Human Improvement On Yahweh's Grotesque Moral Failings Continues

[Beerina]

Apparently the guy who kidnapped and raped an 11 year old girl, tied her up, wrapped her in plastic, gave her a teddy bear, and buried her alive, may be given the death sentence (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/17/couey.hearing/index.html).

Too bad we can't give the same to Yahweh, who sat on his infinitely fat ass and did nothing while this happened.

All praise be His Kind Name!

[David Swidler]

What, exactly, about your expectations of this God would bind him to them?

If this Yahweh knows/determines what's best for humanity - as Western theism posits - then it would stand to reason that one's own assumptions about what's best for humanity might just miss the mark.

I'd hate to live in a universe with no danger.

[3point14]

Well, it seems that if surgeons work 32 hours to save a life, god gets the credit.

If miners dig for days with their bare hands to save a colleague trapped underground, god gets the credit.

If god is getting in on the credit for others hard work, it only seems fair to divide up the blame too.

Mysterious ways.

[Beerina]

What, exactly, about your expectations of this God would bind him to them?

If this Yahweh knows/determines what's best for humanity - as Western theism posits - then it would stand to reason that one's own assumptions about what's best for humanity might just miss the mark.

I'd hate to live in a universe with no danger.

Including wrapping up all of humanity's worst fears into one real experience of a child who is raped, tortured, and murdered by being buried alive?

Of course, the child might very well subsequently be placed into Hell to agonize for all eternity because she didn't ever fall down on her knees and acknowledge Jesus as her savior from this kind god, in accordance with the Southern Reformed Baptist Convention of 1887.

[David Swidler]

Including wrapping up all of humanity's worst fears into one real experience of a child who is raped, tortured, and murdered by being buried alive?

Once you allow mankind freedom, it's meaningless unless that freedom has consequences for others, however negative. It's therefore meaningless to develop trust, which is unnecessary in a world with no risk. Bye-bye relationships.

In other words, if this YHWH were to step in to prevent suffering, that would compromise humans' ability to develop and sustain relationships. The greater the risk, the greater the trust, and the deeper and more fulfilling the relationship.

But if there's no real risk in violating trust, then the trust loses its significance, and instead of a society, we'd have a bunch of people in their individual padded cells.


Of course, the child might very well subsequently be placed into Hell to agonize for all eternity because she didn't ever fall down on her knees and acknowledge Jesus as her savior from this kind god, in accordance with the Southern Reformed Baptist Convention of 1887.

They were around then? Gotta read up on this Christianity business. It might be popular one day, if they can overcome that nonsense about hell.

[Beerina]

Once you allow mankind freedom, it's meaningless unless that freedom has consequences for others, however negative. It's therefore meaningless to develop trust, which is unnecessary in a world with no risk. Bye-bye relationships.

And why is trust important? It only can have two vectors:

1. Belief with proof. This is a good definition of trust.

2. Belief without proof. This is faith, and serves no purpose. Unless you're talking about taking an uncalculated risk for some reason, but that's something else.


And in either case, even accepting your argument, suffering would not have to be nearly as bad as it is for what you claim to be true.

The universe could have been much more pleasant. Or humans had an ability to shut down terror or pain.

But in the larger picture, what's the point of building trust? I build trust...that you won't slaughter and torture me?

Ok. Now what? Now you have this trust. So what?

It's like the idea that God is filtering out bad people, looking for those who will help others. Why? Um, to give them a reward by putting them in a place where "helping others" is a useless skill.


In other words, if this YHWH were to step in to prevent suffering, that would compromise humans' ability to develop and sustain relationships. The greater the risk, the greater the trust, and the deeper and more fulfilling the relationship.

So the reason God lets little kids get raped and tortured and buried alive is he wants people to experience emotional intimacy and vulnerability?

Insufficient.

[David Swidler]

And why is trust important? It only can have two vectors:

1. Belief with proof. This is a good definition of trust.

2. Belief without proof. This is faith, and serves no purpose. Unless you're talking about taking an uncalculated risk for some reason, but that's something else.

I'm talking only about the first kind. That's why I said "development" of trust.

I'm not sure where your objections lie. When we engage in relationships, we trust others, to varying degrees, with our welfare. Those who have earned more trust wield greater power to hurt as well as nurture. Usually we think of such things in terms of emotional welfare, but even that affects how we treat ourselves and others physically.

The fact that such vulnerbility exists in the first place is part of humanity's existential loneliness. We crave (well, most of us do) relationships of all sorts. Do you find that objectionable?

And in either case, even accepting your argument, suffering would not have to be nearly as bad as it is for what you claim to be true.

The universe could have been much more pleasant. Or humans had an ability to shut down terror or pain.

The opposite of pain isn't pleasure, but "no pain," i.e. numbness - and it's the prospect of that numbness that drives people to seek relationships. As a species and as individuals, we are willing to risk the pain of loss - no, we are willing to open ourselves to the certainty of loss that will inevitably follow in the wake of any meaningful relationship - rather than remain unmoved, unhurt, unloved and unloving. Similarly, we are willing to undertake interacting with other people in pursuit of society - a collection of overlapping relationships - even at the risk of death and dismemberment. Thankfully, that risk is pretty low, if horrifyingly manifest.

Also, if it became impossible for people to suffer as they do, I'm sure the same vehement objections now leveled at the worst kinds of suffering would simply be shifted over to what would then become the worst kind possible. Can you conceive of suffering worse than any kind that already exists? You wouldn't be able to in this alternative reality, either. You can't cause loss or pain on a level that doesn't exist.

But in the larger picture, what's the point of building trust? I build trust...that you won't slaughter and torture me?

Ok. Now what? Now you have this trust. So what?

OK. So you have the ability to breathe. So what?

The way we trust (most) others not to kill us is the starting point, not the goal. You can't create a meaningful relationship with someone out to kill you. Violent criminals need to dehumanize their victims so that they won't feel guilty about betraying that trust.

But the fact that such people exist means we can't take even the most basic level of trust for granted. And the appreciation of that trust enriches society and its component relationships immeasurably.

It's like the idea that God is filtering out bad people, looking for those who will help others. Why? Um, to give them a reward by putting them in a place where "helping others" is a useless skill.

Here you've introduced into the discussion the element of heaven/hell, I assume? I haven't thought it through completely, but I'm not sure it's relevant.

So the reason God lets little kids get raped and tortured and buried alive is he wants people to experience emotional intimacy and vulnerability?

In a word, yes.

A world in which it's impossible to cause any real harm is a world with no need for trust, no need for relationships, and no need for existence, really. What the hell would it accomplish? There would be no difference between a human and a bacterium, happily reproducing by the billions in its petri dish. No real achievment, beacuse there's no meaningful adversity. No consequences for failure, because the concept would have no meaning. Who cares if you fail, when nothing will come of it anyway?

Insufficient.

Sorry, I believe Cleon has already claimed the position of God in these parts, so you'll have to find another universe for which to determine the values by which it's run.

[JoeEllison]

It makes you wonder how someone could believe in most versions of "God", and be anything but frightened and disgusted by it.

[The Atheist]

Apparently the guy who kidnapped and raped an 11 year old girl, tied her up, wrapped her in plastic, gave her a teddy bear, and buried her alive, may be given the death sentence (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/17/couey.hearing/index.html).

Too bad we can't give the same to Yahweh, who sat on his infinitely fat ass and did nothing while this happened.

All praise be His Kind Name!

Other than confirming a number of christians' strawman of atheism, is there a point to this post?

Are you trying to have a "My strawman of christianity vs your strawman of atheism" contest?

[Wings]

I'd hate to live in a universe with no danger.

I admit that there is some thrill in living in a universe that has some dangers, but I would rather live in a universe where little children do not die in such horrible ways - preferrably not at all. Do you think I have an unreasonable wish?

[The Atheist]

I admit that there is some thrill in living in a universe that has some dangers, but I would rather live in a universe where little children do not die in such horrible ways - preferrably not at all. Do you think I have an unreasonable wish?

Quite reasonable, just impossible. There are too many amoral people in the world to think we'll ever get rid of them. More people = more horrific crimes.

[Wings]

I agree, human nature always finds a way of poking it's head, for good or bad. I can only imagine the horror that child must have gone through.

It's an ideal, impossible wish, but perhaps we can find ways to minimize such occurances. There's no god looking out for us, as far as I know, it's all up to us to find the ways to improve and reduce these situations.

[Beerina]

Other than confirming a number of christians' strawman of atheism, is there a point to this post?

Are you trying to have a "My strawman of christianity vs your strawman of atheism" contest?

Make no mistake about it, it's a legitimate question I ask. It is not a claim that God doesn't exist, though I am an athiest.

"How can you worship a god who allows this to happen?" It's a simple question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

[PixyMisa]

Once you allow mankind freedom, it's meaningless unless that freedom has consequences for others, however negative. It's therefore meaningless to develop trust, which is unnecessary in a world with no risk. Bye-bye relationships.

In other words, if this YHWH were to step in to prevent suffering, that would compromise humans' ability to develop and sustain relationships. The greater the risk, the greater the trust, and the deeper and more fulfilling the relationship.
It's hard to believe you wrote that after reading what Beerina posted.

[Marquis de Carabas]

"How can you worship a god who allows this to happen?" It's a simple question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.
"Because He'll do far worse than that to me if I don't" is an answer which would satisfy me. However, most Christians seem loath to admit to such mercenary reasoning.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Personally, I think Sam Harris said it best here: (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.
Here's another from the same source...

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm), of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If he exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
The fact that omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God, would let a child be kidnapped, raped, and murdered--even once in a million years--should cast serious doubt upon his existance, nor should it make pariahs out of those who see reality for what it is and turn away from some superstitious barbarism once and for all.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Apparently the guy who kidnapped and raped an 11 year old girl, tied her up, wrapped her in plastic, gave her a teddy bear, and buried her alive, may be given the death sentence (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/17/couey.hearing/index.html).



Of course, I do have to ask, how is the state's killing of this scum (I do not deny he's scum) suppose to be an improvement on any god's inaction?

Murder is murder... regardless of whether it's by a lone lunatic, or by the State as part of some grusome puppet show for the blood thirsty, braindead, voters to proove that they are THE LAW.

Lock the slmeball away, alone, for the rest of his life, but don't sully justice with his blood just to satiate the animalistic urge for vengence.

We're better than that.

[Darth Rotor]

We're better than that.
No you (who is this we, Keemosabe?) are not, but you sure have the arrogance to think so.

DR

[The Atheist]

Make no mistake about it, it's a legitimate question I ask. It is not a claim that God doesn't exist, though I am an athiest.

"How can you worship a god who allows this to happen?" It's a simple question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

It's not a simple question at all - it's a stupid question.

It might be the type of question asked by a simple person.

It constantly amazes me how people class themselves as "strong atheist", then show a complete lack of understanding of what it is they're supposedly denying.

You're an anti-theist, Beerina, rather than an atheist.

If you knew anything about christian doctrine, you wouldn't ask such a blatantly dumb question. Just ask yourself this, did a man commit the crime, or a god? Assuming it was a man, probably you should be directing your invective at men and the rest of the human race. What possible purpose is there in getting mad at the construct of a bunch of clowns? Does it make you feel better? Personally, I'd use the case to show what a disgraceful mess humans have made of society - that we are so ####ing pathetic that we allow this to happen. How did this human waste get hold of a nine year old girl and kidnap her from her bedroom? (She was 9, not 11) Is this simply a cse that if her ignorant parents had locked the window, the girl would be alive?

What you're doing is obscuring the facts about the case with your idiotic non-question. A terrible crime has happened and all you want to do is use it as an excuse to get mad at a non-existent entity. Get mad at society, get mad at the parents or the murderer, not god.

"Because He'll do far worse than that to me if I don't" is an answer which would satisfy me. However, most Christians seem loath to admit to such mercenary reasoning.

Hey, insufficient strawmen of christianity around here, let's make more.

I think this might be the first time I've seen you make such an obvious mistake!

I'll grant that most christians in USA might think as you suggest, but they are clearly a minority of all christians.

Personally, I think Sam Harris said it best

Oh yeah, Sam Harris, he's a great guy to borrow opinions off. Isn't he the torture-apologist?

Personally, I'd rather have a christian than some piece of puke who would defend torture.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hey, insufficient strawmen of christianity around here, let's make more.

I think this might be the first time I've seen you make such an obvious mistake!

I'll grant that most christians in USA might think as you suggest, but they are clearly a minority of all christians.
Hold on. I made no strawman. That is an answer that would satisfy me. I didn't say it was anyone's answer.

[The Grave]

Make no mistake about it, it's a legitimate question I ask. It is not a claim that God doesn't exist, though I am an atheist.

"How can you worship a god who allows this to happen?" It's a simple question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.


Oh, no, this is a very-very big point that Beerina has raised.:)

And! The point is PERSONAL CHOICE: A faither CHOOSES to worship a no-good, low-down, good-for-nothing piece of turd-idea of a god; one that is only interested in our 'belief' of IT?!:mad:

Trust?!.... If IT stood in front of me and pulled my daughter's arms off and said:"Trust in me, for I am the way, the tru...." ..... IT wouldn't get chance to finish IT's sentence, because I'd have put an axe in IT's face!!!!:eek:

I'd rather trust a scorpion.:jaw-dropp


Griff...Keep up the good work... don't worry about the pseudo-intellectuals! Let them wrangle over terminology; as they have done for millennia...

[The Atheist]

Hold on. I made no strawman. That is an answer that would satisfy me. I didn't say it was anyone's answer.

Of course, but you seemed to be tying "most christians" to it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Of course, but you seemed to be tying "most christians" to it.
That was because I pretty sloppily worded that last bit about the mercenary reasoning. Admit typically implies that there is something to be admitted. My use of it then reads like I believe this is Christian reasoning, but they won't own up to it. I do believe every Christian has this reasoning to some extent, but certainly not as their main motive for belief, and not necessarily even a conscious one.

So you caught me doing a shoddy job expressing myself. Truth be told, I'd rather get busted for a strawman. :o

[fuelair]

Of course, I do have to ask, how is the state's killing of this scum (I do not deny he's scum) suppose to be an improvement on any god's inaction?

Murder is murder... regardless of whether it's by a lone lunatic, or by the State as part of some grusome puppet show for the blood thirsty, braindead, voters to proove that they are THE LAW.

Lock the slmeball away, alone, for the rest of his life, but don't sully justice with his blood just to satiate the animalistic urge for vengence.

We're better than that.
I'm not!

[fuelair]

Oh, no, this is a very-very big point that Beerina has raised.:)

And! The point is PERSONAL CHOICE: A faither CHOOSES to worship a no-good, low-down, good-for-nothing piece of turd-idea of a god; one that is only interested in our 'belief' of IT?!:mad:

Trust?!.... If IT stood in front of me and pulled my daughter's arms off and said:"Trust in me, for I am the way, the tru...." ..... IT wouldn't get chance to finish IT's sentence, because I'd have put an axe in IT's face!!!!:eek:

I'd rather trust a scorpion.:jaw-dropp


Griff...Keep up the good work... don't worry about the pseudo-intellectuals! Let them wrangle over terminology; as they have done for millennia...If it turns out to exist it must be destroyed.

[The Atheist]

So you caught me doing a shoddy job expressing myself.

I'm sure I did that once.

1978, I think it was.

:bgrin:

[The Atheist]

Oh, no, this is a very-very big point that Beerina has raised.:)

And! The point is PERSONAL CHOICE: A faither CHOOSES to worship a no-good, low-down, good-for-nothing piece of turd-idea of a god; one that is only interested in our 'belief' of IT?!:mad:

Trust?!.... If IT stood in front of me and pulled my daughter's arms off and said:"Trust in me, for I am the way, the tru...." ..... IT wouldn't get chance to finish IT's sentence, because I'd have put an axe in IT's face!!!!:eek:

I'd rather trust a scorpion.:jaw-dropp


Griff...Keep up the good work... don't worry about the pseudo-intellectuals! Let them wrangle over terminology; as they have done for millennia...

Gosh, I missed this masterpiece, done at the same time as my earlier one.

Forget some medication before writing? Talk about angry atheists!