Craig and Hitchens. A moral God?

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Learning something isn't the only thing good that can come from suffering.
I see events, Any event, In the world becomes a ripple effect.
And, The same goes for anything tragic or any suffering.
It happens, then something else happens and on and on until it eventually leads to something good.

What words of condolence would I offer them?
Your child is in a better place,
The woman is in a better place,
And PTSD isn't permanent.

And what if that person wasn't a Christian?

And what if it is permanent? Will you simply say "they are in a better place?"

When someone is in the middle of being raped, do you think their idea is that "I'll be in a better place?"

To someone who is suffering, saying "there's a reason" is rather cruel.
.

 

[Thana]

And what if that person wasn't a Christian?

I'd say it anyway,
So that even if they don't believe it, They might have some hope of it, And they'd know that others believed it.

 

[Sees]

Yes, Because like I said a million times,
Inflicting suffering is the best!

Or maybe you took what I said out of context and distorted it to make it seem like I advocate child abuse.

Imitating the Heavenly Father and his Son is the best.

Of course it's joking... we all know suffering used for teaching humans is really reaching for an answer to complicated biblical problems. One way or the other people got to make stuff up and stick to it, aka "my interpretation", or else the insanity of it all might crash through the wall of justification they have built over time in the faith.

Preach on child... Preach on.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I'd say it anyway,
So that even if they don't believe it, They might have some hope of it, And they'd know that others believed it.

and if they don't get any hope I mean?

You are still telling them there's a reason for the suffering. But would they need to suffer to have found that reason?

 

[Thana]

Imitating the Heavenly Father and his Son is the best.

Of course it's joking... we all know suffering used for teaching humans is really reaching for an answer to complicated biblical problems. One way or the other people got to make stuff up and stick to it, aka "my interpretation", or else the insanity of it all might crash through the wall of justification they have built over time in the faith.

Preach on child... Preach on.

Hmm, After much deliberation, I've decided upon this response to best convey my thoughts to your above statement:


Bite me

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see suffering and all the other negative aspects of existence in this reality as necessary components of it due to the way it is. We do not live in a perfect world in a perfect universe. We are on an evolutionary journey (hopefully) towards higher and more complex forms of consciousness (if we want it). Perfection is something to strive for, but it is not yet a reality in this realm. We have to work to build God's Kingdom up (...Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven...).

By the way, Hitchens was a bit of an idiot and out of his league when it came to matters of religion, theology and philosophy. Craig is somewhat shallow, but certainly a better thinker on those matters than Hitchens (well, he does have a Ph.D in Philosophy so he had better be a better thinker in that area than Hitchens was).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

By the way, Hitchens was a bit of an idiot and out of his league when it came to matters of religion, theology and philosophy.

I don't mean to drag the thread off course but can you support this? Generally I have found him to be both brilliant and analytic. Many theologians get defensive and attempt to use his life as weapons against him rather than addressing the issues.

I don't attempt to be as brash as he was although I lacked his impressive articulation skills.

 

[Sees]

Hmm, After much deliberation, I've decided upon this response to best convey my thoughts to your above statement:


Bite me

:thud: doing you a favor. Any challenges are softer coming from outside rather than inside your self. Aussies are stubborn and many Christians put a death grip on their conceived answers to puzzling parts of faith/life - what a combo.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't mean to drag the thread off course but can you support this? Generally I have found him to be both brilliant and analytic. Many theologians get defensive and attempt to use his life as weapons against him rather than addressing the issues.

I don't attempt to be as brash as he was although I lacked his impressive articulation skills.

Because he just gave the same rehashed objections to religion that pretty much all of the "new atheists" do. It's all old hat.

 

[Sees]

Because he just gave the same rehashed objections to religion that pretty much all of the "new atheists" do. It's all old hat.

He got repetitive because nobody would ever give a straight answer that had any weight or meat to it.

Craig gets embarrassed in all the dozen or so debates I've watched him take place in... Save one where he debated a Muslim... That is Just easy pickings

 

[Thana]

:thud: doing you a favor. Any challenges are softer coming from outside rather than inside your self. Aussies are stubborn and many Christians put a death grip on their conceived answers to puzzling parts of faith/life - what a combo.

Lol,
Are you stereotyping me?
I can honestly say that's never really happened directly to me before.
Hurrah for new experiences.
Also, That's an obnoxious thing to do.

Being insulting then calling it a favour is not really a favour.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He got repetitive because nobody would ever give a straight answer that had any weight or meat to it.

Craig gets embarrassed in all the dozen or so debates I've watched him take place in... Save one where he debated a Muslim... That is Just easy pickings

Well, I did say that Craig is a bit shallow. The issue of evil is a bit easier for me to understand since I'm a theistic evolutionist who doesn't take the first three chapters of Genesis literally.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because he just gave the same rehashed objections to religion that pretty much all of the "new atheists" do. It's all old hat.

Well when the other side didn't refute his arguments...there was no need to simply come up with new stuff. At least that is the way I saw it in his debates. Though if you ever actually watch some of his debates (I can link you to several youtube videos of them. They are amazing for both sides on occasion) and you will find he actually as a very abundant slew of arguments that are usually new each and every time he debated. I realize my opinion is probably somewhat biased (I try to remain as neutral as possible but its impossible to live bias free) but I simply don't see it to be the case.

Have you heard this from someone or have you watched several of his debates yourself and drawn this conclusion?

 

[Sees]

Lol,
Are you stereotyping me?
I can honestly say that's never really happened directly to me before.
Hurrah for new experiences.
Also, That's an obnoxious thing to do.

Being insulting then calling it a favour is not really a favour.

Think about it... challenging.. Challenging teaches... Challenges is how we learn and grow... Not suffering. I'm hooking you up and you are not listening.

 

[cottage]

Like I said a while back,
This is only true if your perspective of suffering is 'suffering is bad'
When looking at it from a bigger picture point of view, Suffering is what makes us who we are. It is what gives us choice, It is what teaches us.

I know you disagree with that view,
But I don't mind arriving at an impasse, To be honest, I expected no less.

Well, forgive me but that response is misleading. You are saying, in effect, that by overcoming and dealing with the trials of life we can become stronger and better prepared for what else life might throw at us in the future. And indeed hardships and negative occurrences can be character building and may help us to develop an indomitable spirit. But that by no means is to say that suffering is good and necessary. We wouldn’t for example argue as individuals that we have personally benefitted from suffering and therefore suffering is not a bad thing generally, when others are suffering real pain and wretchedness. That would hardly be Christian!

In relative terms it can be said to be ‘good’ to cut off the hand of a man who is trapped in revolving farm machinery, which would otherwise drag him into the mechanism causing his death. So, yes, minor or lesser suffering is frequently used to alleviate an even greater suffering, but that only serves to confirm the problem, which is that great suffering exists. But as it can’t be argued that an omnipotent God must create and cause suffering it follows that there is no contradiction in God creating a world without suffering.

And I really don’t see how someone dying from cancer, for example, has a ‘choice” or is supposed to benefit from being taught something – other than the fact that no merciful and compassionate God has come to them in their hour of need. It is bad that people (and animals) have to suffer, and it isn’t necessary if there is a God.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well when the other side didn't refute his arguments...there was no need to simply come up with new stuff. At least that is the way I saw it in his debates. Though if you ever actually watch some of his debates (I can link you to several youtube videos of them. They are amazing for both sides on occasion) and you will find he actually as a very abundant slew of arguments that are usually new each and every time he debated. I realize my opinion is probably somewhat biased (I try to remain as neutral as possible but its impossible to live bias free) but I simply don't see it to be the case.

Have you heard this from someone or have you watched several of his debates yourself and drawn this conclusion?

I've watched some of his debates. To be honest, I find the questions and the answers from both sides of the atheist vs. Christian debate to be shallow, boring and sometimes even stupid at times. I'm bored with it in general. There are times where I feel that they give stupid answers and I could do better than that.

 

[cottage]

I see suffering and all the other negative aspects of existence in this reality as necessary components of it due to the way it is. We do not live in a perfect world in a perfect universe. We are on an evolutionary journey (hopefully) towards higher and more complex forms of consciousness (if we want it). Perfection is something to strive for, but it is not yet a reality in this realm. We have to work to build God's Kingdom up (...Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven...).

But suffering isn’t a necessary component, not unless you are saying the world has to be the way it is, which is a contradiction if God is the omnipotent being.

By the way, Hitchens was a bit of an idiot and out of his league when it came to matters of religion, theology and philosophy. Craig is somewhat shallow, but certainly a better thinker on those matters than Hitchens (well, he does have a Ph.D in Philosophy so he had better be a better thinker in that area than Hitchens was).

Well I don’t think we have to call either of them names, and Hitchens was certainly not an idiot and nor was he out of his league. He was outnumbered four-to-one by Christian apologists in the debate that I referred to, and yet still gave a good account of himself. The two men have entirely different approaches to the subject matter. Craig’s approach is mainly metaphysical and uses the classic arguments to God, while Hitchens’ addresses the concept of God and compares the contradictory precepts with the reality that we all share.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've watched some of his debates. To be honest, I find the questions and the answers from both sides of the atheist vs. Christian debate to be shallow, boring and sometimes even stupid at times. I'm bored with it in general. There are times where I feel that they give stupid answers and I could do better than that.

There are those like that. However unless you really enjoy debate you won't find it entertaining to begin with. An hour of people going back and forth with no "clear" winner is pretty boring for most people. I think my favorite was when he teamed up with a famous British actor in a 2v2 debate on "Is the Catholic chruch a force of good in the world". There was a lot of burns and back handed remarks in that one that kept it interesting.

EDIT; And every time the old British Nun said the word "condoms" she winced a little. That was funny. I think hitchens picked up on it half way through and started bringing it up intentionally to make her uncomfortable.

 

[Thana]

Well, forgive me but that response is misleading. You are saying, in effect, that by overcoming and dealing with the trials of life we can become stronger and better prepared for what else life might throw at us in the future. And indeed hardships and negative occurrences can be character building and may help us to develop an indomitable spirit. But that by no means is to say that suffering is good and necessary. We wouldn’t for example argue as individuals that we have personally benefitted from suffering and therefore suffering is not a bad thing generally, when others are suffering real pain and wretchedness. That would hardly be Christian!

In relative terms it can be said to be ‘good’ to cut off the hand of a man who is trapped in revolving farm machinery, which would otherwise drag him into the mechanism causing his death. So, yes, minor or lesser suffering is frequently used to alleviate an even greater suffering, but that only serves to confirm the problem, which is that great suffering exists. But as it can’t be argued that an omnipotent God must create and cause suffering it follows that there is no contradiction in God creating a world without suffering.

And I really don’t see how someone dying from cancer, for example, has a ‘choice” or is supposed to benefit from being taught something – other than the fact that no merciful and compassionate God has come to them in their hour of need. It is bad that people (and animals) have to suffer, and it isn’t necessary if there is a God.

See, Without God, That is your perspective.
With God, It's something else entirely.
Nothing is truly bad, Everything is simply more, A step, A path.

Don't be angry or disheartened, There is a reason for everything, Just because you are unaware right now, Doesn't mean there isn't something greater going on

I know it's hard to see it, Because you're looking with Godless eyes, And we won't be able to agree until you understand and experience God, I know some would say that seems arrogant, But all I'm saying is that you and I have different perspectives.

Suffering is good and necessary, And I stand by that.
It's the flesh that is greedy and selfish, The flesh that needs to be denied.

Anyway, I'm sounding a bit preachy, So I'll finish up.

You really shouldn't say 'That wouldn't be very Christian of you' Or anything similar, It's putting expectations on people just because of their faith, And that's hypocritical.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But suffering isn’t a necessary component, not unless you are saying the world has to be the way it is, which is a contradiction if God is the omnipotent being.

Suffering is a necessary component because God created the universe as evolving and unfolding towards a future perfection. The state of the universe is of possible progress. The consciousness of humanity is also in a state of evolution. Eventually, we should reach a state of compassion and use technologies to be able to wipe out many forms of suffering.