Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote:When did I claim to be a naturalist? I am a secular humanist sometimes a socialist and I do define evil as allowing suffering of those you have the ability to relieve and if your god exists as you say it is evil.

Wikipedia says, “Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.”

You believe in spiritual realities? Really?

Quote:As to no justice in this world, it is few and far between the majority of people live or have lived in barbaric conditions with a life expectancy of about 35 most of whom died painfully because of their teeth.

1) Charcoal and other items have been used to clean teeth for millennia 2) You are definitely typical of apatheists who always “see the sunny side of life”. I mean, really.

Quote:Now in my world, ya know reality without a fairy story,

In other words, “a naturalist,”

Quote:suffering exists because of multiple reasons mainly unequal distribution of wealth and power. In the world with the fairytale God who has more than all the power in the universe who can simply think things into being it makes no sense for the world to be as broken as it is. If you blame the fall of man it still goes back to faulty creation as evil existed in the system aka the serpent but we all know you will never look at this with logic and will simply run back to your strawman defense and your illogical apologetics.

I’ve already admitted it, so let me repeat, god causes suffering. So why is your resolution:

“A god cannot have any morals unless they are my exact moral code” … ? OR perhaps you prefer:

“No suffering at any time is good. Therefore, when an evil person suffers from guilt or regret because of evil actions, god has made another mistake.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Who said what about the holocaust is archived on this forum. I've never said it "could have been better" as an argument for any of my points.

Well, while we agree it was in the past and could not have been thus altered by wishing it were so, don’t we agree it SHOULD have been better? And when you write something like (paraphrasing here) “An omnipotent god can eliminate all suffering” are you not saying The Holocaust should have been better that it was?

Please explain. Then, please also explain why my “it might have been worse” is not on a level playing field with “it might have been better”. Thanks.

Quote: Rude is fine. You can be offensive and I can be rude. We can both take it. You can call me rude and point to my comments as your evidence. I'm fine with that. I'm not okay with words like 'hate speech.' Especially when my words are public record and very obviously not fitting of that criteria.

Don't ever accuse me of something that serious again.

Okay. That is a good point you made. My apologies.

Quote: You chose to be here.

Someone called you names on the internet? Do tell...

Rephrase, please, to “PJ has posted tens of thousands of words on this forum and in average 500 responses, 100 people curse him and 390 say he is illogical and irrelevant.”

I could easily forward Christians I know here to see what rudeness really is, but I don’t. Can you imagine 50 or 60 PJs joining me here? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: If I shoot someone, the direct cause of that person's injuries is the bullet. The fact that I only INDIRECTLY caused the injuries does not negate my culpability, nor does it prevent my victim from having a problem with me for shooting them. Same for if we posit that God causes someone to be trapped in an avalanche. If God caused the avalanche, then God caused the suffering, albeit only indirectly, and one can question just how loving He is. But then, I don't think God did this either, because I don't think God exists.

Can’t let that pass. God causes ultimately all suffering and death. Then again, I believe he causes suffering in Hell. I’m consistent.

However, it is logically possible for two moral agents, both with free will, to be complicit in a crime. The FBI calls that “conspiracy charges” and has indeed used it to break the Mafia, convicting bosses who gave a kill order along with the soldiers who followed the order.

So if you shoot someone, I hold you and god both responsible. And if there is no god, you responsible. Either way, you have committed a moral crime. Does that help?

And how about this, do you feel a moral crime should be punished?

Quote: ... but you missed the last sentence. If God chose to make us in a way that necessitated suffering... and God had the option of accomplishing all the same goals in some way that didn't necessitate suffering... and you're attempting to justify the suffering by explaining the suffering is necessary... then you're left with the question of why God would have chosen to create humanity such that we would require suffering at all, and this question undermines the "meaning"s of suffering you've proposed. From a logical standpoint, that leaves us right back where we started. I'm pointing out that your attempt to address the problem doesn't actually address it.

I see your point. However, another of your points is “all suffering is bad” and one of my points is “not all suffering is bad”. The best meals and beverages I’ve eaten and drunk came when I was hungry and thirsty. Remember how John Mellencamp put it, “Hurts so good!”

As a general rule, a lot of people deal with the problem of evil and suffering, but not a lot of born again Christians do. It’s just not a problem for them…

*Because suffering leads to maturity and understanding suffering, more maturity

*Because we rejoice when god punishes evil

*Because some suffering promotes knowledge and achievement, etc.

Quote: Oh, agreed, many of them are presently demonstrating more hostility than critical thinking. (Granted, a lot of them applied critical thinking early on, perhaps in the previous thread or to versions of this argument they heard before then, and are simply resting on those laurels until that critical thinking is significantly debunked, but I'll agree that their current posts aren't putting it front and center.) But that's a red herring. The comparison you were replying to here was how my pointing out the inconsistency was different from you asking your fellows about "why couldn't God have made us without the possibility for deafness?" in the sense of wishing that things were better. The fact that others have broken out the flames in no way matters to this.

You’re right. The attacks should be parsed from the arguments, which takes maturity on everyone’s part.

I still think, however, that for every “why couldn't God have made us without the possibility for deafness?” there is a logical “how come more people aren’t deaf?”

Now, take very carefully what I’m proposing next, because I’m being pretty raw and vulnerable. The first question is rhetorical, the second is the kind of question Christians really ask.

Let me explain what I mean. If we take hypotheticals and god to the side for now, do you think people who complain about a situation rather than amending it are mature?

Maybe suffering gives OTHER people something to do?
Quote: I will agree that there is significance and consequences to various events. I'll further agree that there are situations in which some behavior or event would only be present, or be more likely to be present, BECAUSE of a consequence it could be expected to achieve, such as the hunting instincts of a lion (yay evolution), and perhaps that could be called the instincts' purpose. I would not however automatically ascribe an intelligence behind these types of significance, consequence, or purpose. That a person is in pain can signify a serious medical condition, and trigger all sorts of positive outcomes, such as seeking medical care and having the condition addressed before it gets worse, and have the evolutionary purpose of warning the person not to move their body in a certain way. And it can also all sorts of negative consequences and significance, such as suffering and worry in their loved ones and possibly a horrific death. Suffering can signify things about the past, too, like shingles signifying that you had chicken pox as a child. In this manner, the existence of suffering can be taken to signify or mean that God (if He exists, which I of course do not grant) is not loving.

However, I don't think that's what you're getting at when you talk about meaning and purpose. What you seem to be doing is sifting through these things I mentioned, discarding all the negatives, and holding up the positives (what I call the silver linings) and arbitrarily choosing these to be identified as some sort of OBJECTIVE meaning and purpose, in the sense of "this was done with the deliberate intention of accomplishing such and such goal or conveying such and such message". Why not simply call decomposition the purpose of death or pain the meaning of a broken arm? Your entire methodology here (which strikes me as bewilderingly biased towards assuming every meaning and purpose is benevolent) seems to simply be to pick out positive consequences or significance that you can arbitrarily point to and call the purpose of something. All this, by the way, is before you ever try to bring God into the picture (unless it is as the declarer of "meaning" and "purpose"), and does not address the question of "why would omnipotent God choose a painful way of doing this, when He could choose a painless way of doing it?" It is a question you keep dodging.

A lion attacking and killing the gazelle is not pointlessly cruel, because the lion achieves a goal in this that cannot be achieved without some critter suffering. There is indeed a point. Nor would I say it is cruel at all, because the suffering is not itself a goal of the lion, simply a side effect of how the lion achieves the goal of a full belly. I would say that the lion is indifferent to the gazelle's suffering. The lion cannot be regarded as being loving towards the gazelle. (Save perhaps in a gastronomical sense, which is not the typical way in which God is described as loving people.) However, the the lion who has no alternative but to kill critters in order to live is a poor analogy for an omnipotent God choosing to create a world with suffering, who simply by being omnipotent would have an alternative.
But maybe it is pointlessly cruel. You are using naturalistic criteria and scientific observation to say it is “necessary”. Maybe a lion has two potential prey and seeks to kill the one that will experience more pain. I mean, people do crazy stuff like that, so why not a lion? (And no, I don’t think the lion does that kind of crap, either.)

In fact, if you’re going to say all pain in the natural, animal kingdom is not cruel, then you are implying with the rest of your post that man is morally degenerate, compared to animals. Please explain your reasoning here.

Nor am I ducking your question, just making it moot. If you disagree and think that all pain is morally neutral (the point of a broken arm is pain) than there is no NEED for an omnipotent god to eliminate pain. I will gladly address “why would omnipotent god allow pain” if you can tell me why some pain is bad (and it sure looks as if you’re saying) some pain is morally neutral.

I’ll go a bit further and risk getting flamed (not by you but by others) but I think I don’t mind the risk. The paedophile harms a child and causes them physical and emotional distress. If you ask the paedophile why they did it they sometimes say that not to have a sexual outlet caused them pain and suffering. I agree with you that the child’s suffering is wrong and the paedophile’s suffering is just fine and dandy.

Why? How did I gain the ability to judge which suffering is just and which is unjust? How did you gain that ability?

So my questions to you are:

If some pain is unneeded and caused by man, how is man not a moral degenerate compared to animals, who seem to cause only pain that’s needed?

If on the other hand, all pain is “nothing but pain” than how is your “why did omnipotent god make pain” not a moot question?

Who gave you and me the moral high ground to say “Her pain is unjust. His is just.”?

Thanks again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Because this conversation wasn't about evil, which suffers from multiple conflicting definitions and connotations. It's about suffering, and what constitutes a loving nature. I won't say that this is wholly unrelated to evil, but we hardly need to define evil to talk about suffering and loving natures.

That is right. I say, redact both evil and suffering to “pain”. Why do humans call pain “suffering”? Isn’t that a Christian term, seriously, from the Koine Greek? What gives us the right to say suffering is just (or unjust)?

Quote: .... okay, first of all, Newton's 3rd law is entirely about mechanical physics, not psychology. It IS possible for someone to kill an infant in its cradle and feel no guilt afterwards. That's not a normal human reaction, and we might lament that it's possible, but it's been done.

I know. It’s a physical law. And I know it wouldn’t go far on an atheist forum to say “universal reciprocity” or “karma” though most non-atheists believe in that stuff. My point is the natural world and the natural law are excellent mirrors to understand spiritual laws. Paul talks about this kind of thing often in the NT.

Quote: Your rewording doesn't address why God created a world where infants are vulnerable to being killed in their cradles.

Oh, god kills them in the cradles, and even in the womb before they are born. I stand behind that. Our sole disagreement is whether an omniscient being can make good judgments, too.

Quote: And the reason I (and I suspect others) keep reiterating the point, is that it is a highly relevant counter to both this thread's original concept and the previous one's, and you've never addressed it. Rather, you've made several attempts to address it, and each one not only fails to address it but can be directly dismantled by it. This makes your choices of counterarguments inexplicable, unless you don't understand the argument at all. It's like you're faced with the problem of trying to build a barrier to keep out a raging fire, and your first attempt is to stop it with a wall of wax (which melts), your second step is to attempt to construct a wall out of filled oil drums, your third attempt is to make a web out of twine... it suggests you don't understand the nature of the fire and what it's capable of at all. Your counterarguments of how suffering can be a learning experience, or an impetus to innovate, or so on, are not only insufficient to demolish the argument, but are themselves demolished by it. That's why it keeps getting repeated: because you keep bringing forward things that it addresses.

.... it seems our back-and-forth has gotten separated into multiple posts per exchange. I'll have to consolidate them tomorrow.

Of course I address it. Dead babies don’t suffer anything. There, I said it. So dead babies isn’t the problem, the suffering babies is.

Reltzik, I’m working with more than wax and gas on fires here. Really. I believe that. And I constantly see me answering questions, and then throwing back questions met with deafening silence. Go ahead, take a count of how many posts in this whole thread I ducked.

The problem isn’t that Christians don’t have answers. The problem is non-Christians don’t like the answers IMHO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Why did your god create pedophiles and criminals?

Great question! I’ll ask Him. What do you plan to ask Him, something that you want to actually get a response to, that isn’t a mere rhetorical question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Pj if you have had family memberd go through suffering that was harsh to you it's far less likely your view is from logical perspectives. . It further adds thought that you are simply rationalizing ideas in the way that makes you feel good about the issues suffering. You view God the way it fits best to you while other actual believers, unlike many here, completely disagree with you for other reasons.

First, I’d welcome you to invite other believers here to debate me and you in the marketplace of a free exchange of ideas. I must say I’m grateful I haven’t been banned from this forum and I appreciate that tolerance of other ideas.

Second, you’ve analyzed me to determine a psychological motivation for my behavior. Do you think it’s possible that you are rationalizing certain ideas based on your own background? Were you raised in an environment that was only nurturing and logical, and never harsh or illogical?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Quote: Wrong. You have nothing to offer, except lame hackneyed platitudes. Go away.
We have no reason to believe a word you say, after the lies you have told here.
Nice try at deflection, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke.
She is here because THIS, (in case you hadn't noticed) IS AN ATHEIST COMMUNITY.
She doesn't have to justify herself to anyone here, least of all YOU.
The question remains. What the fuck do YOU think you're trying to accomplish here ?

You have accomplished nothing, except to remind us that indeed, in real life, Fundamentalists are ignorant of their own roots and foundations, and indeed are actually as illogical as they seem. Thanks for proving that, over and over.
Angie is trying to convert no one. That's YOUR JOB. I repeat JOB. You get PAID for that. It's your BUSINESS. You are NO GOOD AT YOUR JOB. Got it ? No good.
So thanks again for reminding us it's about the reward you get. The sucker for seeking the dentist. The infantile reward you get from Jebus. That's what is important to you, most of all, Church Lady.
Newsflash. 100 years from now, YOU also will be dead. *Stone cold dead*, just like every Christian and non-Christian who has ever lived. Humans are 100 % mortal. Get over it. So are you. Hebrew culture did not buy into "immortality", (which you would know if you had ever really studied that culture with a real (non-"fundie"scholar). Christianity re-invented it. Jebus and St. Paul did not buy that crap. Your cult appended immortality to itself, and grafted it into itself, as it makes for good sales numbers.

Sho fly.

Ah, but I can prove the Bible is true to my satisfaction if not yours. For example, 1 Corinthians 12 says,

“I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.”

I can type that here now, Jesus is… Lord. Let’s see if you ever were a Christian, and have the Holy Spirit inside you. Can you type “ Jesus is Lord ” with some space characters and not curses and filth around the words? The thing is, unless you are speaking ex cathedra if you will, via the Holy Spirit, you cannot do that.

I’ve noticed you are slavishly and pathologically unable to call Jesus anything but Jebus lately (guess I’m real astute, huh. Smile)

Why not prove the Bible wrong write (right) now and type a message that “Jesus is Lord” and nothing else in the post? Go on, do it. You know you can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(29-08-2013 12:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Why not prove the Bible wrong write (right) now and type a message that “Jesus is Lord” and nothing else in the post? Go on, do it. You know you can.

Jesus is Lord.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(29-08-2013 12:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Please explain. Then, please also explain why my “it might have been worse” is not on a level playing field with “it might have been better”. Thanks.

I'll try my hand at an analogy here. You tell me if it's a fair comparison or not.

You say a man is a just and loving husband because he only gives his wife one black eye; her other eye is unharmed. I say a man is a just husband because he never allows himself to harm his wife, period. Level playing field?

(29-08-2013 12:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Okay. That is a good point you made. My apologies.

And my apologies for being rude. It accomplished nothing and added nothing to the debate. I'll focus on better behavior from my end Wink

(29-08-2013 12:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Rephrase, please, to “PJ has posted tens of thousands of words on this forum and in average 500 responses, 100 people curse him and 390 say he is illogical and irrelevant.”

You certainly take your share of shit. I admire your tenacity. Being called illogical and irrelevant, however, means your arguments are failing. If you don't change your arguments or speak more clearly, expect 390 more comments along the same lines.

(29-08-2013 12:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I could easily forward Christians I know here to see what rudeness really is, but I don’t. Can you imagine 50 or 60 PJs joining me here? Smile

There are more of you????

I'd send atheists to a christian site to show them what rudeness is, but I normally get banned after my introductory post that simply says "I'm an atheist looking to debate..." [BANNED].

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
29-08-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Oh, and...

Jesus is Lord.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: