Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Guitar Nut:

Quote: Ah, but he did. You continue to step around the following issue:
An omnipotent being can accomplish its ends in any way it sees fit.

The choice to include suffering, therefore, is indeed a choice to include it for it's own sake. My question remains unanswered: 'Is that loving?'

It is only loving if people learn things from suffering, for just one of many examples. God has suffered, says the Christian paradigm. When you suffer, you learn to be more like god. The Xian god wants to make you like him to show you his love, in part.

Quote: Every disease and birth issue I've mentioned is real and documented, as are the statistics for child mortality. They're tragic, horrible events that happen every day, all over the world. Sorry if that's 'droning on' or irritating. If you're here to understand atheists, you'll need to stop turning a blind eye to the more difficult topics and issues we bring up. You'll need to explain how your loving god decided to include these in his design. You'll need to understand that I can't simply fit your god, as described by you, and these real world events, in the same box. Or, you can say 'I have no clue' and leave it unanswered. That, at least, would be honest.

Or… you will kindly remember any of my several responses on this matter and reply honestly to any of them. Here’s one:

Why is it bad that babies suffer? From a naturalist’s perspective, it’s a part of life. From a theist’s perspective, you’re saying it’s a problem because love doesn’t ever make people suffer.

The problem is you have a different definition of love. Love requites, demands, and uses suffering. As a Xian, my paradigm brings me to understand that god showed his greatest love when he suffered.

Your definition of love is not just the atheist’s biochemical, it’s even less. It’s the chemicals that make you feel pleasure and not the chemicals that make you feel pain. Based on what you’re implying, I can show my “love” for an addict by giving him crack! Is that altruism or cruelty? Mercy or destruction? It’s little wonder people talk about Satanic doctrines. “Do what makes you feel good” is like an anti-Christian mantra to Christians.

What I think we should do is stop this thread on children suffering and then we can discuss why even suffering in Hell is relevant, just and meaningful.

Quote: No I won't. Why would I tell you that? Ask ten atheists why they don't believe in gods, you will most likely get ten different answers as well. One major difference is that we are not all quoting the same source, a book that claims divine inspiration. As salvation is the essential element of your religion, and as you have been provided with a single written guidebook to achieve it, it logically raises suspicion when your religion's followers are unable to come to even a basic agreement on how that goal is achieved or what your god meant with his words.

First, define “followers”. Most of the people who are born again have very similar doctrines. Second, tell me about the book that all atheists agree on 100%...

Quote: Ah, here's the God of the gaps. Why are we dreaming of eternal life when we know we'll die? I don't know, therefore god.

You’re taking me out of context. I’m pointing out a Jungian necessity for survivability NOT to dream of utopias and long lifespans since we’ve been blinks of an eye for all animals, for billions of years. I’m asking you to replace my god in the gap with your reason for this without me giving you a reason and you saying “I don’t like your reason!”

That’s the same rubric you do with this discussion:

God could make a world with no suffering… I think there’s boredom there… no, there isn’t.

Is this a debate? Because I’d relish one. I try with every post to bring some new thoughts, some new analogies, new looks at scripture, whatever. I feel like leaving this forum forever because it’s almost all rhetoric from the hip from the opposing side. I wouldn’t mind the ad homs if there was more meat with them!

Quote: So your omniscient and in total control of your child's universe? You created hell itself? Your comparison to god's abilities is not even close.

Omniscience, like omnipotence, does not end free will, god’s or man’s. You atheists preach this like it’s settled somewhere by scholars. I know my child will die and I am stronger than/wiser than/bigger than my infant, however they have plenty of freedom and choices.

Quote:How, exactly, does one know to trust in the lord if one has never heard of the lord?

Everyone’s heard of god, even the atheists. Please cite for me a reference of anyone who lives now or who has ever lived who has a testimony of not only being an atheist but of going through life blissfully unaware of a god concept in their culture or in their own existential musings.

Quote: You just described heaven.

Yes, and if there are changing levels of pleasure people can safely call it waiting on the Lord since they know the Lord, see the Lord, and know they were saved from suffering! People HAVE to have suffered to appreciate Heaven MORE. Yes. You get it. You get it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Oh wait. I get it.
He meant "astonishing" in a negative way.
Now THAT makes sense.

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
13-09-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(12-09-2013 04:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Interesting, I was challenged on that point just yesterday in person. Jesus is God in a human body, a body He currently (and forever) resides in, so there is no such thing as an anthropomorphic fallacy in Christianity. Adam and Eve were made in god's image and so humans must resemble god more than other creatures, so there's no anthropomorphic fallacy in Judaism, either, just no graven images!

A stinking pile of nothing. A risen body in no way resembles a "human body" There is no such thing as a "risen human body" so your point is a meaningless assertion of nothing. It's known as "nonsense". I call it "crap". More of your drivel. You actually think that junk has some sort of intellectual value. It has none. You need a pay cut. It's worthless junk. Adam and Eve were mythical, and you have in no way, demonstrated their reality, so that' just more crap. Human bodies have never ever gone through walls. The risen Jebus was a Jewish "shade". Not a "human body". They did not recognize him, and they were afraid of him, until he (supposedly) left them. "They doubted, but the worshiped". That is no human body. Anyone who sees a human body , knows what they're looking at.

Many "graven images" have been found in Israeli archaeological sites, so that point is crap. Images of Yahweh, and his wife. More drivel.

Your ability to make up "apologetic" garbage to address any possible cognitive dissonance is epic. But it falls on it's ass, as obvious, every time.

You don't know what Yahweh looks like, so to state humans (which are essentially no different form any other great ape), is both a lie, and a distinction without a difference. You also have not a shred of evidence for any of it. More crap.

You seem to be full of that today, (per your usual). Tongue

BTW, I keep looking for that "astonishing". When were you planning on presenting it ?

Do you feel better? Would you like me to burp you now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 02:56 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(13-09-2013 02:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 02:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Well, He didn't. Christians believe god himself suffered, loss when people sin and grieve him, and suffered on the cross. The Bible says Jesus even learned obedience through suffering--Phillipians 2.

Maybe just stick to arguing with the Muslim apologists here if you don't know the basics of Christianity?

Maybe you should argue about things that have evidence for their existence instead of your made-up shit.

What's wrong, my friend? Did you get up on the wrong side of the dungeon today? What's wrong? I miss the one-liners, the cool cuts, the jokes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 02:56 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(13-09-2013 02:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I need to prove something so self-evident?

Calling something self-evident does not make it self-evident.

If you wish to demonstrate it to someone who does not find it self-evident, that will require rather more sophistication than simply reasserting that it is self-evident.

(13-09-2013 02:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Do you not understand how addictions go from pot to coke to heroin for some? Are you the only person in the world who doesn't understand the idiom "too much of a good thing"?

That is even less relevant.

(13-09-2013 02:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If you like pleasure, you feel some anticipation (sweet sorrow) waiting for it to happen again.

Uh, sure. Point being?

(13-09-2013 02:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You asked why god can't make a world with no suffering. Because if there is constant pleasure on the same level, it's boring.

Whoops! No suffering ≠ constant pleasure. But I'm sure the dishonesty was accidental.

(13-09-2013 02:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there's only pleasure and absence of pleasure those creatures would call the absence of pleasure "waiting on the Lord" if they were Christians and "suffering" if they were atheists. Because the two people groups see the same things through different lenses.

Whoops! Reiterating the same meaningless assertion is not an argument.

(13-09-2013 02:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Relevance comes when you see your conundrum has been taken for me as a hypothetical truth (okay god, what is a world with no suffering) and found wholly wanting.

Yes; if, as you've demonstrated, your ideological blinders are actually such that you cannot even understand the question.

What is found wanting by your imagination is not relevant.

(13-09-2013 02:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Try getting married under your assertion that love is mere chemicals. See how your wife feels about the proposal.

Whoops! Reiterating the same meaningless assertion is not an argument. Nor is a half-assed emotional appeal. If I get married it will be on a basis of mutual understanding and commitment. The underlying basis for those sentiments is not directly relevant to their presence in that context. Or, if you like: relevance?

Incidentally, saying you can't prove something is not the same as claiming its converse. But I'm sure the dishonesty was accidental.

(13-09-2013 02:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It's an unprovable assertion that the heroes of this world are "other focused" and the more mature (perfect) people are islands unto themselves? Are you certain?

Well, what I should have said is that it's a fallacy, since "more" evolved is a meaningless phrase (the implied recourse to hierarchy is, of course, noted).

What you think of people has no particular weight, nor any relevance. Your original ploy was to shift discussion from a 'perfect' God to 'perfection' in humans. But I'm sure the dishonesty was accidental. Perfection ≠ self-sufficiency (?), and that was never claimed.

"Are you certain?", eh? Adorable. No, wait, the other thing. Pitiably smarmy. Yes, that's it .

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
13-09-2013, 03:18 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2013 03:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(13-09-2013 02:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 04:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A stinking pile of nothing. A risen body in no way resembles a "human body" There is no such thing as a "risen human body" so your point is a meaningless assertion of nothing. It's known as "nonsense". I call it "crap". More of your drivel. You actually think that junk has some sort of intellectual value. It has none. You need a pay cut. It's worthless junk. Adam and Eve were mythical, and you have in no way, demonstrated their reality, so that' just more crap. Human bodies have never ever gone through walls. The risen Jebus was a Jewish "shade". Not a "human body". They did not recognize him, and they were afraid of him, until he (supposedly) left them. "They doubted, but the worshiped". That is no human body. Anyone who sees a human body , knows what they're looking at.

Many "graven images" have been found in Israeli archaeological sites, so that point is crap. Images of Yahweh, and his wife. More drivel.

Your ability to make up "apologetic" garbage to address any possible cognitive dissonance is epic. But it falls on it's ass, as obvious, every time.

You don't know what Yahweh looks like, so to state humans (which are essentially no different form any other great ape), is both a lie, and a distinction without a difference. You also have not a shred of evidence for any of it. More crap.

You seem to be full of that today, (per your usual). Tongue

BTW, I keep looking for that "astonishing". When were you planning on presenting it ?

Do you feel better? Would you like me to burp you now?

You want me to vomit ? Keep your hands off me. I do know you like "pleasing" Jebus though. Anything to not answer the business of Adam suffering before the 'fall". BTW. "Perfect" beings do not "suffer". Just more garbage you make up. Refutes the definition of "perfection". Are you really THAT thoughtless ? Tell me ONE (real) theologian that agrees with your made up theology. "Theology-on-fly, or -- How To Make Up Theological Shit For Any Occasion" By SexuallyPleasingJebus. Could be another pamphlet for you to "author". Thumbsup

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
13-09-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(13-09-2013 02:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Everyone’s heard of god, even the atheists. Please cite for me a reference of anyone who lives now or who has ever lived who has a testimony of not only being an atheist but of going through life blissfully unaware of a god concept in their culture or in their own existential musings.

There are such things as non-Abrahamic religions. For most of history since the supposed birth of Jesus, the majority of humanity lived their lives blissfully unaware of your god. Even today, millions of people have never heard of Jesus or Yahweh. And don't say "but they believed in a god". If you fancy the testaments so much, you'd know that doesn't count for shit. Anything but Yahweh means you suffer eternal torment. And not everyone even had a god concept. For the majority of humanity's existence religion wasn't a thing. Unless of course you believe the world is only thousands of years old.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(13-09-2013 02:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  When did I say or imply god chose your path? I said god chooses to end your life. We aren’t even discussing the same thing. Free will is choosing the path. You can even CHOOSE to go to church tomorrow and stop being an atheist but die tonight. You still had a CHOICE.

Nope, you are mistaking the illusion of freewill with freewill. You want to claim we have freewill, but not actually carry that premise to it's logical conclusion. All you have done is attempted to re-define 'freewill' to suite your purposes, because every time you run into a problem with them, you need to redefine your terms in an effort to solve the contradictions. So now you've downgraded 'freewill' to 'multiple choice subject to god's approval'. You are right, we are not discussing the same thing, because you are no longer discussing freewill. You are now discussing 'PJ's limited will as approved by PJ's interpretation of PJ's god', or in other words, not freewill.



Quote:You are clearly confusing free will with omnipotence. One is granted to people.

Not at all, although I must once again note that freewill and omniscience are incompatible. I also object to your assertion that freewill is granted, rather than say a inherent property of consciousness. There is no reason to assume that freewill, even if it does exist, is a gift bestowed upon us from on high.



Quote:Again, if your atheist friend chooses to shoot you dead, his free will was more assertive.

Once again, how much freewill do I have to avoid this fate? If your god knows this is going to happen, then I am powerless to avoid it, and thus I do not have freewill. I might not want to die, but if my will has no affect on the outcome of events, how can you claim I have freewill? If I have freewill, it should be possible to avoid my fate, so long as your god doesn't decide to unilaterally decide it's 'my time' and then assert his will at the predetermined time to end my life no matter what (also known as 'not freewill').



Quote:
Quote: *In a world where there is only constant, level pleasure, there is boredom

Once again, your god could have designed us so that we would not get bored under such circumstances. Once again you show a staggering lack of imagination

How so? By proposing such a world when you asked but failed to propose one? Go ahead, tell us all about such a world beyond your god of the gaps.

Your failure is your continued inability to acknowledge the logical conclusions of your own claimed premises. An all powerful creator of the universe who also created us would be able to make us in any way he saw fit, thus easily accounting for your petty 'objection from boredom' of all things. You lack imagination and intellectual honesty still, even when your face is dragged down and rubbed in it, like potty training a puppy who just shit on the carpet for the umpteenth time.




Quote:
Quote: *In a world where there is only pleasure and absence of pleasure, and no suffering, atheists will arise to call the absence of pleasure… suffering… so they can blame god for something

If there is still no demonstrable evidence for the supernatural, skeptics would still remain, and they would still be skeptical of the empty claims of those positing the supernatural. They would not be able to use the Problem of Evil against a theistic concept of god, but in a universe without suffering, do you really think your Bible would contain all of the stories of barbarity that it does now? In a universe without suffering, how much sense would the Great Flood make in their context? Once again you show a staggering lack of imagination.

Are you saying an omnipotent being with free will cannot do things outside of natural law? That would be an illogical assertion – And how do you know Jesus was doing unnatural things? Isn’t that what scientists say when they don’t want god in an evolution gap? “We didn’t see X but it looks like X happened and we don’t yet know how X happened?” Why can’t a Christian say, “Jesus did something amazing but we don’t know yet know what mechanism He used?”

That is the most fallacious use of the false analogy I have ever seen, and you have to know what a giant crock of shit that was, you cannot be THAT STUPID. For starters, I'm saying that you've failed to justify the existence of freewill in the first place. The only way you can even get remotely close is to redefine 'freewill' into something that simply is no longer freewill, so arguing from the potential of a god's freewill is mute.

I never claimed that Jesus was doing unnatural things, I for one don't even think he ever existed. I most certainly don't buy into any of the miracles described int he Gospels. You know the reason why science doesn't use 'god did it' to fill in the gaps of your knowledge, because that explanation explains nothing and does nothing to further our understanding. All of the answers we have ever found have been not-magic, so posting a all powerful cosmic magic man is less than worthless in explaining reality.

But by all means, claim that there are naturalistic explanations for all of the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus. I don't mind sitting here and watching you undermine your own religion, have at it hoss.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-09-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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”]?”

You posed that question in a manner that avoided answering mine. But very well. I wouldn't say that altruism is entirely in spite of feelings. Averting psychological harm and promoting happiness is worthwhile. And again, I'm not pressing a claim on what God's altruism should be based on. Just whether an omnipotent, omniscient, loving God is possible given the evidence of suffering.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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?

An attempt can be evil, even if it fails, and it is certainly possible for a person to perceive the opportunity to do evil and making the attempt without ever actually having the capacity to harm anyone. But let's set that aside. I'll agree that free will includes the mental capacity to make an evil choice, if presented the opportunity to do so. But I'll disagree that free will requires us to be presented with the opportunity in the first place. I have no opportunity to commit genocide. If I did have that opportunity, and I took it, that would be a fairly unambiguously evil choice. But I doubt I will ever face that choice, because I do not anticipate I will have that capacity. I will never wield the political influence or some sort of targeted biological weapon or anything else that would let me commit genocide. Does this mean I have been denied the free will to choose to commit genocide? In my mind, I still have the free will to choose, just not the means. Unless you'd care to argue that a baby who dies before ever being able to crawl was never allowed free will. In that case, it becomes clear that God isn't so intent on everyone having free will after all.

(This should also serve to address your later questions about free will necessitating suffering, by drawing a distinction between allowing free will (and the capacity to make evil choices) and allowing suffering.)

But again, it wouldn't matter if I couldn't identify some way for an omnipotent being to escape this supposed dilemma. All that would show is that I lack the omniscience that God is supposed to possess.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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?

Evil/free will addressed above.

I'd describe rape as a sexual crime, which is often (but not always) violent. I have a hard time seeing how someone could view it as not being a sexual crime. Guess we'll have to disagree on that one.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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?

It's not outside the thread. You originally brought Hell up in the context of a justification for inflicting suffering. Suffering would be, you said, necessary to warn people of Hell. Yet the system of damning people to Hell for their sins (and, for most Christians, Hell itself) would be a construct of God, would it not? I've presented three counterarguments to your original attempt to depict suffering as necessary to warn of Hell. First, it isn't a good warning. Second, methods of warning without suffering, or with less suffering, might have been made. For example (though again, my inability to come up with an example would indicate nothing), people could have an instinctive understanding of suffering without actually experiencing it, just as we are born with the instinctive ability to recognize a human face. And third, which is on-point given the original context in which you brought Hell into this discussion, is why God would choose a system in which people suffer from Hell. Whether God would have had alternatives and, if so, whether God would still be describable as loving for not taking them. You can't plausibly claim that the existence of suffering is necessitated as a warning of later suffering, without prompting a question about what necessitates that later suffering and, in turn, the suffering you would have us believe is therefore needed as a warning. That's turtles all the way down.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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

I'm not attempting to dictate that, which is a point I keep repeating. I'm saying that a being that does or doesn't do certain things can't be described as loving. Moral judgements may attach to the presence or absence of that property, but that property can be considered in morally neutral terms, just as if I were to make a claim that God is or isn't purple. Unless you'd also like to say that God is also beyond our ability to ascribe properties to Him, or examine whether we've ascribed them correctly. (In that case, I'll ask you to withdraw any claims you may have made about God's properties, including omniscience, omnipotence, loving nature, and the property of being beyond our ability to talk about His properties, as well as any examinations you've offered as to why God does or doesn't possess those properties.)

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *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

I don't maintain that all suffering is meaningless. I do regard it as a bad thing, gross, but depending on circumstances and necessary tradeoffs it might be a good thing net, for many of the reasons you've proposed. The problem is that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being would negate those meaninges and benefits, by offering an avenue for detaching the benefits from the suffering that they would otherwise require.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
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?

Accidental dorkitude addressed above.

That Christians are willing to believe it does not make it true. Nor has it been my experience, generally, that atheists are obssessed with suffering any more than Christians are. I've met Christians that could moan and whine and kvetch with the best of them, and atheists that could put pain and suffering aside with perfect aplomb to focus on the positive.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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”.

I don't think of an honest day's work as suffering. Often it's enjoyable in its own right. Other times, it's tedious but still not suffering. 15-hour days of forced labor in a sweatshop, maybe I'd count that as suffering.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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…

Well, sometimes for their religious beliefs or foibles, but not for their sacrifices, activism, or courage. I'd say that what they went through to accomplish the change they did was worth it. That's because "worth it" is relative to both gain and cost. Freedom won for many is worth the hard effort and privations they endured... especially because they were willing to endure them if that's what it took to advance their causes. But the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient God who could have accomplished almost all of what they labored so hard for, simply with a wave of the figurative hand, changes that entire equation, because what they went through was no longer necessary. It would no longer be worth it, because "it" is no longer "end of tyranny" (well, a large swath of it, at least), but instead "God not having to wave His hand to end tyranny".

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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?

Again, getting into areas I care not to go into. Short answer, no. There would be several obstacles to overcome in that approach, and the means of overcoming them work out to be about the same approach we'd take if there wasn't an omnipotent God after all.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
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.

Word choice. Substitute "personality" or "persona" or "attitude" for "character", they might be better fits for what I was trying to say. As for the rest, I must again defer to answer.

(11-09-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

I'll PM you. If you can address my concerns I'll discuss the matter at more length. (I think by now you've figured out that I'm capable of more length.)

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
14-09-2013, 04:04 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(13-09-2013 02:56 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 02:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe you should argue about things that have evidence for their existence instead of your made-up shit.

What's wrong, my friend? Did you get up on the wrong side of the dungeon today? What's wrong? I miss the one-liners, the cool cuts, the jokes.

I am not your friend.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: