Why Must Children Suffer?
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Then you are a brave person.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Because you took a position of special knowledge. You “know” what was in Stalin’s mind when there are (some) historians who say it was motivated by different reasons than you gave. You came off as if all scholars who disagree with you are off base (including me as a lay scholar). That would be an unfair allegation.

I think you'll find I did no such thing. Facts are more in accord with certain motivations than others. Projection much?

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Are you saying homosexuals are irrelevant? That *would* be a consistent position for a Darwinist.

Dear me. You're very good at picking the interpretation that makes you look most dishonest. It's quite the skill.

It is not necessary for even the most hardcore social darwinist to advocate taking action against homosexuals. They are by definition not contributing to subsequent generations.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Then you are pro-life, since you are applying fitness and survival only to natural phenomena besides human free will? And you must therefore also affirm free will? Be consistent, please.

That is not even coherent.

Abortion is a voluntary act of the parent.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Not true, I know you’re aware that other peoples who adhere to religious texts outside the Bible have such a conflict. Further, there are non-religious peoples who have conflicts with macro-evolution.

Indeed. Those people are incredibly idiotic. Religious fundamentalism remains the driving force of scientific denial regardless.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  So was it appropriate for you to respond in this thread, then?


It's fatuous for you to bring something up and then decry it as not relevant.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Please explain, but only if you think it germane to this thread.

Do your own homework for once.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Hitler was an aspiring architect and a German corporal, not a biologist. However, he and Stalin spoke and wrote in crystalline terms of being inspired by/egged on by/pleased by/liberated by Darwin. But we can just say Herbert Spencer if that helps you.

Sure. That doesn't matter. I keep saying I don't think you're stupid enough to genuinely misunderstand something so simple, but now I wonder.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  PS. How do you know they were crazy? I’m not talking about special knowledge of their insanity. I’m asking how you are unaware that they were possibly representing a special breed of evolution a Nietschean Superman or Antichrist if you will. Hitler CLAIMED TO HAVE LED A MOVEMENT THAT WAS DOING EXACTLY THAT, a NEW, EVOLVED ARYAN race of supermen. Have you done the DNA research to prove them wrong already?

I'm well aware of those claims. They were unscientific drivel.

Have you done DNA research to prove them right? No? Well, I'll wait until you do. That's how science works, you know. You have to prove claims, not disprove them.

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If I post here ten statements from Hitler and Stalin referencing what excited them about Origin of the Species, can we move from “not related to” to “kissing cousins of”?

Your tremendously shallow motivation is to impugn your conception of 'naturalism' by association. It's farcical, but at least it's transparent.

As I have explained several times to your willfully deaf ears, it doesn't matter. Scientific truth is not affected by misinterpretation of same. There are passages within the Origin of Species itself which thoroughly repudiate whatever specious conclusions such men drew from a ludicrously selective reading of it.

Hmm. Incredibly selective interpretation of a foundational text in order to suit subjective ends. Why does that seem so familiar...

(23-08-2013 12:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  More importantly to this thread, god could have evolved children out of suffering but he didn’t. Why not?

It's your thread. You first.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2013 07:26 AM by Skippy538.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Go read Numbers Chapter 30 v. 13-18 I believe. Doing this from memory. That I have to reiterate this is totally pitiful. That your god commands GENOCIDE should demand some attention from you. The fact that it doesn't, is telling.

"Sometimes I can admit when I am wrong."

For an honest intellectual, I would expect a LOT stronger conviction. But you were honest, which is something. When you are ready to go all the way, and follow the evidence with all of your heart regardless where it leads, holler.

Amazing someone can wear someone down with half-answers and apathy, but its the case. Sorry, you aren't try to learn anything here buddy. Seem like a good person, but fuck all you are skating shit that you know you should be addressing more directly. Plus, apparently I'm too needy by asking you to do your own homework. I'm sure you will keep posting distracting analogies and avoiding when the bible is wrong, just plain wrong. How else can your faith survive?

Sad. I give up. Byeeeeeeeeee.

EDIT: I re-read your response to me. I changed my mind, you are intentionally disingenuous and ignoring facts that controvert your world view. You once again reiterate the idea that there is NEVER GENOCIDE in the Bible. I proved it, go back to my early posts and read them without your LIAR glasses on. Killing women and Children after the war is over is GENOCIDE. No loving God will ever commit genocide, ever. Bang, argument is dead. Yet you re-iterate your lies that it NEVER occurs in the Bible. That makes you a liar.

You say you aren't Catholic, you say you aren't Protestant (I would debate this UNLESS you are Eastern Orthodox) - so apparently you are outside of any Christian Community or tradition that might inform you about Theological doctrine except "Jesus Christ and him crucified." How convenient.

You have proven to me one of my original thoughts on the matter - no human being can be HONEST with him or himself and maintain this pattern of beliefs. The fact that you feel you have somehow addressed the issues by castigating the Catholic Church and ignoring that the ONLY reason why you can demonize Catholics is because they are the only part of Christianity that has actually had the POWER TO CARRY OUT THEIR BELIEFS IN THE WORLD - AND THAT HAD PROTESTANTS HAD THIS POWER THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THINGS, by ignoring texts quoted to you directly, by making arguments from personal experience, by generalizing when I address the specific and going to the specific when others address the general, you are a RATIONALIZATION machine - just like every other Christian who tries to put their beliefs up for public view. It is shameful. Worst, you don't recognize your dishonesty at all. This is because you hold your faith in higher regard than your honesty. When the two conflict, its the honesty that goes. That you don't care about this is really very telling about who you are as a person. When I was a christian, I was a liar too. I tried to believe shit that was unbelievable, but the cognitive dissonance was killing me. If it doesn't bother you, it reveals a significant character flaw, IMHO.

Regarding my own de-conversion - at the time I actually thought that I would be more accepted by my family in my un-belief than turned out to be the case. I have a good relationship with my PK Father and my mother (mainly because my dad is a calvinist and believes "once saved, always saved"), but my sister prohibits me from seeing my own nieces and nephews. She and I used to be very close. She is not judgmental, she is Biblical, which requires her judgment of my apostasy. She follows the scripture about me, and I recognize the fact. You imply that such a response is not biblical and that your family would be more understanding - you have no idea until you cross that bridge friend.

It is biblical for them to separate from me, they did the whole "witnessing to me" and "praying for me" "sending me letters about Jesus" blah blah blah. I started to get angry because they are ignorant of the biblical passages I was having problems with, and when I explained my problems - they had no good answers, nor did the pastors, nor did the Havard educated evangelical professors in my philosophy / religion department at college, etc. This caused them problems with their faith and so they started blaming me for raising the issues. I became the problem. (Called "projecting" in psychology.) and therefore became outcast. I am a lawyer, my sister is a housekeeper. I have two graduate degrees, my sister, none. I have a strong background in theology, my sister studied biology. She understands very little about the bible, I know it pretty damn well. Her views are retarded, steeped in ignorance, and based on her "feelings." Mine are well-developed, based on study and reason, and well-defended. In your world view - had I stayed ignorant of the problems of the bible, had I not tried to study to be a pastor, had I been weak and stayed in the small-town I was raised in not questioning anything, put little thought into my beliefs I would have stayed "saved." This world-view promotes ignorance and beliefs derived from fear, basically a middle-age approach - staying ignorant and believing without any good reasons. I cannot imagine a God who would think this is a good thing. If he does, he's a moron and not worthy of my worship.

Knowledge has been the most important thing in every other area of my life - from my work, mechanical repair, riding motorcycles for race and pleasure, understanding how things work - overcoming my "intuitions" about things and seeing things how they really are was a required pre-requisite to actually being able to fix that motorcycle. But - we develop knowledge and expertise in every other area but can't in the area of our religion because that knowledge causes doubt. The doubt and skepticism that is KEY in every other area of life is useless with my faith. Conclusion? This faith is a mythology that a rational, intelligent, curious mind that reads cannot abide. It makes no sense.

The idea that God promotes ignorance, and that the more knowledge you get impedes your ability to have this faith, is laughable. Any God should be the God of the intellectual as much as the ignorant. But, unfortunately, the more you think and read, the harder this faith becomes to maintain. It doesn't make ANY sense. My meditation practice makes sense and works, prayer, NOPE. I've tried both, one works, the other doesn't. One I've kept, one I've abandoned.

Any God who requires ignorance to maintain one's status with him is not worth worshipping. Period. Silly myths from silly people. The fact that you CANNOT be honest with yourself or with me about Biblical Genocide is telling of other problems. I think you have read my post, I think you have addressed it in your own mind, I think you are lying to me. At this point, all intellectual debate is dead once a person decides to deny something they know to be true. Your God is a monster, and we both know it, but one of us is hanging on to hope, and the other has let that hope go.

Why? Ego. Our egos want to live on, so we hold on to eternal life so our egos can be satisfied. I find the letting go of the ego to be a far more religious experience than holding on to it and hoping for God's salvation ever ever ever was. As soon as dishonesty is introduced in an intellectual debate, the debate is dead. Like this one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
Folks, folks! We are WAY off tangent here. Let me start a new thread and sum what we've learned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 04:03 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
If you posit an all powerful creator, who is also benevolent, then there is no reason for children (or anything else) to suffer. We live in a universe where children suffer needlessly. This would indicate a number of possibilities.

Either the creator lacks the power to make a universe without suffering, which makes it impotent.

Or the creator doesn't care to make a universe without suffering, which makes it malevolent.

Or the creator simply does not exists, absolving 'it' of all responsibility.

So something has to give because reality and the creator's attributes are incompatible. Since we can confirm that our reality is in fact this way, then the definitions of the creator must give, since they clearly do not fit in with reality. So the creator cannot be both all-powerful and benevolent, because of the clearly verifiable suffering that exists.

To not acknowledge this is intellectually dishonest, and shows a supreme lack of imagination on the part of many theists. Just because you can't imagine a universe without suffering, doesn't mean an all-powerful creator could not create one. By it's very definition, it must have the power to do so. So it either doesn't have that power or doesn't care to. Once again, impotent, malevolent, or non-existent; it is as simple as that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-09-2013, 04:10 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer?
[Image: 025-How-to-handle-anger-in-a-Godly-way-650x365.jpg]
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Philosoraptor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: