tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2610568550961666970..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Moral Universe is a Peaceable KingdomJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77943247223585591102009-07-21T07:47:41.244-07:002009-07-21T07:47:41.244-07:00" Its' well established in pschology that...<i>" Its' well established in pschology that the best way to endure suffering is to find a grand overarching meaning for it. Eli Wiesel said that is the moment when suffering ceases to be suffering, when you find meaning in it."</i><br /><br />I didn't say we couldn't find meaning in it; I just don't think it has to mean anything to rest of the Universe. It can still have meaning for us.<br /><br />But what do I know; I'm just a "fucking ass wipe" right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37460832418777316792009-07-21T07:39:41.246-07:002009-07-21T07:39:41.246-07:00Meta:"The only thing that makes the suffering...<b>Meta:</b>"The only thing that makes the suffering real human agony that requires an answer is if is part of a universe in which the values of the good matter."<br /><br />Why should our suffering have to matter to the universe? It matters to us...that's enough.<br /><br /><b>It couldn't even do that if you didn't have free will and a moral universe. I can see you have nto suffered much and you thought much. Its' well established in pschology that the best way to endure suffering is to find a grand overarching meaning for it. Eli Wiesel said that is the moment when suffering ceases to be suffering, when you find meaning in it.</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta:</b>"If we can't internalize the values of the good and grow as spiritual beings then we are just mindless little orgnaizism stuting and fretting our time in the peetry dish and like so much scum at the bottom of the shower we go our simple way and are no more."<br /><br />What a sad way to think about people. I guess if I had such a low opinion of human beings I'd have to invent a god to believe in too.<br /><br /><b>Yea what's really sad is that you are incapable of facing the logical consequences of your presuppositions. you have to do this irrational "upper story leap" and pretend that you are not really saying that but you are. When you say life is totally naturalistic that's what you are saying, we are just organisms.<br /><br />that's what a lot of biological types like about naturalism. they want to reduce people to meaningless organisms.<br /><br />If I ever get all this crap out of the way that that moron on reddit started then I will finish my thing I'm doing for atheist watch where I show that Dawkins style atheism is not opposed to humanism. Humanism is too touchy feelie for them.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54577814578662802182009-07-20T19:42:06.372-07:002009-07-20T19:42:06.372-07:00"The only thing that makes the suffering real...<i>"The only thing that makes the suffering real human agony that requires an answer is if is part of a universe in which the vlaues of the good matter."</i><br /><br />Why should our suffering have to matter to the universe? It matters to us...that's enough.<br /><br /><i>"If we can't internalize the values of the good and grow as spiritual beings then we are just mindless little orgnaizism stuting and fretting our time in the petry dish and like so much scum at the bottom of the shower we go our sipmle way and are no more."</i><br /><br />What a sad way to think about people. I guess if I had such a low opinion of human beings I'd have to invent a god to believe in too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80841109650212908192009-07-20T14:05:31.459-07:002009-07-20T14:05:31.459-07:00Well, a few retorts, because I don’t have the luxu...Well, a few retorts, because I don’t have the luxury of time to post as much.<br />“But that's just piling up the harms like I was talking about. it's more than just "so we can make choices." It's the nature of morality is. Children don't have to be hurt. It's not God hurts me. You choose to hur them, I choose to hurt them, humans choose to hurt kids and let them be hurt. We choose. the counter to that is taking away our ability to choose. Then we can't grow, we can't have spiritual maturity we can't understand the values of the good, we can't be good…They are "bad" they are suffering, we could call them "natural suffering." But they are not "evil" as such…“That God does not immediately protect us form such things (not to say he never does) is because we have to have a world in which the answers must be sought in the heart.” In other words…God creates a world with harm to innocents. The rest of us can choose to take lessons from this. But then why allow the harm to begin with?<br /><br />“The extent to which harms are amiliorated is dependent upon us. We can chooose to make things better for people who suffer.” Really? Sure, we can try—medical research, for example. So why so much suffering to begin with? QUIT DODGING THE QUESTION.<br /><br /><br /><b>you have said absolutely noting to refute the idea that God has to allow pain to have freewill to have a moral universe. your only augment is "but children suffering is so much worse" that's not an argument that's whine. You are are just stacking examples.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36522657150290706592009-07-20T14:02:44.933-07:002009-07-20T14:02:44.933-07:00he problem is that you CANNOT address the root cau...he problem is that you CANNOT address the root causes of suffering. <br /><br /><b>I don't have to address the root causes. I ony have to show a rational reason why intervening variables would make suffering necessary. I did that. Nothing you said refuted my view point. Nothing you said disproved the basic point that God has to allow free will to have a moral universe. that's the point and you did nothing to disprove it, nothing nothing nothing nothing g nothing.</b><br /><br /><br />The most this argument can do, if you want to avoid the criticisms Hermit & I have been making (and you really don't address them, you dance around them), is to say that there are causes of suffering, and there is what we can do in the presence of suffering. You want to argue that we can grow (not inevitably, though)--fine. But in doing so you have admitted you cannot address why there is suffering.<br /><br /><br /><b>I've demonstrated a rational reason why God doesn't end suffering. that's all I had to do. your arguments were no difficult. they are not brilliant, they are not great shakes.</b><br /><br />But you continue to conflate these two themes or issues. And then get annoyed when this is pointed out. Take some advice from someone who is on your side in the battle of belief vs atheism.<br /><br /><b>I don't recall expressing any annoyance with you. Your arguments are not bright, and they don't mean anything. they disprove anything. But they bother me.<br /><br />you are not dealt with the basic issues. You've totally ignored every single major point the bacteriological drama presents. Your argument are so general and off the mark they could be the op because they have so little to do with the issue I laid out in my own philosophy.<br /><br />Your arguments offer general reasons why you blame God for things but they don't address anything I actually said.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18151257271014830362009-07-20T13:18:30.358-07:002009-07-20T13:18:30.358-07:00The problem is that you CANNOT address the root ca...The problem is that you CANNOT address the root causes of suffering. The most this argument can do, if you want to avoid the criticisms Hermit & I have been making (and you really don't address them, you dance around them), is to say that there are causes of suffering, and there is what we can do in the presence of suffering. You want to argue that we can grow (not inevitably, though)--fine. But in doing so you have admitted you cannot address why there is suffering.<br /><br />But you continue to conflate these two themes or issues. And then get annoyed when this is pointed out. Take some advice from someone who is on your side in the battle of belief vs atheism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-905325611628399282009-07-20T13:14:20.495-07:002009-07-20T13:14:20.495-07:00"And-- yes, Hermit, God is responsible for ha...<i>"And-- yes, Hermit, God is responsible for having created the universe, ok? None of my arguments have been intended to deny that."</i><br /><br />Then you have to acknowledge that the existence of evil is God's responsibility, even if you think there's a good reason for it.<br /><br /><i>"The gist of my arguments (and I believe that of Metacrock's as well) is that the universe God created is not evil. The universe God created allows evil for reasons that are good and that outweigh the evil God allows."</i><br /><br />I understand that; my point is that neither you nor Joe can explain what that good is, beyond some handwaving about "free will." Like I said before I'm just not persuaded by appeals to ineffable plans. One of the things that finally turned me off of theism was this kind of "you just have to accept some things on faith" attitude. That's not an answer, and I can't pretend that it is.<br /><br /><i>"It is you who wants to insist that the universe is evil..."</i><br /><br />I don't think I've said anything like that; I think the Universe is a natural, neutral occurrence. In a natural universe earthquakes and disease and other natural disasters are not anybody's fault (although we are still responsible for our reaction to them.) But if there's a God who created things to work this way, the He is responsible for them.<br /><br /><i>"...and that therefore God could not have created it..."</i><br /><br />No, it;'s possible that there's a God, but if God created it He created it with evil in it and has to therefore be responsible for that evil.<br /><br /><i>"...but there isn't a God anyway, and the universe just is the way it developed on its own (in which case it's not evil after all)."</i><br /><br />Now you're getting it! ;-)<br /><br />Evil is an adjective we attach to our own behaviour. We and we alone are responsible for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80698408474102886602009-07-20T09:43:03.564-07:002009-07-20T09:43:03.564-07:00Well, a few retorts, because I don’t have the luxu...Well, a few retorts, because I don’t have the luxury of time to post as much.<br />“But that's just piling up the harms like I was talking about. it's more than just "so we can make choices." It's the nature of morality is. Children don't have to be hurt. It's not God hurts me. You choose to hur them, I choose to hurt them, humans choose to hurt kids and let them be hurt. We choose. the counter to that is taking away our ability to choose. Then we can't grow, we can't have spiritual maturity we can't understand the values of the good, we can't be good…They are "bad" they are suffering, we could call them "natural suffering." But they are not "evil" as such…“That God does not immediately protect us form such things (not to say he never does) is because we have to have a world in which the answers must be sought in the heart.” In other words…God creates a world with harm to innocents. The rest of us can choose to take lessons from this. But then why allow the harm to begin with?<br /><br />“The extent to which harms are amiliorated is dependent upon us. We can chooose to make things better for people who suffer.” Really? Sure, we can try—medical research, for example. So why so much suffering to begin with? QUIT DODGING THE QUESTION.<br /><br />”It's only the permissive result of what God allows, which is our free will, and the resulting cause of our choices is pain and suffering.” Cop out. God allows suffering so that we can have free will. Which “we”? The survivors. The victims, however, have no free will any longer. Kind of a heavy price to pay.<br /><br />“No but God isn't purposely starting each war or causing each flood. So this just amounts to multiplying examples.” COP OUT. He doesn’t start them, but if He is all-powerful, He is allowing them. Negligent homicide, I believe? Why should the victims suffer in God’s world?<br /><br />“I have explained why it's allowed and that having it still outweighs the consequence of not having it.” Another cop out. You have explained nothing. You cannot touch the idea that god may be responsible for this; you don’t want to consider that God is not all-powerful (one way out). Maybe God is not a sentient being (and don’t get into your bearded-guy-in-the-sky, I’m not making that simplistic point). <br /><br />“The greater evil would be stasis: no moral progress, no learning, no choice, no free will, no moral universe, no good.” Separate issue. Why does moral progress require suffering? Now you’re edging back to God creating or allowing suffering for the development of the survivors.<br /><br />“you are trying to make phsyical the wrost thing that ever ever ever ever be. It's not.” Sure, when physical people suffer & die. For some reason you cannot see that, despite what you yourself have faced. And please don’t turn to “I’ve suffered so I have a moral superiority.” No, you have experience of suffering—and if anything, you should see how devastating that is. The physical death is pretty awful.<br /><br />“But if you think about it ihas to outwigh.” It does? Really? Nice assertion, but it is ultimately Metacrock’s claim to truth. Sorry, doesn’t work.<br /><br />“Then Anon fallas back into Old athist saws.” Um, I’m a believer, you nitwit. Great assumption on your part, but here you are 100% wrong.<br /><br />“clearly that's not the answer the book of Job embraces.” Try reading the Book of Job. You might want to read Harold Kushner as well. Yours is far from the only interpretation of Job.<br /><br />“We have to bracket that discussion as it is a lot more tricky than you think.” Except you are bracketing perhaps the central issue (or one of them). Good dodge, but not good enough.<br /><br />“Now it's millions.” Damn straight it is. And you’re response is pretty anti-intellectual. It’s the kind of response that turns people off on your boards.<br /><br />“because having a moral universe (which is predicated upon free will) outweighs everything else.” Then God is pretty inefficient or incompetent. And why should a moral universe require suffering to be moral? So that the survivors can learn? Pretty awful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-23064334100558030082009-07-20T09:24:20.888-07:002009-07-20T09:24:20.888-07:00For the record: I did not blame Hermit for bringi...For the record: I did not blame Hermit for bringing up the parent analogy. I admit that I was the one who first used it-- not intending it to be taken as a full-blown analogy and carried to the furthest limits, which is what Hermit did. I was merely using it to point out why God shouldn't be blamed for the choices of humanity, because God would certainly be blamed for taking away all power of choice. <br /><br />I take responsibility for my own choices and don't blame others for them-- and Hermit did not bring up the parent analogy. He did, however, take it way further than my original intent, which is what I objected to. Adult humans are not children, and Hermit wanted to continue the analogy as if we were, and that God should take care of us like we were children. <br /><br />And-- yes, Hermit, God is responsible for having created the universe, ok? None of my arguments have been intended to deny that. The gist of my arguments (and I believe that of Metacrock's as well) is that the universe God created is not evil. The universe God created allows evil for reasons that are good and that outweigh the evil God allows. <br /><br />It is you who wants to insist that the universe is evil, and that therefore God could not have created it; but there isn't a God anyway, and the universe just is the way it developed on its own (in which case it's not evil after all). <br /><br />I know you're trying to contrast two different points of view-- but really, what do you believe about the universe, yourself? Are you saying it's too "evil" for God to have created it, but it's really not such a bad plae to live after all, if we humans actually pull up our bootstraps and help one another? Because theists think we humans ought to be pulling up our bootstraps and helping one another, too, and that if we did, much evil would be prevented. . .Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14406592070573299482009-07-19T15:06:44.212-07:002009-07-19T15:06:44.212-07:00"Atheist argues X
I beat the fu out of X
Athe...<i>"Atheist argues X<br />I beat the fu out of X<br />Atheist argues Y<br />I beat the fu out of Y<br />Atheist argues P<br />I beat the fu out of P<br />Atheist says "Yes, but here's X, you haven't beatin X."</i><br /><br />Actually what happens is this<br /><br />Atheist argues X<br />Metacrock beat the fu out of X1 (which atheist didn''t actually say)<br />Atheist argues Y<br />Metacrock calls athesit stupid for not understanding that Y actually means Z<br />Athesit objects to insult<br />Metacrock posts long, smug, self righteous and mostly tangential rebuttal loaded with gratuitous cheap shots and misrepresentations in six different places to make himself feel better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73613190532022713362009-07-19T15:05:51.452-07:002009-07-19T15:05:51.452-07:00Heres' another one:
"on the one had he w...Heres' another one:<br /><br /><i>"on the one had he wants to recognize that the parent analogy is limited when he can't answer the argument, on the other he wants to use it again when it helps him. He wants to argue that God is just holding back while conflicts brew like a bad parent who doesn't stop his kids stupid decisions, on the other hand he recognizes he's not really parent that's not really analogous but then he goes back to blaming him within the parental analogy. So he can't have it both ways."</i><br /><br />I pointed out the inadequacy of the parental analogy and then demonstrated that inadequacy. I'm not the one using the analogy, and I'm not trying to have things both ways. I'm showing why its a bad analogy. <br /><br /><i>"This is still avoiding the internalization argument. The need for free outweighs anything. "</i><br /><br />I'm not avoiding anything here. I'm pointing out that free will is already limited (which raises the question of why it is limited in some ways and not others). I think this is a problem for your Drama idea. I also don't see how innocent children dying of AIDs, or in earthquakes or being raped by priests (like the one's your friend the Cardinal protected) furthers the cause of free will. What about the free will of the victims? It wasn't their will that caused their suffering; in fact their free will was taken away from them. Is the freedom to rape or kill or destroy more important than the will to love and nurture and create? <br /><br />It's not necessary to have all possible choices available in order to learn how to make choices. Internalization of values is possible without all that carnage; in fact what many people internalize from such experiences is the opposite; they often learn that life is nasty brutish and short and behave accordingly. This absolute free will you're arguing for just doesn't exist, and even if it did I'm not sure it would be enough to justify all that suffering.<br /><br /><i>"This is quite odd because he contradicts himself twice in this statement. First he says he puts the whole responsibility on man. Ok argument over! Thanks for agreeing. O but wait, then he says if God set the stage he has to take some responsibility. "</i><br /><br />I do put all the responsibility on us because I DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD, and without God in the mix there's just us and nature to blame.<br /><br />On the other hand, if we accept your belief that God exists and set the stage then the He is ultimately responsible for what happens on that stage. How can He not be responsible? It's, according to you, His design.<br /><br />What you fail to understand (and I thought it was pretty obvious) is that I'm contrasting two different approaches; my atheistic one and your theistic one. Yes they contradict one another, I'm for the former and against the latter...I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting <i>your</i>argument.<br /><br /><i>"Kristen and Hermit argue some more about the nature of the parental argument, balme each otehr for bring it up ;-)"</i><br /><br />Well Kristen clearly brought it up, talk to her if you think it's a poor analogy...that would be something we agree on...<br /><br />As for the rest of this, it's just the same old story "God has a mysterious plan that's too big for us to understand but we have to have faith that it just has to be this way and the pain and suffering of millions of children..." (and yes, you smug little asshole, it's millions who are dying of AIDs; I'm sorry if that thought is uncomfortable for you)"... is not too high a price to pay for it...whatever it is..."<br /><br />A truly moral universe wouldn't require such sacrifice; a truly moral universe would reject the apparently needless suffering of innocents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43248904213726657652009-07-19T15:05:34.130-07:002009-07-19T15:05:34.130-07:00"Notice that he puts in terms of "wars a...<i>"Notice that he puts in terms of "wars are consistent with God's plan" as though God said "I think we should have wars..." I said wars are choice by humans and their bad choices."</i><br /><br />Here's a good example of you arguing against straw men. I said war is"consistent with" God's plans. Has to be, or He wouldn't allow it to happen.<br /><br />You change that to "God wants wars to happen" and proceed from there to accuse me of being against freedom, morality, goodness and bunny rabbits...none of which I have argued against at all. On the contrary, I'm for all those things, and I think humanity is fully responsible for them...no God required.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com