Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: I'm claiming victory on this point. You can't provide anything to the contrary. You have not been able to demonstrate reasons for pre-birth fatalities, terminally ill children, and numerous other forms of suffering. Quite the opposite. You've had to 'reword' many arguments and metaphors to make them more manageable, demonstrating your own cognitive dissonance in the process. So please, continue to state that the hundreds of thousands of miscarriages, ill children, etc. are simply subjective suffering and actually have a purpose... and then not state what that purpose is.

I'm putting this point on the back burner until you state clearly, using MY examples, what the purpose is of that suffering (other than that's just god).

Your silence on redefining your god is also noted. Your god is no longer loving. I stand by that point as fact until better proof to the contrary is provided.

Huh? You have two problems with that last. 1) If miscarried babies of wicked parents go to Heaven, etc. there are dual purposes preserving the child and shock and awe on the parents. 2) You are yet to demonstrate why your cultural norms are “right”. In other cultures the first born children were sacrificed and that was seen as “right” so when you dig on the biblical god for doing such how are you not guilty of presentism?

Quote: They figured that out when first trying to promote Christianity. Thus the addition of an afterlife in the later stages of your religion. Prove heaven. Presupposition holds no weight here.

Huh? You asked for an alternative to an omnipotent god eliminating earthly suffering, which is what Heaven is… it’s such a logical next step that men have dreamed of such without the Bible, right? Or do atheists not believe in possible future utopia’s WITHOUT a god?

Quote: People do have to go to hell. Your god foresaw their fates before he created hell. They were doomed from the moment he created them. Loving?

My two children were doomed to die from the moment I created them. If you have kids, they are doomed to die the moment they are conceived. Now tell me you and I are hateful and cruel for having kids. Go on, tell me…

Quote: I hear the same from other religions. It's amazing all these gods are able to coexist.

But they do because scratch even a polytheist and you’ll find a monotheist. Native Americans had a great spirit who creates all. Hindus have a Krishna above all. God is so NOT incompetent he allows truth in otherwise false religions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: I'd say its appropriate to make sure they cannot inflict suffering on others.

So, then, you’d like a paedophile or rapist to feel guilt or suffer regret or not? This is the question I’ve brought to you and others five or more times on this thread… waiting…

Quote: PS: you are still quoting everyone without attributing the quotes. This is terrible form.

Yes, Lord forbid you might be forced to read/scan someone’s else responses and then learn from me, or Lord forbid, your fellow freethinker. We wouldn’t want THAT to happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:22 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(10-09-2013 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:48 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Are you sure you’re not Chas, writing under an alias? Both of you share now this ineffable sense of humor.

It's not humor. It is my true wish that you fuck off. You have nothing remotely intelligent to say.

Chas, you are replying to what I wrote to BB? So, you are the same person. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(10-09-2013 06:47 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Going The Extra Mile, by Greg Williamson © 2007, 2009, http://www.shakinandshinin.org, Retrieved July 25, 2010

The verse is a reference to the practice of "impressment" which, among other things, allowed a Roman soldier to conscript a Jewish native to carry his equipment for one Roman mile (milion = 1,000 paces, about 1,611 yards or 1,473 metres) -- no easy task considering a Roman soldier's backpack could weigh upwards of 100 pounds (45.4 kg). Jesus' point was that his followers must relinquish their individual "rights" in order to advance God's kingdom through self-sacrifice.

Right he said this, and he also said when your "enemy strikes you on one cheek, give to him the other also." Yet when the soliders came to take Jesus, Peter (and presumably everyone) still had a sword. What's the sword for Peter? Chopping off ears? Right so Jesus was a hypocrite, saying one thing and doing another. Unless of course they needed it for protection against God's child-eating bears.


"Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus." I'm not even going to cite it since no one will read it. Blah blah blah blah, but Peter had free will. He was travelling with Jesus - and he never said - dude you got to lose that sword? But you go the extra mile, and offer the other cheek also, and a bunch of other shit that I say but you don't have to listen to. That's the problem with Myths - its so hard to make them internally consistent when many people are writing myths. Even when they all have Mark and Q. Biznatch.

Um, and what did Jesus do the soldier whose ear was cut off? And which Hebrew "scholar" showed you it was 42 boys and not young men who mocked Elisha?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:26 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:00 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I will always go to the Bible and I will always catch what the atheists put out of context. It's a "natural law" since the Devil tempted Jesus Himself and Adam and Eve with scriptures out of context.

Does that mean the "Devil" wrote the Gospels?

Because, you know...

- Immanuel from the prophecy to Ahaz (Isa. 7:14) as Jesus,
- military leader who would defeat and conquer Assyria (Micah 5:2) as Jesus,
- Israel (Hosea 11:1) as Jesus,
- Rachel weeping for the Israelites taken into captivity (Jer. 31:15) connected to Herod's fictional massacre of children,
- a non-existent prophecy of Jesus being a "Nazarene" (Matt. 2:23),
- the suffering servant (Israel) as Jesus (Isa. 53)
- the passover lamb (Ex. 12:46) as Jesus,

should be put in textbooks as the definition of "quote mining." Drinking Beverage
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Philosoraptor's post
11-09-2013, 02:43 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: People do have to go to hell. Your god foresaw their fates before he created hell. They were doomed from the moment he created them. Loving?

My two children were doomed to die from the moment I created them. If you have kids, they are doomed to die the moment they are conceived. Now tell me you and I are hateful and cruel for having kids. Go on, tell me…

Unlike God, you didn't create them with the property of dying. That's the difference. Are you being ignorant or purpose, or does it come to you naturally?
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Philosoraptor's post
11-09-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Except not a single one of those uses or reasons you provided explains why the same ends could not be accomplished WITHOUT suffering by an omnipotent, omniscient being. And that means that the suffering remains unexplained, unless suffering itself is desired. Nor does reversing the question provide anything like the explanation which the original question is seeking. Leave aside right and wrong in the metaphor. Is beating her halfway to death rather than simply pulling her aside the act of a loving person?

Reltzik, I have to trim my responses to you. I apologize. We’re eating entire pages here. Your paragraph above does not answer my question, which was “…Human altruism is based on doing what is ethically right despite one’s personal pleasures or feelings. So if an atheist’s positivist ethic insists on altruism despite feelings, why should god’s own altruism be based on human feelings [like suffering “hurts”]?”

Quote: Substituting "free will" in suffers from exactly the same problem as "just". Could God not find a way of effortlessly removing the suffering, without violating free will? If so, He is not omnipotent and omniscient. Did he have such a means, but chose not to employ it? Then he is not loving.

Um, I did so based on what the atheists keep saying around here, that free will cannot exist unless one is free to do bad as well as good, altruism and cruelty alike. So you tell me how god allows you to do evil without causing anyone to suffer? Then how is it evil?

Quote: So in the crafting of the human species, it would have been possible, without violating free will, to make sexual arousal contingent on the combination of one's own consent, the partner's consent (perhaps as indicated by released pheromones, which could only be released by conscious choice, and even then through various neurological arrangements could not be released under duress), and sexual maturity (again, as confirmed by pheromones).

Rape is a violent crime against men and women and is not considered a sexual crime per se. However, your point is duly noted. Repeating: Tell me how god allows you to do evil without causing anyone to suffer? Then how is it evil?

Quote:…And yes, I'll agree that in the theology Hell is a punishment for sin. What I was asking is why a loving God would choose that system of punishment in the first place.

Outside this thread again. I’ll repeat, what do you consider a better way to “explain” Hell (or Heaven!) than suffering? Or if you like, please tell me how to explain the taste of Coca-Cola to someone in a “less ambiguous way” than giving them a sip of soda?

Quote:But the capacity to harm others is not just free will. There's a physical element in it as well. What do our pain receptors respond to and what they don't. What can harm us and what can't, and which events require the instant and urgent alert of pain and which don't. God didn't (in the hypothetical) just equip us with free will. He also armed us with the physical capacity to throw punches hard enough to cause serious damage to one another. There is accessory responsibility to be borne in that, as well. And it is not required by free will, any more than our physical inability to fly to the moon without technological assistance is a violation of free will.

I concede accessory responsibility. I say “god is responsible for 100% of suffering.” Now, it remains resolved to discover:

*Why your subjective consideration of suffering as a being always in this time/space universe is able to dictate what an omnipotent being should or must do

*How you know that all suffering is bad or meaningless, since it is both good and meaningful in the natural world for survivability and education

Quote: I think I've illustrated several ways in which free will is not an obstacle to removing suffering. I doubt we'll come to an agreement on whether free will necessitates, or even strongly suggests, that suffering should exist.

Not trying to be a dork here, but “Tell me how god allows you free will to do evil without causing anyone to suffer? Then how is it evil?” I’ve already explained that I’ve personally shared this very point with bitter abuse victims who then were able to release much of their pain and bitterness! Why is it that Christians are “down” with suffering and it seems like only non-Christians constantly moan about it?

Quote: Pleasure can be understood in terms of its absence or gradations… Why would you think we would need an opposite of pleasure to appreciate pleasure?

I’ve already suggested that one enjoys a great meal or drink when hungry or thirsty, appreciates achievements more when they worked for, etc. Why not just define work as suffering already so we can get to the point? I often feel I’d rather work hard to make $100 than win the lottery. That’s called “being a grownup”.

Further, does no atheist on this forum recognize that people are classified as mature based on their response to suffering? Ghandi and MLK said their suffering and even possible martyrdom was worth it. Do atheists put them down, too? I hope not…

Quote: The rest of your questions seem to revolve, explicitly or implicitly, around questions of morality, and in this and previous posts you seem poised to segue into a conversation about objective versus subjective morality. My position on that matter is that objective morality, whether it exists or not, is of no use, but I am hesitant to present my reasoning… I'm inclined to defer discussing my reasons for rejecting models of objective morality.

I’m cool with that, as long as we wisely substitute “rubric” for “morality” or “method” or whatever you like. If there is a god who is omnipotent, shouldn’t we assume that his rubric is objectively correct and work backwards from there?

Quote: But it isn't just a societal code. It is also a meme, and that speaks to a question of identity. The sort of decision we are prone to make, our habits and our attitudes and even our hobbies and mannerisms, these are what reveal and even define our character. Insofar as we propogate and defend a deeply-held belief of right and wrong, we propogate and defend a piece of ourselves.

This is one basis on which we can say that suffering is undesirable, that genocide is wrong and altruism is virtuous.

But you’re using the word character, which to certain peoples and times and places was considered “mature” when committing genocide or rape or etc. and insisting propagation is “good” when we both know evolution may insist otherwise for humanity, and “altruism is virtuous” and etc. all without empirical reasons. Why MUST I provide empirical proof of a deity and not philosophical musings about Jesus, but freethinkers can “demonstrate” positive ethics are “right” with ONLY philosophical musings. Sorry, but I see a double standard there.

PS. Perhaps in a private message of even on this thread you’d like to discuss the objective morality reasoning you are hesitant to do otherwise. I have big shoulders and have heard a lot of stuff in my life. I can handle it. And I always long after truth. If it means deconversion, I’ll welcome truth. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Unlike God, you didn't create them with the property of dying. That's the difference. Are you being ignorant or purpose, or does it come to you naturally?

Not a post of his goes by, but that I ask myself that very question.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: You refuse to acknowledge that the three simplest explanations to explain the discrepancy between our universe and your god concept is impotence, malevolence, or nonexistence.

EK: I’ll accept all three! But you need to demonstrate how suffering is bad beyond “It hurts wittle ol’ me.” Personally, I appreciate accomplishment much more when there was suffering on their road. That’s called being an adult.

I also lost a child to a miscarriage but I don’t blame god or get snarky based on my suffering.

Quote: This would actually be the most truthful thing you've ever posted here if you meant it, but I understand sarcasm when I see it. In doing so, you reinforce my conjecture that you quite simply lack the imagination or the will to contemplate a universe without a god (a universe identical to this one), or a universe with an all powerful creator that also cared (a universe that we would expect to be vastly different).

I use the hypothetical method as often as possible to understand others’ point of view, actually. Case in point, I’ve tried to do exactly what you’ve said and Lo! A god who dies for me. Pretty cool.

But let me ask you, can you conceive of a universe in which god shows he cares by causing suffering?

Quote: Near as I can tell, all of your excuses for suffering presuppose a god, and that his actions are good by definition. It's just Divine Command Theory all over again, and nobody here drinks that Kool-aid except for you. Suffering is NOT necessary, especially in a universe created by an all powerful creator. You lack the imagination to see how your god concept could have done things otherwise, the rest of us still have the mental capacity to realize that this could be improved upon, and indeed we would expect it to if things were created by an all powerful creator who cared. The important caveat there is the 'caring' bit. A all powerful creator might exist and have made this universe, but he would have to be indifferent to suffering to have made this universe, because suffering exists here in abundance.

EK, can I tell you where you erred here? Because I start with presupposing there is no god at all, and I totally get that naturally via evolution suffering enhances survivability. Do you disagree?

Quote: Are you seriously trying to equate not eating ice-cream with suffering? Are you that fucking vapid? There is a vast difference between suffering and the absence of pleasure.

No, I’m not vapid. However, you mentioned tellingly “an absence of pleasure”. How much pleasure would there be if this loving god created? What would it be like? [Heaven, silly, of course.] So let’s not go there! Let’s go instead here:

If there was no suffering, what would creatures call every instant with an absence of pleasure? SUFFERING. Get it? Do you understand now?

Quote:If you truly knew what I was going to do, was I free to do otherwise? If yes, then you truly didn't know. If no, then I don't have your vaunted 'freewill'. You can't perfectly know the future without predetermination. There is also no reason to think 'freewill' exists as anything more than a concept (just like your god), given our advances in neuroscience. Do you have conscious control over the underlying chemical reactions happening between the neurons firing in your brain? No? Than how do you control your thoughts or consciousness? And if you don't control those, how can you have 'freewill'? Remember that positing a 'soul' or 'spirit' here without evidence is not a valid answer.

This is not a “prove that free will exists thread”. However, in my worldview, there is a god who should be making you do crap but you seem to do whatever the heck you want. Free will! 

Quote: Please substantiate 'sin' with empirical verifiable peer-reviewed evidence outside of quoted scripture. What is it made out of? What does it weigh? How is it created? How is it moved or removed? How do you know I have it and you do not? How does it affect a person's mental capacity?

Good luck with that jackass...

Please substantiate “suffering is bad” using empirical efforts. But when you do, know that I will define sin as “that which causes suffering”. ROFL!

Nice try. I still appreciate you, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: God is just lonely and made people to praise him, and that's written all over his manifesto.

Clyde, let’s swim in that pool for a moment. Praising god is showing love for god. Same as single people are lonely and hook up, even marry—and then they bear love and often, children, and multiply… love.

What’s the problem? I think you do understand this part of the Bible!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: