

BB, were you on drugs when this was written? It’s almost incomprehensible in those last few sentences. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say there.

Are you still physically unable to type “Jesus is Lord”? Really? It’s not like I asked you to type the gospel or “Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior and I love Him with all my soul.”

Please don’t lie and have a more spiritual friend do it for you using your login.

Nice try. You didn't answer any of the questions.
I never use drugs. I'm a health nut.
But, I'm not surprised you don't get it. You don't get much, SPJTJ.
Why would I type a bit of meaningless drivel.
Jebus is Lard. That all you're gonna get. Why would you want me to lie ? Do you have a really dumb god, who wouldn't know I was lying ?
Are you getting desperate ? You haven't done anything here.
I suppose it's to be expected you would try to do the rumor thing, and accuse me of doing drugs.
Jebus no likey that shit. Shame on you, Church Lady.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(04-09-2013 01:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:"You're a liar" only requires 10 letters Sleazy.

Thank you. I was off this thread for about a day, and was worried no one cared enough to assault me again. Thanks again for mocking one of God’s children.

Do you have something of substance to add to the debate after lambasting old PJ?

Not that you care, but I already have. Twice in fact. Here it is a third time.

Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V

If you posit an all powerful creator, who is also benevolent, then there is no reason for children (or anything else) to suffer. We live in a universe where children suffer needlessly. This would indicate a number of possibilities.

Either the creator lacks the power to make a universe without suffering, which makes it impotent.

Or the creator doesn't care to make a universe without suffering, which makes it malevolent.

Or the creator simply does not exists, absolving 'it' of all responsibility.

So something has to give because reality and the creator's attributes are incompatible. Since we can confirm that our reality is in fact this way, then the definitions of the creator must give, since they clearly do not fit in with reality. So the creator cannot be both all-powerful and benevolent, because of the clearly verifiable suffering that exists.

To not acknowledge this is intellectually dishonest, and shows a supreme lack of imagination on the part of many theists. Just because you can't imagine a universe without suffering, doesn't mean an all-powerful creator could not create one. By it's very definition, it must have the power to do so. So it either doesn't have that power or doesn't care to. Once again, impotent, malevolent, or non-existent; it is as simple as that.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
04-09-2013, 09:57 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(04-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:It is your fate to be mocked, how dare you rail against the God who chose this fate for you.

I don’t mind the mocking, I just mind the lack of thinking on your part(s).

I chose to come here and knew there would be mocking. How did I know? Because the Bible told me so! Now prove me wrong and the Bible wrong, and speak to me only respectfully, compassionately and logically.

I doubt you shall, because BB can’t even type Jesus is Lord. You see, there’s a spiritual issue there.

[Image: 31869909.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(03-09-2013 02:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: PJ, I can see why it would be important to not apply the morals [imaginary] god wants to apply to us. He wouldn't do very well.....

Um, the morals of god need not logically be the ones he applies to us.

Thanks.

Haha, right. Yeah that didn't happen, but do you have any other examples of what high standards god has kept himself to, besides his own self-sacrifice to himself to please himself to release himself from the judgment of future christians from.... himself! Yay, no making sensy.

But, apart from that, mainly god of your bible kills, maims, threatens, boasts, brags, tortures, men, women and children for thousands of years, but sure, he is patient, he is kind, he is loving, he does not boast, he does not covet, wait, no he pretty much does all of those things, way worse than 99.9999% of all humans. What an awesome god, he reigns! Nah, not so much.

Your God can do ANYTHING, including delight at the smashing of baby's heads on rocks. Again with the punishing of children for the sins of their fathers - he sure loves that doctrine of holding the wrong person responsible.

Please show me one more example where God's moral code is actually "superior" to the one he requires of his creation, besides the no makey sensy sacrifice of himself, to himself. Any one. I am of the opinion that the biblical god holds himself to a much lower standard of morality, and the true "mystery" of xianity is how xians have the ability to not only excuse his behavior, but to twist it in a sick and perverted way to make it HIGHER than the morality required of his believers. Cheers!

[NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: All references to "god" in all posts mean, specifically, the god of the theist to whom I am responding and only in a metaphorical sense. No references to "god" should or can be construed to be an admission of the existence of said "god" but rather a reference to how the aforementioned theist's "holy book" describes the attributes of said party's supposed "god". Ahem.]

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Skippy538's post
05-09-2013, 02:30 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2013 08:30 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Okay, but why can’t we rephrase the question, “Why would a loving, omnipotent god cause suffering?” to “Why can’t I be taller?” or “Why can’t there be more mozzarella cheese on my pizza?” In other words, when using our subjective viewpoint to judge an omniscient being, how do you know that suffering is any worse or better than not enough cheese or height?

First, this isn't about subjective judgement, unless what constitutes "loving" counts as subjective, and you've already agreed with me on the critical points that might be written off as interpretation. With that in mind, not being tall and not having cheese don't seem to clash with "loving" in the same way that a plan involving a party's suffering does. That's why those questions aren't as significant to this discussion.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I’ve demonstrated many times now that suffering does have positive purposes and outcomes, or at least most suffering, especially if there is a loving god who also judges… and rewards.

On the contrary, you have not demonstrated anything at all, and this is extremely frustrating. You've PROPOSED quite a few purposes and outcomes that the suffering might have been used to achieve. Yet for every last one of these, you have failed to explain, no matter how many times I ask the question, why an omniscient, omnipotent God would be unable to discern some other way of achieving the same ends WITHOUT suffering, or what God's purpose in choosing the option with suffering over one without might be. (That God would have an alternative, and be aware of it, is implicit in the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence.) ALL your proposals have floundered in the face of this question, and the fact that you keep putting forward proposals subject to the same weakness, despite having it spelled out to you, even when I pretty much reduced it to a fill-in-the-blank counterargument, tells me that you don't comprehend it in the slightest.

Let me try a metaphor. (I have few hopes of this working, but I'm not ready to give up on you just yet.) Let us say God is an everyday person (for this metaphor) and one of His loved ones is about to walk out into the street and, unknowingly, in front of a speeding car. He grabs her and proceeds to beat her halfway to death. When she, or a bystander, demands to know why He just spontaneously attacked her, He answers, "Well, I wanted to stop her from being struck by that car! It worked, didn't it? It's for the greater good, that car would have killed her, or hurt her worse than I did!" On the surface, this may seem to you like a valid justification. It inflicted suffering, but did so with the purpose of preventing worst suffering. But then she wails that He could have simply pulled her away, or cried out a warning. That would be enough, so why did He also have to beat her? The presence of an alternative way to accomplish the proposed purpose, an alternative in which no suffering is inflicted, completely negates the justification that the suffering was needed for the described purpose. It even suggests the question, "what was God's purpose in choosing the method with suffering, over the method without?" Why would God beat his loved one rather than just pulling her out of the way? Your proposed purposes are not actually purposes for suffering at all, UNLESS no alternative could be found without suffering, any more than preventing someone from being hit by a car is justification for beating her halfway to death.

And if God could not find a way to achieve a world without suffering AND achieve all His other aims, then he is either not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or both. (Unless one of his aims is suffering itself, in which case achieving His goals without suffering would be a logical contradiction potentially beyond omnipotence, but also grounds to question the "loving" part.)

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Then you’ll be pleased to learn Revelation and other scriptures say man is to be judged appropriately for being a poor steward.

Not really. I regard it, and pretty much all of the promises in the Bible, as vacuous. Being told that offenders will be justly punished means nothing to me if I don't believe the source of that promise. The only value that would have to me is if it served the practical purpose of keeping believers from messing up everything. And it hasn't.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Further, men and women are different. They really are, or are you a vegan? You eat animals, why not people? They are digestible, you know. Sounds like you have some positive ethics and strong feelings. Now if we can back them up with non-philosophical arguments we’re set. Not poking at you here, I just noticed that freethinkers constantly suggest ONLY empirical evidence is valid for supernatural events, god’s existence, etc. so why can we use philosophy to place values on human life such as the “innocence” of children?

Actually, I am a vegetarian, and have been for pretty much my entire adult life.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I’m familiar with the concept and with ideas underpinning ethics without a god and survivability of groups and the motivations (however pathetic) for altruism, for example, rather than sacrificing oneself utterly for another, one may not do to others what one fears.

However, this Dawkins gene is yet to be identified and marked by geneticists! Does it strike you as convenient to say “competition!” when we see it in the animal kingdom and then “socialization!” when we see something else in the kingdom? In other words, how come it’s not good for cannibals to eat people? Many species eat their own. How come it’s not okay to prey on the young? Most predators do—going after the eggs and so on.

You seem to be confusing the Dawkin's selfish gene (which isn't a particular gene to be marked or not, but a model by which the evolutionary process of any gene can be interpreted) with the God Gene. The so-called God Gene HAS been found, and it's known as VMAT2. (Better to say that that particular gene, already found, was proposed to have particular properties that would justify naming it "the God Gene".) However, the hypothesis (made by Dean Hamer) that it is connected to sensations of experiencing the supernatural is based on an unreproduced study, has little or no explanatory power, and is increasingly discounted (at least for this particular gene, and no one's yet put forward another gene or set of genes as an alternative). Save that the selfish gene and the God Gene both have to do with genetics, they are unrelated.

Some species do eat their dead and young, some don't. For that matter, some human societies have engaged in cannibalism, both as a violation/desecration of their foes and as reverent and respectful funeral ritual. If there is some genetically-determined revulsion to cannibalism (and there may be pressure for this; if nothing else it's unhygienic), it is insufficient to overcome the conditioning of one's society.

... and when we see animals competing, it is convenient to call it competition, and when we see them cooperating, it is convenient to call it cooperation, and that's because words with meaning are more convenient than grunts and gestures, especially when it comes to abstract concepts. Does that answer your question?

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I accept that if you’ll accept as a reasoning person that this was the rubric also of the Nazis. They were absolutely fomenting the change they wanted to see. I’m still waiting (I have been for 20 years) for a skeptic to tell me concretely how they know that the Nazis are wrong and not right, and how they know that the amount of suffering in the world (all of which can be explained by natural causes) is wrong.

It's also true that Nazis ate sugar. Would you like help linking the act of breathing to the Nazis, as well? This is the rubric of most people who accomplish anything in the world, for good or ill, but since I was proposing it for people complaining about the suffering of others, I'd say motivating them to go out and do something about that suffering would tend towards a net positive.

As for a skeptic's explanations of why the Nazis were wrong, which flavor would you prefer? "Humanist", "Utilitarian", "Veil of Uncertainty", "Ethic of Reciprocity", or "Don't Commit Genocide for the Sake of Religion Because Both Genocide and Religion are Shitty and Combined They Are Exponentially Shittier"?

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Qualifying my own statement. You agree that all suffering has natural causes, and it can be demonstrated that they come on appropriate scale, eg, hotter or colder surfaces hurt to the touch more , but your logical preference is for a different outcome? Why isn’t your resolution, “Why didn’t god make a supernatural universe?”

I mean, the whole discussion of how god could have done things differently seems more like magical than rational thinking.

Atheists seem fixed on determinism for god and man without allowing god’s choice. An omnipotent being could have made Earth have one moon AND three moons in its gravity, but didn’t. And then atheists say god is trying to confuse us!

I will accept that omnipotence does not cover the logically contradictory, such as simultaneously having one and three moons. But the moment you posit the existence of a theistic God at all, you already HAVE a supernatural universe and magical thinking, so of course any examination of that scenario will be rife with those things. (And that's not me positing it, there. It's you. I'm just picking your position apart and looking at its inconsistencies.)

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Irrelevant to this argument, unless you're proposing that being just or wrathful is WHY God created suffering. God could be just or not, wrathful or not, endowed with male genetilia or not, even a soprano or not, and the argument would remain the same. All that's needed for the problem of suffering to represent an inconsistency with the concept of God, is the notion that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator. (Now that I think about it, we can probably jetison creator from that mix as well.) Tacking on further restrictions doesn't effect the logical quandry I'm discussing. It might be relevant to OTHER arguments, but not this one.

And, if you are proposing that these are why God created suffering?

Of course it’s relevant. What the skeptics duck is the logical outcome of their assertions that if god exists, he is cruel, and then to follow that to its logical end. Because once we go there, we instantly discern the limits on suffering and must now resolve “Why would a cruel god make delicious food, sex, joy, happiness, etc?”

It’s relevant to have both a just and loving god in the discussion since 1) that’s the Bible playing field and I’d like to keep the unique Bible perspectives on suffering in play as germane to the topic 2) just is a modifier of what loving means as surely as omniscient has bearing on omnipresent or omnipotent.

It is not relevant to THIS discussion, because it has no effect at all on the logical construction of the inconsistency arising from "omnipotent, omniscient, loving, but suffering exists". Being just does not explain the suffering, nor does being wrathful, nor do either of these defuse the inconsistency. (And I could easily propose reasons why a cruel God would make all of those, but a cruel God is not a lynchpin to the argument, because it works even with a God that is indifferent to suffering instead of outright cruel.)

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: This echoes today in our own penal system, the idea that it's possible to have justice without the goal of inflicting suffering. ... of course, it's hardly the only philosophy at work there.

Even the word “inflicting” is you modifier. If they take a rapist and chemically or physically castrate him, I would say he “inflicted” his suffering on himself because his actions led to a consequence.

Look at it this way. A person punches you so hard in the face, he breaks your jaw and his hand. He howls in pain. Are we still frustrated that a hypothetical god caused the person who punched you to hurt their hand and suffer? Really?

Maybe frustrated that this hypothetical god made human bones and flesh fragile, thus making the sensation of pain relevant. If, you know, I were going to be frustrated with a hypothetical in the first place.

As for a penal system inflicting harm, I was referring to more traditional punishments like flogging, which were entirely about causing suffering. Or, say, the Renaissance English system of hanging (which was more of an extended period of public torture) rather than the relatively painless methods of execution currently favored. Does justice have to be done with a maximum of suffering in order to be justice? With any degree of suffering?

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And god most of all. Would you like 100 or 200 Bible passages explaining where god said he was waiting patiently for repentance?

No, actually, I'm quite aware of those. I'd like one that explains why His wrath necessarily requires suffering. (Unless you weren't proposing that Him being wrathful somehow explains why suffering exists.)

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And here we go again! How come a shootist goes to jail for a crime only? The gun manufacturer “made the gun in the first place”. How come a rapist goes to jail only? The woman “made him feel feelings in the first place”. I get personally angry with anyone who blames rape on the woman, how about you?

I wasn't suggesting that God was responsible for heroin use (though I could), just that He didn't fit the analogy of someone charging in and yanking the needle out of the arm.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Do you have a Bible reference for this? I think it’s comprehensible and demonstrated clearly in the scriptures. Again, if there is a Hell, a world without suffering would indicate the cruelest possible, lying god.

Can't say I feel like looking up a reference right now, I'll leave the point of whether it is comprehensible aside, it's not really relevant. But your point was that warning people about Hell and its suffering was a justification for inflicting suffering. I would suggest, first, that other, more merciful and less ambiguous forms of warning could be given instead (which would be just as effective or moreso, if God is omnipotent), second, that this whole explanation smacks of racketeering, because presumably God created Hell, and the system by which people are damned to it, along with everything else. It boils down to, "I have to have this suffering in order to warn people about this other, BIGGER suffering that I stuck in here," which doesn't BEGIN to explain why there's any suffering at all.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I see. So you’re saying it’s the anthropomorphizing of natural causes to a being that is the delusion. I get it. It’s the first part of the argument I’d want to focus on also, since we agree a loving god must not slide over from causing mere suffering to cruelty.

Try this argument if you would, god appears before you while you are punching someone in the face and says, “Please stop.” After all, you’ve argued successfully in this post that we ought to stop people from certain actions by an appeal to altruism and logic above force. You keep punching the person in the face and say, “You made me do this, god.” Do you see the problem?

If there was an actual God unambiguously showing up, that'd be very different than the present scenario. It also wouldn't explain why the frailties of the human body allow punching to be harmful in the first place. In my view of the world, the assailant is primarily responsible. But the person who equipped the assailant with the capacity to cause pain, KNOWING that he would, shares some degree of accessory responsibility.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: ... if there is something that a being can't do, that isn't inherrently contradictory (like making people suffer without making them suffer), how does that constitute omnipotence? Are you saying that in all possible worlds, the existence of people would of inescapable logical necessity imply suffering? What do you expect to find in Heaven, then?

I don’t understand this question.

You seemed to be proposing that it would be impossible for God to create a world with people in it that did not also include suffering. You didn't outright say this, but it was the only way your proposal actually served as an explanation of suffering. I asked two questions. First, whether this inability would render God no longer omnipotent, because there was something He could not do. And second, is it possible to have people somewhere (even in Heaven) without having suffering? I asked a bit later whether this connection between people and suffering was a natural law, as a rhetorical device to suggest that it still wouldn't present an obstacle to God.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  No, I’ll address it. Let’s give an example for an alternative to suffering. For example, Jesus could appear and instruct people in person rather than causing pain and suffering. The problem is that feelings serve a purpose as does pain--something that is true in the natural world without god as alluded to in my first post.

What would you like god to replace your happiness with in his omnipotence? What would you like a sexual orgasm replaced with? Joy replaced with? Tasty food? Breathing fresh air? The answer is nothing and you want those feelings and are not disgruntled with god’s incompetence in allowing them. But each of those feelings has a heightened context BECAUSE of suffering. You might as well argue that we should only eat ice cream for our nutrition. Ah, but then we’d never know what the joy of ice cream really is.

... except you're still not addressing it, unless you explain how suffering would be the ONLY way to heighten their context. How beating a loved one senseless is the ONLY way to keep them from wandering into the street.

(03-09-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Again, if you would, show me a natural or empirical reason why suffering is inappropriate other than a positivist ethic based on fear of retribution or hope of communal peace. Lion eat gazelles and we want/need the gazelle to go to fight or flight mode. Do you disagree?

As I've said several times, I'm not CLAIMING that causing suffering for no purpose is wrong, or evil, at least not in relation to your argument that the suffering inherent in God's creation is justified. (The tangents you introduced, I think we may have gotten into that, but not the core argument.) I could, and I do think that, but we'd go off on a huge tangent that would needlessly complicate the discussion at best, and drag it into unresolvable disagreements at worst. Instead, I'm claiming that inflicting suffering for no good reason (and yes, we're also arguing about whether there's any good reason or not) is not the act of a LOVING being.

We do not seem to be moving towards an agreement. In particular, you are not convincing me of your original argument, that there are reasons why an omnipotent, omniscient, loving God (and if you insist, also just, wrathful, and soprano) would have the world such that there is suffering. You asked for feedback on your logic, I have provided it, you have disputed it. I have not convinced you that these holes exist in your argument and you have not convinced me that they do not, and no change seems to be just over the horizon. Where do we go from here?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
05-09-2013, 02:50 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(04-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I doubt you shall, because BB can’t even type Jesus is Lord. You see, there’s a spiritual issue there.


Typing 'Jesus is Lord' does not make it anymore a truth or a fact than typing '2+2=5'.

Just watch...

JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD JESUS IS LORD

Did that prove the existence of Jesus, his claimed divinity, or any other fact of reality? Nope, it's all just a collection of binary bits stored on the internet. Just just to make sure...

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MAY YOU BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE

Did that convince you of the 'truth' of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No? Well you seen then, there's a spiritual issue there.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-09-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Sure, I will show you how I know Genocide is bad, just as soon as you show me how you know Genocide is bad. What objective moral framework do you have to show you genocide is bad? Show me where in the Bible it shows that Genocide is Objectively bad at all times, all places, and all conditions. Then I'll show you mine. If you can't show me that, then you must admit that YOU have a subjective moral framework.

Huh? I never said I have an objective framework, since my Bible interpretations are subjective! But from your argument here we have:

1) Both of us have subjective compasses we are attempting to use to prove what an omnipotent being must do to be moral, a losing argument.

2) Since we’re both being subjective I have the right to say genocide is good and bad or just plain good and that also ends the argument that it’s wrong for god to do it. I read the Bible and concluded that the Canaanites should have experienced what they experienced.



Quote:And so what if my moral framework is subjective? Even if I admit that - what does it show? Having a subjective moral framework that excludes Genocide and Slavery is better than a supposed objective one that permits it.

ROFL! How do you know or prove it’s “better” on a subjective basis?

Quote:Oh, and we know that God is the source of all evil. The bible tells us so:

Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."

Hold the phone. Stop the presses! I know the Bible says so. Are you saying that as a positivist ethicist naturalist YOU believe in OBJECTIVE EVIL? Really? Wow, we need more new terms for atheists on Wikipedia…

Quote:And by the way - my moral framework is 98% the same as it was when I was a Christian - just add drinking alcohol and pre-martial sex and you are there. So what? Can I live like a Christian? Sure, so what? Will it get me into your heaven? NO! Why - because it takes ridiculous beliefs to get into heaven.

Um, surely you add to drinking and fornicating dishonoring the Sabbath, not loving God, not praying for your enemies, etc.

But it does take a ridiculous belief to get to Heaven, yes. Are you unaware that the Bible teaches that? See 1 Cor 1.

Quote:The whole argument is so silly. Even if you PROVE to me that my moral framework is somehow wrong - so what? What is the fucking point you are trying to prove?

I don’t think your moral viewpoint is somehow wrong. I think it’s consistent for someone who is trying to live as an ethical nonChristian. However, one point I’m attempting to make is how people seem pretty quick to admit their subjectivity around here, right before that insist that 1) they can play god better than a god 2) their subjective morals are correct when Nazis, cannibals and millions of other very real people would absolutely disagree with their ethics. The very presentism that BB keeps pushing wisely informs us that you are using your personal ex-Christian set of ethics to not only judge god but the Nazis. What gives you the objective right to do so? It can’t be naturalism. What is it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: An omnipotent, loving, all-powerful god would not have to create meaningless suffering; it is a choice.
Meaningless suffering exists.
This god chose to create meaningless suffering.
This god is either not loving, not omnipotent, not all-powerful, or lacking a combination of these three attributes.

Would you define your god as lacking in one or more of the above attributes?

Please explain to me how any suffering is meaningless when an omnipotent god wills it. He could have also chosen to be invisible and inflict suffering so you “see” him.

Now, before you have me committed to the loony bin for this argument, follow:

Atheists complain there is no evidence for god. Suffering gives you a philosophical argument against god’s existence rather then settling the agnostic nature of your beliefs more concretely. Meaninglessness prompts man by his nature to search for meaning.

While I do not see suffering as meaningless, and while I see most, not some suffering as meaningful when it happens and not in some far-removed future from the suffering, well, atheists have no excuse for disbelief, just as the Bible states. Nice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Weasel away, God boy

We're assuming your God exists for the sake of argument.

Therefore you by the bolded statement are asking me if some suffering is necessary ? I don't know, you tell me. But since any unnecessary suffering is evil by your own admission, then unless you assert that *all* suffering is necessary (for God's apparently fabulous plan), then if God is omnipotent, God is evil, since he allows this unnecessary suffering to take place.

What is the purpose for which this suffering is "needed" ?

I’ve given over a dozen reasons for suffering, but the atheists here won’t even admit it’s good when a paedophile suffers! That’s a moral compass mis-heading, isn’t it?

You’re assuming god exists for the sake of this argument? Thank you. Now assume god knows everything, and judges everyone, down to levels of blessing in Heaven and levels of judgment in Hell, a biblical stance, and you’re set. All is accounted for, all books balanced.

The logical fallacy you guys are making? That you argue with a straight face that a loving god doesn’t make a Heaven when suffering on Earth is compensated for?

Resolved: An omnipotent, loving god makes people suffer than die and go to the dust forever. Ridiculous on its face.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Human observation and reason tell us that, even on accepting the premise, not all suffering is necessary.

Baloney. Hotter stoves burn skin more. Rapists and paedophiles feel more sexual guilt and conflict that masturbators, etc.

The only way you can even try that argument is to talk about children suffering. And when an atheists says a child is “innocent” that are admitting the moral culpability of adult… wait for it… sinners.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: