(July 10, 2009 at 2:10 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(July 8, 2009 at 1:59 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Those who claim intended design have the obligation to explain why this cruelty is intended in the first place. Certainly in that case the design would be an indication of evil intentions of whatever intentional designer designed it.

An indication of what? Erm, what does "evil" mean?

evil ~ Causing ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others

(July 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Evil: causing ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others.

1. Why do they "have the obligation to explain" the intentional designer's purpose in these circumstances?

2. What conclusion can be drawn about an intentional designer if those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what its purpose is?

3. What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good (e.g., compassion is a virtue but it presupposes suffering, courage is a virtue but it presupposes fear, etc.)?

(July 9, 2009 at 9:15 pm)Pippy Wrote: No I am no confused. I understand that we have more diagnosable and distinguishable diseases. but I also very much mean we have literally more. Sure nobody dies from the 'bloody flux' anymore, and we have very specific types of illnesses... But I do mean there are more illnesses nowadays, mostly as a result of our modern world and lifestyle. Did people have radioactive poisoning before we dug radioactive material out of the ground? Likely a few, but not on the scale we find today. I understand what you mean, and I meant exactly what I said, and maintain my point.

This will not do as a backup to your claim that we have more illnessess today than say 150 years ago. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, giving one example is not really a thorough numerical assessment. I can easily name you diseases/illnesses that we nowadays have cured or have effective remedies for, for every 'new' disease you name, measels for instance. Also people were not immune to radioactivity before we 'dug radioactive material out of the ground' and on some places on earth radioactive materials do surface in nature. So is the disease new? Thirdly radioactivity has been effectively put to use for medical treatment, for treatment of cancer for instance. Stating that you maintain your point is redundant information in this context. Do you experience doubts about this?

Pippy Wrote:

Quote:Saying it is "a silly action" really is an amoral statement that shows lack of any understanding what medical care is about and indeed lack of any human compassion.

I am absolutely not amoral in any way,..

Let's be clear on this one. I am not saying that you are an amoral person, I have said that it is an amoral statement. I do not know you as a person and I have no moral opinion about you as a person, written word on a the internet is not the kind of expression I would base such judgement on.

Pippy Wrote:I feel that I understand better than yourself 'what medical care is about' and have overwhelming human compassion.

You may feel that, but really you have no way to tell.

Pippy Wrote:Tell me how it is not silly to wish to 'cure all diseases'. Explain to me how that is not literally silly. That it is unattainable, dangerous to try for, and a waste of time.

Because it eases pain and suffering. Because it pretty much is what drives medical investigation. Because it is not shown that it is unattainable. Because it is silly to have to choose which diseases to cure and which not. Because you are not in the position to deny others the benefits of medical achievements or the strive to do so. Because if that's silly than pretty much any human endeavour is silly. Because it is kind of hypocritical to make use of it yourself and label it as silly. Because it is a great thing to want for your fellow human beings. Among other reasons.

Pippy Wrote:We should spend our valuable energy enjoying what we are given, not trying to stretch it too far, at the cost of quality of life. If you see the world, especially the last 150 years as a big improvement, than that is where we disagree. This is the same as the 'chemo thread'... It is a big disagreement, but please let mt reiterate that I am taking a moral stance, and it is all about compassion.

Have you ever seen what cancer can do with kids? This imo is a deranged stance on human compassion and human endeavour. Where is it coming from? What harm is in it for you that medical science makes advantages?

Pippy Wrote:My brother was in the hospital when I wrote this. My grandfather is in the hospital right now. I hold my point. I never said I, nor do I, believe in salvation in the next life. It is possible, and so it 'the big sleep'. I just think all this medicine is unnecessary. Some is very helpful, like antibiotics, but those have their own very serious threats. My problem is unnecessary fear, and its motivation to do things not in our best interests.

Why post this opinion on this forum? Be sincere and tell it to your brother. Tell him that you believe his treatment in hospital is a silly attempt to enhance his life, that he should just take his disease without treatment. That he should stay away from the perversions of modern medicine and just rot away. Of course that's not what I want for your brother and I don't even know him. I must be totally perverted.

---

(July 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm)Arcanus Wrote:

(July 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Evil: causing ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others.

1. Why do they "have the obligation to explain" the intentional designer's purpose in these circumstances?

I didn't say 'purpose' but stated that "those who claim intended design have the obligation to explain why this cruelty is intended in the first place". This is so because theirs is the claim to know the intentions of the supposed designer. Surely this means that they can answer the simple question whether its design was intended to have this cruel consequences on humans.

Arcanus Wrote:2. What conclusion can be drawn about an intentional designer if those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what its purpose is?

The primary conclusion is about the truth value of these asserters of intended design. It shows their understanding of design is too poor to credit the claim. In the case of the christian god, the one that also is claimed to be all-good, you might conclude that they are full of shit for worshipping a designer god whose moral they haven't checked. They could be worshipping the devil in disguise.

Arcanus Wrote:3. What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good (e.g., compassion is a virtue but it presupposes suffering, courage is a virtue but it presupposes fear, etc.)?

Have you any indications for that, for at this moment it is only wild speculation? I could also speculate that the purpose is net moral evil (e.g., misery for man is intended and compassion, courage and such are mere words among humans that in the end all die). Also this is a category misstake, it supposes that misery and prosperity are additive properties exclusively on level of humanity as a whole. You likewise do not assert that courage is not appreciated on the personal level, do you?

(July 8, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote: Also @Kyu. I will give you a reason for not fearing death. Because it is inevitable. You should very much embrace or at least come to terms with not existing. Otherwise it may impinge on your quality of existence. Unless you find a way to live forever, which would be tantamount to hell, you're gonna go away friend. So far everyone in human and animal existence has had to die. To fear something that is completely unavoidable is a absolute waste of time.

Oh I've [nearly] entirely come to to terms with it I just don't like the idea of it so in one sense I "fear it" (I don't want to cease existing) ... it's not like I'm quivering in me boots of anything.

Kyu

(July 8, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote: I will give you a reason for not fearing death. Because it is inevitable. You should very much embrace or at least come to terms with not existing. Otherwise it may impinge on your quality of existence. Unless you find a way to live forever, which would be tantamount to hell, you're gonna go away friend. So far everyone in human and animal existence has had to die. To fear something that is completely unavoidable is a absolute waste of time.

Well spoken Pippy (missed it in the first read).

Hey,

Kyu, Thank you for posting. I think it is one of those steps in our shared human journey that we all have to take. You know, everyone, no matter in what situation has likely thought about death, naturally feared it, and tried to conquer it in whatever way. Well, the ambiguity of that sentence is apt. Because some fight the 'fear' and some fight the 'dying', and I think we can all see which one leads to an appreciably healthier life. And like anything, it has a good side. I don't deny that value in our survival instinct, which almost exclusively relies upon fear at it's most instinctual. But we have to be very particular with what we think things prove, no? That, and I agree, no one has come 'back' and told us about the afterlife, as Padraic mentioned, only says one thing to me. He assumes it means there is no afterlife. I see that it only hypothesizes that no one can die and continue communication in any clear way. Not that no one came back to describe it, just that apparently no one can come back. Another theory includes that we do and can not remember the other world, and the amnesia is a huge piece of the functionality of this giant game we call life. Just wandering now, though. Thank you.

And Rabbit, thank you for your appreciation, I am pleased that you enjoyed reading that.

The,
-Pip

Shared human journey? Ugh!

Another theory? You mean another wizard wheeze ... it has nothing to do with being theoretical in the the slightest.

Kyu

I knew you'd like that term.

All we have about death and any experiences directly afterwards IS theory. That is kind of the point. The amnesiac theory is just that, a theory, as is the theory that it will be the 'big sleep' I assume you believe.

-Pip

(July 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm)Arcanus Wrote: What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good

Comtemplating some more on this I found it hard to think of a stance more gruesome than this. Maybe you could help me out here. This imo is evilness in its purest form. This is exactly the kind of thinking that in Nazi Deutschland led to the mass slaughter by the nazis in WWII. That it's allright to sacrifice the few for the benefit of one people. That the good of the individual is not a fundamental level to assess moral justice. That to destroy the crippled, the lame, the idiots and the diseased ultimately leads to the net moral good of the nation.

I will have no part in a religion or social movement that thinks this is some kind of moral justification.

(July 12, 2009 at 6:28 am)Pippy Wrote: All we have about death and any experiences directly afterwards IS theory. That is kind of the point. The amnesiac theory is just that, a theory, as is the theory that it will be the 'big sleep' I assume you believe.

No it's NOT theory ... it's just wishful thinking!

Kyu