Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2013, 02:52 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(18-09-2013 02:41 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Still not amazed...can we move on to part 3?

Are you unamazed because it was predetermined on a neurological basis, or did you choose to be unamazed? Free will?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(18-09-2013 02:49 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(18-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Pleasure to you, then, is like eating candy? To most people, it certainly includes personal achivement and actualization, not by eating but by overcoming hardships and excelling despite the hardships (work, learning, suffering, pain, persecution, naysayers, etc.)

[Image: f834a5ecad6d4b6978dc6d74ec55d82a_pub.jpg]

Your logic, erudition and alternative philosophy here is unescapable. Yawn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2013, 02:58 PM
 
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(18-09-2013 02:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Your logic, erudition and alternative philosophy here is unescapable. Yawn.

I've tried using logic with you, in fact, many members of this forum have done so in the past 30 pages, but to no avail.

So I don't see any purpose in continuing to do so.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Philosoraptor's post
18-09-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(18-09-2013 02:52 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(18-09-2013 02:41 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Still not amazed...can we move on to part 3?

Are you unamazed because it was predetermined on a neurological basis, or did you choose to be unamazed? Free will?

I doubt it's neurological...too much LSD in the 70's you see. I fried most of my neurons.

Choice? Nope, I came to this thread each and every time with the wide eyed wonder of a new born babe, no preconception, I was determined to be amazed...of course thinking of a new born baby made me hungry and I probably lost track. Could that be it?Consider

Freewill? Nope, I'm a tool of Satan you see, the fact that I don't believe in him doesn't matter, too many religious people say we do, so it must be true.

Who do I see for a refund?Drinking Beverage

" 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
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
18-09-2013, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2013 04:10 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(18-09-2013 02:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(16-09-2013 03:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So PJ now wants examples of other universes with an omnipotent being doing something.

I'm not sure lack of imagination is purely the answer. There seems to be inability to grasp simple concepts.

Here's am answer anyway... Candy Land. In Candy Land the kids eat all the candy they want and don't get unhealthy/fat... There's free will to pick any candy they so desire and I see no suffering or pain... And it doesn't seem to limit joy of pleasure from trying 1 candy to the next candy.

Do you not see that an omnipotent being could create that universe?

I do see it.

Pleasure to you, then, is like eating candy? To most people, it certainly includes personal achivement and actualization, not by eating but by overcoming hardships and excelling despite the hardships (work, learning, suffering, pain, persecution, naysayers, etc.)

You can answer the above question, the hard question, "Pleasure to you comes when there is no effort?" (and overcome the suffering of effort you need to make to answer it) or take my easy question instead:

How long would it take you to get bored of eating candy? It takes me a few minutes only, even if I don't "get fat".

Pleasure is defined by anything that creates a rise of dopamine/other neurochemicals to heighten the state of being.

I thought I would take the imagination issues you seem to have a hard time with, and simplify it to the idea of a child's game. Candy Land to an adult need not be just about eating the candy; because, no I don't associate pleasure to being like eating candy. There's beauty in the formations across the world of Candy Land, there is a journey of getting to the end of the road(Personal achievement and actualization), and it in a total world could encompass so much more than eating. Remember, this created world could have anything and everything possible.

Pleasure comes to one when pleasure comes to one... Effort or not. But Effort is not absent in this world. Achieving the goals you seek in Candy Land require effort as well. Effort is possible without suffering so I still don't see what you fail to recognize. You don't need suffering to have to put effort into achieving goals. Having a desire of something is not suffering. Pleasure is merely a chemical reaction in ones brain, why you feel it must be complicated by other concepts is a personal issue.

Once again, not understanding omnipotence with benevolence. God could create a world like that without boredom, and that doesn't take away free will or limit joy. He also can create worlds where effort is 'non-suffering' required if you still think that point has merit.

An Omnipotent God could create a world perfect for you if it desired, even with the ILLUSION of suffering if you think it's necessary. But it could all be harmless and only a stepping stone drive that you feel somehow is needed.

If you can see that a world like that Candy Land can exist... you admit that children suffer in the reality we live in because God(In presumption of its existence) wants it that way/It choose to make it that way, without actual necessity.

In Biblical concept. God had a world with free will, no pain, and full of sustainable pleasure without boredom.(You assert Adam had lack, but I do not find lack suffering. Even if it does, where's the pain/suffering once Eve was there?) but God made it in a way, where with his omniscience, he knew it would not last. It was created to fall... created to create a world WITH suffering. In that theology the Earth as it is in only in existence to be a punishment. Suffering is that punishment, and that's the reason it exists if that God exists. Punishment for a process he knew was happening when he started as well. It is in no way needed or just. It's a made up explanation to why our suffering exists. I guess I or no one here will be able to grasp why you find this concept of actions or the concept that suffering is needed as acceptable, so there's not much more for me to say.

"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
18-09-2013, 11:07 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 06:02 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(18-09-2013 02:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Your “better world” is a straw man, the more so since Christians remind atheists constantly that it also logically could be WORSE. Level field.

But once fucking again, atheists are not the ones positing that this world was created by an all powerful, all knowing, and all caring being. All three of those attributes combined are simply incompatible with our universe. I can handle this world, it's the only one I've know and am likely to experience. Why you continue to posit an undetectable god into the mix that requires you to defend needless suffering and harm is beyond me.

Another universe could be worse, but if your god existed as you described him, we should expect better in this one; and I can only imagine that your slavish submission to your god concept prevents you from seeing this.


Your god could have made us so that we didn't need to eat, he could have made us with eternal energy or in some other way that we need not suffer from starvation. But he did not.

He could have made us impervious to physical harm, so that we could never be hurt, harmed, or killed; and lived our lives out peaceful until succumbing to old age. But he did not.

He could have made us procreate asexually, thus eliminating the ability or desire to rape. But he did not.

He could have created the world to be a perfectly comfortable and temperate world were we always had enough. But he did not.

He could have made a world filled with nothing but herbivores, eliminating all of the suffering caused by creatures killing and eating each other. But he did not.

He could have made us without the base and negative emotions (anger, jealousy, etc.), or created a world where those emotions were never needed. But he did not.

He could have given all creatures 'souls' so that they can all be active intelligent agents in his creation (if intelligence and 'freewill' are based on a soul instead of the limitations of a physical brain). But he did not.

He could have made us with an innate sense of his existence and what he wants from us, as real as our pangs of hunger or pain. But he did not.

He could have made a world free of microorganisms and parasites who's sole purpose is to multiply and cause suffering to sentient creatures. But he did not.

He could have made us unable to cause harm to other beings while allowing us to contemplate doing so (much like how we cannot fly, but can think about it). But he did not.

God could personally intervene, make his presence unquestionable known and verified by the standards of our best science; if nothing else than to let us know that we're not just a cosmic experiment or marionettes on strings. But he does not.



And in light of all your god could have done but did not, you want to posit that not only does he exists, but also that he's good and cares for us? What fucking evidence do you have for that? Why on fucking Earth should I believe you and adopt your position? You're entire argument boils down to 'atheist can't prove that my god doesn't have a reason to allow suffering, therefore god exists and is good'. That is how fucking asinine your reasoning is.

Your god could exist, but if he created this universe, then he's a capricious uncaring asshole; but you're not allowed to admit that are you?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-09-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(18-09-2013 03:12 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  
(18-09-2013 02:52 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Are you unamazed because it was predetermined on a neurological basis, or did you choose to be unamazed? Free will?

I doubt it's neurological...too much LSD in the 70's you see. I fried most of my neurons.

Choice? Nope, I came to this thread each and every time with the wide eyed wonder of a new born babe, no preconception, I was determined to be amazed...of course thinking of a new born baby made me hungry and I probably lost track. Could that be it?Consider

Freewill? Nope, I'm a tool of Satan you see, the fact that I don't believe in him doesn't matter, too many religious people say we do, so it must be true.

Who do I see for a refund?Drinking Beverage

Me. Because you're wasting my time and others' time on a thread I started, and you've contributed nothing via logic, philosophy, inductive reasoning or empirical evidence.

You're just mocking with nothing to say, and in a community of teed off atheists and agnostics, that's saying something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote:Pleasure is defined by anything that creates a rise of dopamine/other neurochemicals to heighten the state of being.

So, you know that for masochists and sadists, suffering enhances their dopamine levels, and a world without suffering would be hellish for them? That’s one thing that comes to mind when I hear the “universal, self-evident need to eliminate suffering.”

Quote:I thought I would take the imagination issues you seem to have a hard time with, and simplify it to the idea of a child's game. Candy Land to an adult need not be just about eating the candy; because, no I don't associate pleasure to being like eating candy. There's beauty in the formations across the world of Candy Land, there is a journey of getting to the end of the road(Personal achievement and actualization), and it in a total world could encompass so much more than eating. Remember, this created world could have anything and everything possible.

LOL. Very good. You have a future in Christian apologetics.

Quote:Pleasure comes to one when pleasure comes to one... Effort or not. But Effort is not absent in this world. Achieving the goals you seek in Candy Land require effort as well. Effort is possible without suffering so I still don't see what you fail to recognize. You don't need suffering to have to put effort into achieving goals. Having a desire of something is not suffering. Pleasure is merely a chemical reaction in ones brain, why you feel it must be complicated by other concepts is a personal issue.

Well, you don’t understand Candy Land. Because in Candy Land there is effort to move a few pieces, and there are random spins. From Wikipedia:

“Due to the design of the game, there is no strategy involved—players are never required to make choices, just follow directions. The winner is predetermined by the shuffle of the cards.”

Why not simply say god allows random suffering to keep people in the game? Or do you prefer to play cards when everyone shows their hand the whole time?

Quote:Once again, not understanding omnipotence with benevolence. God could create a world like that without boredom, and that doesn't take away free will or limit joy. He also can create worlds where effort is 'non-suffering' required if you still think that point has merit.

And he could create a world with maximal suffering, where we all look like extras from the Hellraiser movie series. My points include:

*Suffering is reasonable

*Suffering is contextual

*Suffering is limited

My imagination is not limited. Rather, my conscience is amazed that the ONLY atheist standard employed here is ZERO suffering. Really?

Quote:An Omnipotent God could create a world perfect for you if it desired, even with the ILLUSION of suffering if you think it's necessary. But it could all be harmless and only a stepping stone drive that you feel somehow is needed.

The Buddhists say it is an illusion. I say it seems like an illusion in Heaven and Hell.

Quote:If you can see that a world like that Candy Land can exist... you admit that children suffer in the reality we live in because God(In presumption of its existence) wants it that way/It choose to make it that way, without actual necessity.

I respectfully disagree. I know that I have reasons why children should not suffer, and sometimes reasons why they should, but that no atheist has offered a reason on either thread 1 or thread 2 as to WHY they should or shouldn’t suffer, beyond something that seems like some kind of sentimentality.

Quote:In Biblical concept. God had a world with free will, no pain, and full of sustainable pleasure without boredom.(You assert Adam had lack, but I do not find lack suffering. Even if it does, where's the pain/suffering once Eve was there?) but God made it in a way, where with his omniscience, he knew it would not last. It was created to fall... created to create a world WITH suffering. In that theology the Earth as it is in only in existence to be a punishment. Suffering is that punishment, and that's the reason it exists if that God exists. Punishment for a process he knew was happening when he started as well. It is in no way needed or just. It's a made up explanation to why our suffering exists. I guess I or no one here will be able to grasp why you find this concept of actions or the concept that suffering is needed as acceptable, so there's not much more for me to say.

I agree with that too, since you haven’t said much this whole time other than “Use your imagination and god can do anything” which makes your imaginary sky god sound more like Willy Wonka than a god of justice, mercy, love AND vengeance.

I DID use my imagination and offered reasons why humans get bored with pleasure and need suffering. Waiting for your counter reasons other than your god of the gaps, please.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(19-09-2013 01:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Me. Because you're wasting my time and others' time on a thread I started, and you've contributed nothing via logic, philosophy, inductive reasoning or empirical evidence.

You're just mocking with nothing to say, and in a community of teed off atheists and agnostics, that's saying something.


James Randi is unimpressed...

[Image: 3pcr8i.jpg]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "contributed nothing via logic, philosophy, inductive reasoning or empirical evidence" PJ, that is you in EVERY GOD-DAMN THREAD! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-09-2013, 02:06 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: But once fucking again, atheists are not the ones positing that this world was created by an all powerful, all knowing, and all caring being. All three of those attributes combined are simply incompatible with our universe. I can handle this world, it's the only one I've know and am likely to experience. Why you continue to posit an undetectable god into the mix that requires you to defend needless suffering and harm is beyond me.

Because I’ve presented this thread to a number of Christians who all notice you ALWAYS leave off, “just, vengeful, jealous, concerned, parental, intervening,” and etc. for god. ALWAYS.

Why is your imaginary sky god loving but never good or just? I thought he could do or be ANYTHING?

Quote:Another universe could be worse, but if your god existed as you described him, we should expect better in this one; and I can only imagine that your slavish submission to your god concept prevents you from seeing this.

But then it wouldn’t be THIS ONE as you wrote, and you’d have the problem of infinite regression I’ve pointed out here many times now. If it was a little better, you’d say, “it needs to be better”, and etc.

[snipped—various issues that all are suffering that god didn’t address]

Quote: And in light of all your god could have done but did not, you want to posit that not only does he exists, but also that he's good and cares for us? What fucking evidence do you have for that? Why on fucking Earth should I believe you and adopt your position? You're entire argument boils down to 'atheist can't prove that my god doesn't have a reason to allow suffering, therefore god exists and is good'. That is how fucking asinine your reasoning is.

No, it’s how pedantic your argument is. I’ve given numerous reasons why suffering demonstrates his love and goodness and not his cruelty. We can address just one for now:

Is there a better way to warn of Hell or hope of Heaven then suffering? And you can’t say “literature, witnesses Christians and information,” because suffering will make an atheist a Christian, often faster than the “billboards” you’ve requested from your imaginary sky god.

Quote:Your god could exist, but if he created this universe, then he's a capricious uncaring asshole; but you're not allowed to admit that are you?

I certainly can admit that, if there is no free will and he is the god that KC says is the correct, Reformed view. That god would predetermine people to Hell!

I don’t wish to bore you but you’ve asked for answers. Would you like 3 dozen more reasons why suffering is GOOD and shows the LOVE of God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: