Reasons for disbelief in the Christian God

@fmf said
And doing this is your prerogative. If you want ~ or feel you must ~ base your personal opinions about moral matters on these scriptures and that "you need to take them all", then that's what a moral compass synthesizes for you and then that moral compass is what guides your interactions with other people.

The argument made by Ghost within the paradigm of moral relativism is moot.

@kellyjay said
I asked you a question that was offensive? I would think simply disclosing the truth of your beliefs about the subject would have cleared any misconceptions up! I will be more careful with you in the future!

Is viewing the suffering of an innocent child 'a matter of taste?'

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is viewing the suffering of an innocent child 'a matter of taste?'

No one in their right mind wants to voluntarily talk about this stuff because we anticipate this exact kind of behavior.

You ask about the suffering of innocent children, bringing it out as a point to prop up your case and you rightfully expect us to take it as a valid question. Why? Because we are adults and we can talk about suffering in an abstract, adult manner without using it as emotional blackmail for one another...

... And then out come the emotional arguments & blackmail.

Geez, Luis!

You can't give us examples of innocent children suffering and then start acting prickly & offended that people are offering interpretations and explanations of suffering within their world's frameowrk.

Imagine if we just sat here & raged about how in the atheist worldview these innocent children just suffer & then turn into wormfood and there's no cosmic justice, making your bleak & stark view of reality a hopeless affair. Of course, you would be rightfully upset and resent mischaracterizing your views of what you think is the stark reality...

So why do you play these games with others?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is viewing the suffering of an innocent child 'a matter of taste?'

Think about this hypothetical question for a minute and you’ll see how your argument crumbles: According to which moral absolute is the suffering of an innocent child always wrong?

@dj2becker said
Think about this hypothetical question for a minute and you’ll see how your argument crumbles: According to which moral absolute is the suffering of an innocent child always wrong?

Your desire to get back on that particular merry go round is quite frankly bordering on obsessive.

Humans have something called morality. Google it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Do Christians have a different understanding of suffering? Is the harsh reality of suffering irrelevant due to the heavenly reward that awaits?

And if the answer is no, suffering is not irrelevant, then why doesn't a perfectly loving deity prevent it?

Even Jesus when He was going through this life had to deal with suffering, and it was the hope set before Him that helped Him get through it all, and He was the Son of God. You are missing the point of hope and suffering completely if you think nothing of it.

ebrews 12 English Standard Version (ESV)
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is viewing the suffering of an innocent child 'a matter of taste?'

It is as real as it gets, its worse watching your child suffer than going through it one's self. Our oldest daughter at home is type one, before she got her pump she had to give herself between ~4-7 shots a day, and from time to time she would cry. I died each time that happen, the shots kept her alive.

The good and evil of this, the right and wrong of suffering is not viewed the same way by everyone so if we were to just look at human reactions it isn't standard as human standards are on most topics. Depending on child some could view it was a good thing and rejoice if they hate who the child is.

With respect to why them and not another, we don't get to pick that. When the sun shines does it only shine of the worthy, when it rains does it only rain on the innocent? We all share the sun and rain, there isn't any pain or joy that cannot be shared by anyone here either.

@philokalia said
No one in their right mind wants to voluntarily talk about this stuff because we anticipate this exact kind of behavior.

You ask about the suffering of innocent children, bringing it out as a point to prop up your case and you rightfully expect us to take it as a valid question. Why? Because we are adults and we can talk about suffering in an abstra ...[text shortened]... your views of what you think is the stark reality...

So why do you play these games with others?

As an atheist, one of (if not the primary) reason I am not able to contemplate the existence of a deity who is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent is the existence of suffering, especially of the young. - The reason most theists do not want to address this point head on is precisely this theological oxymoron.

Indeed, so devastating is this glaring absurdity (that an all powerful, all loving and all knowing god would allow children to suffer) theists will often go to great lengths to avoid volunteering their meagre explanations for this profound divine negligence/abandonment. Only when pushed on the matter will they tender 'a learning experience' 'builds character' 'original sin' 'free will' irrespective of the fact that none of these are applicable to the suffering described. Bizarrely the explanations will then devolve into 'we all will die some time' 'what does it matter, the innocent will be rewarded in heaven' 'who's to say what is bad about a child suffering' 'children aren't innocent...'

Why do I play theses games? This is the only game in town Jack. This is the heavy weight of dilemmas, the primary reason why millions of people can not bring themselves to believe in such a God. Either God cannot or will not intervene to prevent the suffering of a child. It is profoundly illogical to describe such a God as 'both' omnipotent and perfectly loving. Choose 'one' and be done with it.

And don't play the hypocritical 'emotional blackmail' card. We have endured years of becker asking us if torturing babies for fun is ever acceptable if there are no moral absolutes.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Your desire to get back on that particular merry go round is quite frankly bordering on obsessive.

Humans have something called morality. Google it.

You seemingly missed the point or just don’t want to see it. If there are no moral absolutes why can’t God do as He sees fit?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is viewing the suffering of an innocent child 'a matter of taste?'

I will add one other point to this discussion, pain and suffering are required for living! Both teach us of what to do and avoid, without either we would end up killing ourselves without realizing it. I heard a the other day that those who get leprosy end up dying more often from their lack of ability to feel pain and suffer. The could lay their hands on a hot pan and not realize it and burn their hands off because they have lost the ability to feel pain and suffer.

@dj2becker said
You seemingly missed the point or just don’t want to see it. If there are no moral absolutes why can’t God do as He sees fit?

You have no point. Period.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You have no point. Period.

You have not yet shown me why you think suffering disproves God, how does one dispel the other!?

@kellyjay said
You have not yet shown me why you think suffering disproves God, how does one dispel the other!?

Haven't you been reading Ghost of a Duke's posts?

@kellyjay said
I will add one other point to this discussion, pain and suffering are required for living! Both teach us of what to do and avoid, without either we would end up killing ourselves without realizing it. I heard a the other day that those who get leprosy end up dying more often from their lack of ability to feel pain and suffer. The could lay their hands on a hot pan and not realize it and burn their hands off because they have lost the ability to feel pain and suffer.

Okay Kelly. Specifically, how is, 'pain and suffering are required for living! Both teach us of what to do and avoid,' applicable to a child dying of a terminal illness?!
Again, why are you offering things that are completely irrelevant to the kind of suffering I am referencing? Seriously?!

And 'yes' I know the suffering of an innocent child is an extreme example. - When I challenged becker previously about his 'extreme example' about it being okay to torture babies for fun if there were no moral absolutes, Sonship came along to defend becker and said it was 'understandable' that becker would want to use an extreme example to get his point across. - Well, here I am doing exactly the same thing. Surely a supreme deity can stand up to extreme examples?!

(And I would argue that my extreme example is much more applicable to reality with children suffering such terminal illnesses around the world on a daily basis).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Okay Kelly. Specifically, how is, 'pain and suffering are required for living! Both teach us of what to do and avoid,' applicable to a child dying of a terminal illness?!
Again, why are you offering things that are completely irrelevant to the kind of suffering I am referencing? Seriously?!

And 'yes' I know the suffering of an innocent child is an extreme example. ...[text shortened]... cable to reality with children suffering such terminal illnesses around the world on a daily basis).

You would prefer the child not suffer and show signs something is wrong to attempt to heal them?