Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2013, 10:42 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Don't misunderstand a little suffering is fine and dandy, so long as it's consensual suffering. It's doubtful children consent to it. It's doubtful a baby is capable of consenting. If an adult able to offer consent wishes to starve themselves for their deity that's fine or deny themselves life saving medicines or blood transfusions.

If a dictator starves his people and denies them medicine he's a monster. If a dictator decides to exterminate large swaths of the populace, he's a criminal and a monster.

Why should an "all-powerful" deity get a pass?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
24-09-2013, 10:47 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Usually theists say it's okay because he created them. Basically, the philosophy is that parents have the right to starve and torture their children as they wish because a child is nothing but property of its creators.

At least, that's what they're saying.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Elesjei's post
24-09-2013, 11:07 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2013 11:13 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 09:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: I've said multiple times that a god that gives a fuck is incompatible. That means, if you took the time to pull your head out of you ass to notice, that an not-benevolent god would be perfectly fine with allowing suffering. This does however fly in the face of mainstream Christology. The problem of Evil is not a problem for an asshole god, but most Christains can not or will not even contemplate such a thing for their god.

Okay so do you now admit that based on our universe, that if a god does exist, he's not a benevolent one? Because this is what I've been saying all along; that any god responsible for this universe, and if in possession of the limitless powers of creation, is a fucking asshole.

EK:

KC and I have both contemplated precisely that, actually. It’s a necessity when digesting all this free will and predestination stuff and Hell and etc. I think it’s fine to contemplate.

But have you received any grace (unmerited favor) in this universe? I mean, if I take your post as 100% your convictions, surely you would have killed yourself by now over all the meaninglessness and injustice out here “in this universe”.

Grace is meaningless bullshit, and if that's all you got, congratulations you ain't got shit. Grace is a hokey concept that theists use when subjectively appreciating luck and random chance that is seen as favorable; with chance and randomness themselves just being more or less our inability to predict all of the variables of our deterministic universe.



(24-09-2013 09:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:That doesn't answer the question dickwad. The only universe we have to judge against your god claim is the one we have now, and the universe we have now is incompatible with an all powerful benevolent god. See above.

Are you calling me a name so I continue to view atheists as reasonable, level-headed people? It’s not helping. I cannot call you that name because I respect you as a person.

You are saying this time-space with no Heaven is not compatible with god’s benevolence. Yet I see god’s grace (unmerited favor) in action quite frequently. It sure sounds like your glass is (less than) half full. What am I not understanding about you personally?

Your opinion means less than nothing to me, and your false modesty with a dash of condescension is noted; dickwad.

You see 'grace' everywhere because of your rampant confirmation bias, and you inability to ever be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge 'I don't know' without immediately following it with 'therefore god'. See something favorable happen and don't know why? Well, must have been my god! Hallelujah! Look at all that GRACE! Laughat

Yeah, how about no.



(24-09-2013 09:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Not making Hell, as a place of infinite punishment is the exact opposite of what we would expect from a remotely intelligent being; let alone an all-knowing, all-powerful, and (as many claim) all-benevolent god. Also unless you can prove Hell actually exists, you can't claim warning us away from it as a defense for suffering in this universe, because Hell hasn't been proven to exist in this universe. Suffering cannot be justified in avoiding Hell the way you are attempting, if Hell is simply a lie.

Hell is not a place of infinite punishment.

I don't suppose that, once you give a coherent and testable definition of your True Hell, that it will actually stay consistent? Also why should I accept your True Hell over the Hell's proscribed by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Saul of Tarsis, Origin, Augistine, or anyone else claiming to have to the One and Only Truth? Could you also give a consistent definition for your god while you at it, preferably one that is more than just word salad?



(24-09-2013 09:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: You're logic is broken. You cannot make the jump from 'I am suffering from starvation/rape/injury/disease/malnutrition/whatever' to 'therefore a god exists and he cares about me'. If you think that jump makes sense, we'd all be better off if you let your house plants type your forum posts from now on.

You’re right, that is a jump. Tell me, if free will exists, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “god causes some suffering and people cause some suffering”?

If absolute freewill exists, which it demonstrably does not. So total non sequitur, got anything better than that? Drinking Beverage



(24-09-2013 09:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Any warning would not be necessary, as your creator god could have made knowledge of his existence/rules/expectations innate to us, but he choose not too. Funny how he seemingly 'choose' to make all of these problem in believing in the one true god of all of creation, seems like he fucked the pooch on that one. That you can't think of better solution to avoiding Hell than 'plague/famine/disease/war/rape/suffering', once again, speak of your staggering lack of imagination. We have to keep coming back to this, you couldn't imagine your way out of an imaginary paper bag...

But god did no such thing, making the problems roll up into “believing in the one true god”. The problems and their solutions lie in the realms of sin and righteousness.

Nonesense and meaningless drivel. It's not that 'god did no such thing', it's 'this is what we would logically expect of your god given X,Y,Z attributes, and this is precisely what we do NOT see, therefore there is no reason to believe that the god exists with X,Y,Z attributes'. Divine hiddeness is identical to nonexistence, get the fuck over it. You god, as described, has zero objectively verifiable influence on our reality.

Also, 'sin' is a bullshit concept cooked up by those who created your religion to allow them to sell a cure. I have no more respect for the concept than I do a doctor that goes around cutting people to sell them bandages. There is also zero evidence to believe it is anything more than a dogmatic fairy-tale. But please, by all means prove me wrong. I'd love to see some verifiable evidence for a sin, including exactly how it works, interacts with a person, how much it weights, what it looks like, how to measure it, etc... Drinking Beverage



(24-09-2013 09:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: I don't need any more examples to further prove just how much of a fucking mental slave you are. You are a sick in the head, sad little man.

Well, it sounds as though you’ve concluded that 100% of suffering is pointless and meaningless. So, what will you do if you should personally experience suffering?

Suffering is pointless and meaningless IN A UNIVERSE WITH A BENEVOLENT ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR that could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING. The possible 'benefits' of suffering are fucking MUTE in a scenario with an all-powerful creator that could accomplish the same goal any other way without the suffering; thus the suffering would be needless and arbitrary by definition. God fucking dammit, you have to be dumber than the ground you walk on, or purposely obtuse. Once again (for the umpteenth time), you lack the rudimentary imagination to contemplate the possibility of your limitless god not needing to create suffering; a benevolent god would by definition not create needless suffering, and an all-powerful god would by definition always have the power to do things without causing suffering. You claim your god has the will and the power, yet you don't see those traits to their logical conclusion; that being a universe very much unlike the one we exist in.

But since we DO live in a universe with suffering, I am force to conclude by the rules of logic, that an all-powerful benevolent creator does not exist. Because given those attributes, that creator would NOT have created THIS universe. Now how about you leave the forum, enroll in a community college course in Logic, and come back after you've actually learned something? Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-09-2013, 11:35 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Don't misunderstand a little suffering is fine and dandy, so long as it's consensual suffering. It's doubtful children consent to it. It's doubtful a baby is capable of consenting. If an adult able to offer consent wishes to starve themselves for their deity that's fine or deny themselves life saving medicines or blood transfusions.

If a dictator starves his people and denies them medicine he's a monster. If a dictator decides to exterminate large swaths of the populace, he's a criminal and a monster.

Why should an "all-powerful" deity get a pass?

I never said god gets a pass. I said god is culpable in part and humans are culpable in part. But your question underscore concepts of judgment and Hell. How come you get "a pass"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 10:47 AM)Elesjei Wrote:  Usually theists say it's okay because he created them. Basically, the philosophy is that parents have the right to starve and torture their children as they wish because a child is nothing but property of its creators.

At least, that's what they're saying.

Huh? Which theists told you that? Suffering has 1) causes 2) results 3) purposes. A child is not only more than property, people are children of god who create beauty, art, love and more children.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 11:51 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
EK:

Quote:
Grace is meaningless bullshit, and if that's all you got, congratulations you ain't got shit. Grace is a hokey concept that theists use when subjectively appreciating luck and random chance that is seen as favorable; with chance and randomness themselves just being more or less our inability to predict all of the variables of our deterministic universe.

I wasn’t referring to the Christian concept of grace as stemming from god. I was asking you if you’ve received all you deserve or whether you’ve received unmerited favor—from people.

Quote:Your opinion means less than nothing to me, and your false modesty with a dash of condescension is noted; dickwad.

That must have been a lot of work, after all, I’ve been “accused” of false modesty and condescension, being passively aggressive by saying “Thank you”, and holier than thou for not cursing like a drunken sailor. What would you accuse Jesus Christ of doing? And I’ll ask a second time, is calling me a name I’d never call you your attempt to have me embrace my skeptic friends as kind, reasoning, people?

Quote: I don't suppose that, once you give a coherent and testable definition of your True Hell, that it will actually stay consistent? Also why should I accept your True Hell over the Hell's proscribed by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Saul of Tarsis, Origin, Augistine, or anyone else claiming to have to the One and Only Truth? Could you also give a consistent definition for your god while you at it, preferably one that is more than just word salad?

For a start, I’ll agree with each source you’ve named that Hell is a place of eternal punishment that is not infinite in magnitude.

Quote: If absolute freewill exists, which it demonstrably does not. So total non sequitur, got anything better than that?

Sure. Let’s put practical free will aside for the moment. Are you absolutely certain that there is no absolute free will, and if not, are you absolutely certain that you won’t change your mind?

Quote: Nonesense and meaningless drivel. It's not that 'god did no such thing', it's 'this is what we would logically expect of your god given X,Y,Z attributes, and this is precisely what we do NOT see, therefore there is no reason to believe that the god exists with X,Y,Z attributes'. Divine hiddeness is identical to nonexistence, get the fuck over it. You god, as described, has zero objectively verifiable influence on our reality.

Also, 'sin' is a bullshit concept cooked up by those who created your religion to allow them to sell a cure. I have no more respect for the concept than I do a doctor that goes around cutting people to sell them bandages. There is also zero evidence to believe it is anything more than a dogmatic fairy-tale. But please, by all means prove me wrong. I'd love to see some verifiable evidence for a sin, including exactly how it works, interacts with a person, how much it weights, what it looks like, how to measure it, etc.

Gladly. Please start by helping me define terms and quantities. How much will you love someone before you commit to a monogamous relationship with them, and how would you measure that love? You said suffering is meaningless and wrong. What tools do you use to determine when someone has gone beyond a tolerable amount of discomfort to suffering?

Quote: Suffering is pointless and meaningless IN A UNIVERSE WITH A BENEVOLENT ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR that could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING. The possible 'benefits' of suffering are fucking MUTE in a scenario with an all-powerful creator that could accomplish the same goal any other way without the suffering; thus the suffering would be needless and arbitrary by definition. God fucking dammit, you have to be dumber than the ground you walk on, or purposely obtuse. Once again (for the umpteenth time), you lack the rudimentary imagination to contemplate the possibility of your limitless god not needing to create suffering; a benevolent god would by definition not create needless suffering, and an all-powerful god would by definition always have the power to do things without causing suffering. You claim your god has the will and the power, yet you don't see those traits to their logical conclusion; that being a universe very much unlike the one we exist in.

But since we DO live in a universe with suffering, I am force to conclude by the rules of logic, that an all-powerful benevolent creator does not exist. Because given those attributes, that creator would NOT have created THIS universe. Now how about you leave the forum, enroll in a community college course in Logic, and come back after you've actually learned something?

Interesting. You are lecturing me on logic, yet you have:

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of suffering WITHOUT SUFFERING”

How about:

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of truth WITHOUT TRUTH”

Or

“could accomplish any possible positive aspect of love WITHOUT LOVE”

And I think you’ll see what I mean.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 11:37 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Huh? Which theists told you that? Suffering has 1) causes 2) results 3) purposes. A child is not only more than property, people are children of god who create beauty, art, love and more children.

You, in another thread. But you didn't say it to me, I just read it. Also Egor, theword, and Mark Dreher. And many Christians and Muslims I have seen on TV and the internet making excuses for God. I guess because it was a while ago it doesn't apply since you have proven to be anything but consistent.

We can't hold God to a different standard than anyone else. There is no reason to. If God causes pain and suffering (and not through humans, I mean through the diseases and natural disasters he designed, and pointlessly, ie. a toddler dying of AIDS) he is a malevolent god. If he were a human, we would throw him in prison for his crimes. But because it's God, every bit of suffering is permissible. It's always "God works in mysterious ways" even when there is no way a toddler dying of AIDS is of benefit to the kid or anyone else. Or "Who are we to judge God?", which is a really stupid thing to say after a toddler's painful, pointless death.

Assuming we were created by God, we were given intelligence, empathy, and morality that tells us that what he is responsible for is the most terrible crime spree in the history of the universe, but we are supposed to turn a blind eye to it because he's our daddy and he knows what he's doing. Thinking we are incapable of understanding someone's motives doesn't mean we can't be harsh judges of their actions.

And oh yes,

1) Causes: a disease from God's perfect world.
2) Results: pain and sorrow.
3) Purpose: who gives a shit; an innocent kid died.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Elesjei's post
24-09-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote:PleaseJesus Wrote:
In that sense, yes. God chose to create someone knowing they will pick not just “heaven or hell” but one or the other. Yes. And? Not a problem if Hell is a reasonable punishment or Heaven a reasonable reward.

What is a reasonable punishment for non-belief? What is a reasonable reward for a belief?

Most other literalist christian believers seem to take a darkly contrasting view about hell:

See http://www.icr.org/article/486/

Most of the new testament, where the idea of hell was created, similarly seems to have a starkly contrasting view to what you are proposing:

Revelation 19:20: "And the beast[5] was taken, and with him the false prophet[6] that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
Revelation 20:14-15 "Then Death and Hades[7] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."[NKJV]
Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."[8]

It would have been a lot easier for me to have been a Christian if I could have ignored the scriptures I didn't like and just follow the ones I did to create my own "custom" theology. I guess I had the bad luck of studying ACTUAL christian theology in college....

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

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Skippy538's post
24-09-2013, 06:06 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 05:40 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  It would have been a lot easier for me to have been a Christian if I could have ignored the scriptures I didn't like and just follow the ones I did to create my own "custom" theology. I guess I had the bad luck of studying ACTUAL christian theology in college....

It's good that you realize exactly where you went wrong.

The only true interpretation is the one suggested to you by cognitive dissonance willful ignorance the Holy Spirit. Yup.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2013 06:35 PM by Hafnof.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(24-09-2013 05:40 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  
Quote:PleaseJesus Wrote:
In that sense, yes. God chose to create someone knowing they will pick not just “heaven or hell” but one or the other. Yes. And? Not a problem if Hell is a reasonable punishment or Heaven a reasonable reward.
What is a reasonable punishment for non-belief? What is a reasonable reward for a belief?

Exactly. The "grace" of god is to reward those who believe, and punish those who do not believe. Everything comes down to that gullibility test. Those who believe impossible nonsense go to heaven for eternal reward. Those who fail to believe impossible nonsense go to hell for eternal punishment.

Claiming that people choose whether or not they go to heaven or to hell is contrary to a sound reading of Christian doctrine. People don't choose what to believe. People believe what they believe based on the facts and tools they have available. I can't choose not to believe in gravity and I can't choose to believe in Santa Claus. Those aren't my decisions, they are the outcome of my rational processes based on the information I have available to me. I can't choose to believe in God. I do not believe in God because an omnibenevolent god cannot be the creator of this universe. That is the outcome of my rational processes. Is this a choice? Is this me choosing to go to hell under Christian theology?

Both PJ and Heywood claim to have passed that gullibility test, and to have put aside their humanity to accept the wicked acts of an immoral god. I myself cannot set aside my humanity. I cannot set aside the care for my fellow human that says "genocide is wrong". Therefore, by this Christian theology I am a monster deserving eternal punishment while they are sinless and blameless worthy of eternal reward.

I say: Perhaps your theology is backwards. If you use the word "good" to describe acceptance of Christian theology, and "bad" to describe rejection of that theology then you have the words "good" and "bad" around the wrong way.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: