Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2013, 02:03 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2013 05:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(27-08-2013 01:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Bucky, you haven’t remembered my personal testimony. After several months of reading and research, I came to Christ as an adult not because of “it works” but because I found Christianity to be absolutely true.

Oh I do remember it. The problem is, you have proven to be very ignorant of basic Philosophy, and academic Biblical Studies, so your "testimony" has no "authority". NONE AT ALL. You lack credibility. You have NONE. You have also diminished your own "authority" to ZERO, by your dishonest, manipulative posts, (such as that "retarded child" lie thing). You are not an honest man, SPJTJ. I have no reason to trust you, abut anything. I certainly have no reason to respect your "way-out-in-left-field-out-of-the-main-line" (Fundamentalist/Literalist) religious opinions, which apparently result from your lack of education in science, literature, and especially the ancient Near East.

(27-08-2013 01:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  By the way, I also commend you for dealing with all of life’s trials through the usual channels such as doctors. But when the medicines don’t work, “who you gonna call?” Not “Ghostbusters”! As I’ve put it before to atheists, when MY grandma is sick and the doctors can’t help, should I pray to YOU for aid?

So you admit, that whether something is true or not, is not important. Your standard is whether it's USEFUL. You will hang on, for dear life to crutches, as you NEED them, the crutches religion provides. How cowardly.

If "sin exacts a heavy toll, and "it's payment is costly", (yet another pathetic apologetic attempt to rid oneself of the cognitive dissonances), then it means your god is SUBJECT TO (the nature of) REALITY, not it's creator, and that is no god. Why did the god MAKE the system that way ? The require himself to be SUBJECT to it.
It makes no sense. It falls flat on it's face. The usual trip. It's meaningless. A loving god could just forgive. If it can't, it is not in charge of, and the creator of REALITY.

(27-08-2013 01:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There’s no dissonance here.

Then either you don't, or can't understand the issues here. You're WAY out of your depth here, apparently.

(27-08-2013 01:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We both commend your bravery at dealing with marriage, sex, finances, and ultimately, death, with all the modern tools at our command. Unfortunately unlike The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon and Google will not answer all your questions in this plane of existence!

Whether something is "comforting" is ultimately not the issue here. The TRUTH is what's important. It's it's not "comforting" to you, and yours, too bad.
Grow up, and face reality, square in the face.
Believing or not believing has no effect on the outcome of anything.

(27-08-2013 01:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  PS.
If you knew a being who had every answer to every test written by man before each was written, and you didn’t want to study His cliff notes, you’d be responsible for all your own grades. And that would make you… wait for it… clinically insane… or an intense narcissist.

Trouble is, there is no such "being". It's a fantasy you are afflicted with. It's a fiction, you have bought into.

(27-08-2013 01:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Good luck living in MTV’s “The Real World” without God. I wish for you something much better and more fulfilling!

I never watch MTV, so I don't know what that is.
I have a very fulfilling life.
Unlike you, (here in a futile attempt, to convince others to buy into your crap, with no results), and "judging" others, (even though your Jebus TOLD YOU NOT TO, and feeling all so "church lady" superior, and self-righteous.) Thank goodness, my religious friends in no way resemble you.

I get it. You need the crutch. You can't imagine life without it. Whether the crutch is true or not is irrelevant. You desperately NEED it.
It's called Utilitarianism. It has all sorts of unintended consequences.
Intellectually dishonest, but makes for "very comfortable".
It is easier to take the easy way out.
I do get it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-08-2013, 02:15 PM
Re: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Wait he's not serious... Pj you think if someone doesn't want to take a aid to a test guide to get better grades easier.. That makes them insane or a narcissist?

That's a deluded path if i've heard one.

Actual pursuit of knowledge to be able to recall it comes from learning it. Thumbing through a guide for a test is proven to not benefit a persons knowledge long term. Do you want an easy A or to learn why something could be?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Analogies aren't PJ's strong suit. Go read his comments about rape, other religions, the holocaust, suffering children, etc. They're f-ing offensive.

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
27-08-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(27-08-2013 01:37 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: What is necessary suffering? Who qualified that concept.

SNIP and my counter-resolution is, “A omniscient god knows exactly how to limit suffering and use suffering as an educational tool”.

EXACTLY!!!! He knows how to limit it, and DOES NOTHING!! Looking around, I see plenty of people going through suffering with 0 educational purpose whatsoever. My uncle is dying of Lou Gerhig's disease as we speak - fully knowing that one day he will lose control of his throat and die by choking on this own throat to suffocate, but not before losing all of his faculties slowly and predictably over three years while his brain remains fully functional and intact.

This is his reward for being a Pastor of a Baptist churches for 45 years!??? That doesn't make any sense, and isn't in line with what [imaginary] God says happens to the faithful in the Bible! Your bible paints a rosy picture of what happens when you follow and have faith and you sit here and makes excuses why it isn't so - but, you have to deal with the fact that it says one thing in the Bible, and our experience of reality is totally different. Which, inter alia, lead some of us to believe that the bible is the giant pile of shit it clearly is. Not to mention how retardedly childish and anthropomorphic it is.

PJ - I wouldn't be bragging about my bible knowledge if I were you - you don't even think that there is Genocide in the bible. I created a new post, just for you. You should check it out, I don't think you know the bible NEARLY as well as you think.

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
[+] 2 users Like Skippy538's post
27-08-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Still not astonished.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
27-08-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(27-08-2013 03:49 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  ...you have to deal with the fact that it says one thing in the Bible, and our experience of reality is totally different...

That's it right there.

When people ask me why I don't believe, specifically why I don't believe the bible, that's my answer right there. ...done...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2013 04:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(27-08-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Here’s the issue we’re having. If you are saying people do not have free will, then when they do evil and cause suffering, it’s god’s fault.

“That is not it at all,
That is not what I meant, at all.” - Prufrock

Goddam, we got another one in desperate need of Logic 101. That's what I learned to call a non sequitur back when I was like 12. And what I just did there ... that's what we call an ad hominem though I don't expect you to get that. (oops, there's another one). Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(27-08-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Don't see how pain and suffering are subsets of "free will". Seem orthogonal to me.

They don’t need to be, but see my response to you below, please.

Quote: This atheist follows the neuroscientists with respect to free will. That's kinda like their fucking job. ... My own opinion? Free will ain't what you think it is.

Here’s the issue we’re having. If you are saying people do not have free will, then when they do evil and cause suffering, it’s god’s fault. Therefore, god can do evil and god has free will. Of course, this means it further becomes hard to blame a person for causing suffering. Why I think this scenario is unneeded is because no person can possibly use a “god made me do it” or “neuroscientists proved this premeditated crime was also predetermined behavior” as a defense of any kind.

If on the other hand, people do have free will, well, then we can discuss how both god and man are moral agents who each play a role in causing suffering. That would be a fair discussion.

If your god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then he knows about the pain, he is there witnessing the pain, and he could easily do something about it but he doesn't.

Not a nice guy, that god of yours.

Not to mention that he could have made it so that there was no pain period, since he created everything. WTF did he create all the suffering for?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2013 05:27 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(27-08-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Agreed. Pain, privation, and other forms of suffering arrive from natural causes. Neither your God nor any other causes them. This may have something to do with those gods not existing.

See my response to GirlyMan above if you would. I’m afraid we have a Gordian knot if you want to say god causes something by natural causes without his or our free will. That makes no sense.

That is certainly not what I'm saying. A better way of phrasing it might be:

Neither your God nor any other directly causes suffering. All substantiated instances of suffering, and anything else that people might ultimately attribute to these figures, have immediate causes in the natural world, in a form indistinguishable from overall natural causation and a manner wholly consistent with said deities having taken not the least part in them, and for that matter consistent with them not existing at all. This may just possibly be because they don't actually exist.

(27-08-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: ... as far as I can tell, this is basically you saying, "hey, some of this suffering I can find a silver lining for and say that there is at least some small positive benefit in it." And I won't disagree in general, because most things are beneficial in one way or another if we look hard enough and don't focus on how crappy they are overall. Whether this benefit is WHY they are there in some causal sense, we seem to disagree on. But that's not to say that the suffering itself is a good thing. And in the hypothetical case of an omni-lots Creator deity, it becomes meaningless, because said deity could have prevented the suffering from ever happening while either achieving those same goals, or obviating the need for them. (Sure, the development of ASL is a great human accomplishment, but who would need ASL if the human ear was intelligently designed so that it could never be deafened in the first place, if reproduction were intelligently designed so as to eliminate birth defects preventing the ear from forming properly, etc?)

That isn’t what I was saying. I’d say it the way my wife put it when I told her about the previous thread, “C’mon, hardship is pretty much the only stimulus for anyone’s achievement in anything.” Remember the “necessity is the mother of invention” quote? I’ll ask again on this thread, name anything that is of long-lasting benefit that comes easy and free without suffering. From Christ’s suffering for our salvation to the Bible’s warning that “an inheritance quickly gained is quickly spent” to learning in school, to building bigger biceps to diet and other exercise, etc. there’s always pain.

But again, if I say to god “ASL is awesome but why do we need it in the first place? How come everyone can’t hear?” god will likely say, “Who made man sighted or blind but I? Those who have ears to hear, let them hear…” In other words, every time, without exception, when I throw out hypotheticals to other Christians like “why can’t we all have perfect hearing?” they kind of upbraid me for being a whiny child.

And who, in your world view, was it that crafted the human character such that it would spend inheritances quickly, to needing hardship to stimulate achievement, et cetera? There is good reason to believe that these tendencies -- not whether they are overcome by individuals, but the fact that they exist to be overcome at all -- are genetically determined, rather than the consequence of individual human choices. If so, why does the necessity of hardship to promote innovation justify that hardship, if the necessity is not really necessity after all?

And it makes sense to call a believer who asks those questions in a genuine sense whiny, if it's in the tone of "I want so why ain't I getting?" When an atheist asks the question in the hypothetical sense and in the tone of "hey, this spiel you're trying to sell me doesn't add up, look at this here, isn't this inconsistent?" then that's not whining, that's critical thinking.

In any case, I don't see how finding an advantage in suffering, such as stimulation towards innovation, doesn't count as seeking a silver lining.

(27-08-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Kinda incoherent, you might want to proof this section and clarify it. I wouldn't say that the sting of death is lessened by suffering leading up to it, so much as it can become a lesser of evils.

Thanks for that input. I’ll be more specific. My wife mentioned a friend who just passed following a long illness when I mentioned this thread, and she said, “It may sound callous but it’s in part, I know, a relief for him that her suffering has ended and he doesn’t sit and wait for the ball to drop,” so yes, the lesser of two evils…

One more thing. Even the statement “the lesser of two evils” has tremendous ramifications for any debate on the “does good and evil exist?” line of debate resolutions. Promise me you’ll think about that in the context of this discussion.

I'll back off on this point actually, simply to avoid the tangent of objective versus subjective good and evil, which deserves a thread or five of its own. I'll rephrase to say that death might come to be viewed as a lesser of two evils, and I'll clarify that I'm using evil in the sense of "something perceived as a negative, harm, or ill outcome", with the subjective perceiver obviously being the person (or people) viewing death as the lesser of two evils. This is not to say one way or the other that it would actually be a lesser evil in any sort of objective sense, or even that the broad sense of the word evil that I'm using here is the only possible way to define evil.

(27-08-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Even in a deistic model, a hypothetical creator God would still be responsible for the context which makes suffering possible. If I put three rats in a cage together and decline to feed them, then they will resort to cannibalism or starve. (Possibly both.) If they do eat each other, it will be by their free actions, but free actions in response to, and constrained by, the context I'd placed them in. How much more power would an omnipotent deistic creator have had to, say, make it unnecessary for them to eat at all when they were first created?

In a theistic model with all the omnis attached, a hypothetical God would have even more freedom. Miracles, for example. If food spontaneously appears in my pantry, I would be able to react to it or not according to my own free will. My free will would not be diminished. But I'd also be fairly immune to starving.

Suffering and pain is not a subset of free will. There is some overlap, to be sure. But some types of suffering are not the product of free choice -- consider a child born with a painful, terminal condition, for example. Where is the free will that caused that?

Frankly, the question of free will is more your schtick than mine. We view the world through different lenses, and I spend a lot less energy than you seem to focusing on the subject of free will. I'm not entirely sure what it means, and the more people define it, the fuzzier it becomes.

I’m sorry it’s fuzzy. God has free will and chose to give man free will, too. Free will is the real Prometheus fire and Pandora box when man has it. Fortunately, there is ultimate accountability in Heaven or Hell. And we’re going to have to discuss suffering as a subset of free will in your example of a child because it has to be god’s choice on this thread or man’s (like the parents were warned in genetic counseling and had a child regardless).

Ah, I see. So essentially you can assert that free will always exists, because either some human somewhere had a choice, or else it was God's choice. (This, of course, assumes there is a God.)

In any event, I'm not maintaining that a hypothetical God would HAVE to alleviate suffering, or have no choice or free will in the matter. I'm saying that if a God did have a choice between inflicting suffering, or accomplishing the same purposes without that suffering (which would definitely be an alternative for an omnipotent being), and then of his own free will did choose to inflict suffering with all things being equal, that such a God would not be described as loving. Such a being would be at best indifferent. Free willed, but indifferent. (Or possibly pointlessly cruel. Pointlessly cruel's an option.)

(27-08-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  PS. No tithing Christian has ever starved to death. Seriously. Free will again.

REALLY. And what would be your basis for this assertion?

(27-08-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: ... soooo not getting what you're saying here. The caveat needs to be asserted that an atheist will only blame God for something either in a hypothetical discussion, or when talking about the concept of God at large in society rather than any actual entity. Atheists don't blame God for anything outside of fiction or a hypothetical, just like (most) atheists don't blame Voldermort for anything. I can't figure out whether you get that or not, and if not, you need to take a step back and do some remedial study on what it means to be an atheist in the first place. It's so basic, I just want to assume that you do know it, but you consistently act as if you don't, right down to the arguments you present to this forum. I'm starting to question whether you're in so deep that you can't even wrap your brain around what it would mean for someone to not believe that any god exists. But in any case, with that caveat in place, your objection becomes... almost a whine of "why are you so critical?" I don't get where you're going with it.
Oh, I get that 100%. Just let me please rephrase your “whine of why atheists are critical” to “whine of why atheists constantly whine”.

Or would you not take a typical post on this forum like “f god if he f-ing makes f-ing children f-ing die of horrible diseases and f you twice pj” as “a gentlemanly discourse in our marketplace of ideas and hypotheticals” and not “whining”?

I'd place it more in the rant category. But agreed that it isn't gentlemanly.

I am an antipistevist. That's like an antipastovist, only with epistemic responsibility instead of bruschetta.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
27-08-2013, 05:41 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
"and f you twice pj"

OK that was Funny!

PJ does this help you with your preaching? Are we inadvertently arming you for the unsuspecting college co-eds at the local quad who are going to get hammered by the sidewalk apologist who practices all the time with angry atheists? You have to realize that dude, you are totally going to ruin their buzz, man. "We got high between class but then there is angry christ dude in the Quad, it totally bums me out man..."

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: