God's opinion of deformities

[robvalue]

If any of this stupid horseshit were true, that would mean God's an evil lunatic.

Exactly. It's the fact that some people really do think it's true, but still see it fit to worship, that troubles me the most.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If any of this stupid horseshit were true, that would mean God's an evil lunatic.

Exactly. It's the fact that some people really do think it's true, but still see it fit to worship, that troubles me the most.

Are you saying that ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tales are BS?  If so you are agreeing with the Bible.

[robvalue]

No, I can't possibly agree with the bible. So that means the religion is true.

Which means the bible is true. In which case I agree with it...

Damn it! Those tricky Christians.

[orangebox21]

A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue.

I asked that the term be defined.  I did not assert that the term was wrongly defined.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all. But very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in philosophy. It is also sometimes held that when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

Which could become the course of discussion here.  Given that the same word can be used to prove God is unfair (definitions 1,3) and that He is fair (definition 2), shouldn't we switch our focus from the thesis to examining the meaning of the term?  

Semantic disputes can result in the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Which was why I asked for a term to be defined.  My initial intention is to avoid equivocation due to a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the original statement.  
(Quotes reference)

Orangebox I think most people would see it unfair if an all powerful being decided to give people given disabilities for...some reason.

I'm sure you recognize that appealing to 'most people' to validate a truth claim isn't a good reason.

You quoted me, and didn't read my response?  "I didn't write this in this atheist forum to have a debate with a g...... preacher."

How about with a philosopher?  If yes, then.....

Relative to definition #1: How are the principles of equality and justice determined?

Relative to definition #2:  Why do you reject this definition but accept the others?

Relative to definition #3:  Do you think that it is reasonable [having the faculty of reason] to submit the concept of fairness to a single person's 'personal expectations?'  If you read a book and it fails to live up to your expectations would that book be 'unfair'?

[dyresand]

If any of this stupid horseshit were true, that would mean God's an evil lunatic.

Pretty much god would be on everyone's shit list we would have nuked heaven if it was in the clouds.

[Athene]

If God did it, it must be fair, because everything God does is fair, because God said so. And God doesn't lie, because he says he doesn't lie.

Now you're getting it, friend. Hallelujah!

[robvalue]

Here's a question I never seem to get a satisfactory answer to from religious folk:

What would God have to do to make you step up and say, "No, that's enough! You're being evil now!"

It's a serious question.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Here's a question I never seem to get a satisfactory answer to from religious folk:

What would God have to do to make you step up and say, "No, that's enough! You're being evil now!"

It's a serious question.

In the Bible when a person is "evil" he's simply disobeying what he was told to do.  If the God character says to kill everything in a town and burn it to the ground it's not evil to do it; a person is "evil" if he doesn't do it.

[Ravenshire]

---

A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue.

I asked that the term be defined.  I did not assert that the term was wrongly defined.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all. But very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in philosophy. It is also sometimes held that when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

Which could become the course of discussion here.  Given that the same word can be used to prove God is unfair (definitions 1,3) and that He is fair (definition 2), shouldn't we switch our focus from the thesis to examining the meaning of the term?  

Semantic disputes can result in the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Which was why I asked for a term to be defined.  My initial intention is to avoid equivocation due to a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the original statement.  
(Quotes reference)

Orangebox I think most people would see it unfair if an all powerful being decided to give people given disabilities for...some reason.

I'm sure you recognize that appealing to 'most people' to validate a truth claim isn't a good reason.

You quoted me, and didn't read my response?  "I didn't write this in this atheist forum to have a debate with a g...... preacher."

How about with a philosopher?  If yes, then.....

Relative to definition #1: How are the principles of equality and justice determined?

Relative to definition #2:  Why do you reject this definition but accept the others?

Relative to definition #3:  Do you think that it is reasonable [having the faculty of reason] to submit the concept of fairness to a single person's 'personal expectations?'  If you read a book and it fails to live up to your expectations would that book be 'unfair'?

---

And still you dodge the actual point.

[Heat]

Back when I still believed in god, this lady was a sub in my science class. This was last year, and she kept talking about her child that she once had. She said that she had a child with a deformity that I forget the name of, and as a result life was extremely hard, and she died at 3. She claimed this was the most important experience in her life.


It's a very touching, sad story, especially because despite the child's deformity, it was their first child, and was especially touching because it took them so long to have one, and despite the deformity they loved it and cared for it as much as possible. So i'm not taking anything away from that when I say this.

However, the whole time I couldn't ignore that as a loving parent, she believed that god had done that for a reason. After a deformity like that, she believed that god did that for a reason, to serve purpose in her life.


What I just can't get over is this self entitlement attitude that people who experience this seem to have all the time. This belief that a suffering child who did not deserve any of the unlucky birth defects it had, was somehow not only a result of an all loving supreme being, but that suffering child was there to serve a beneficial purpose in their personal life specifically. That they truly hold this unintentionally cynical thought that their all loving sky-daddy would have this child birthed in to the world, just to suffer in order to teach that specific individual an unidentifiable subjective purpose in their life.

I can't muster up the morality to even imagine myself believing that this being that is my best friend, and is always looking out for me, would have this child suffer just for the sake of me, and without an easily identifiable purpose either, for the simple fact that no one deserves to suffer. So i don't care how good she may have treated the child, and I know this is not of her understanding and she does not see it this way, but I am personally bewildered by the fact that she and many others make light of a clearly tragic situation, and not only make light of it, but make light of it by saying that there is somehow a purpose to this child's suffering all in a selfish self entitled, "everything has to personally happen for a reason, and that reason must be only destined for my understanding" type manner.

And I had this belief, before I knew about any of the arguments against christianity, while going to a christian school, being surrounded 100% by christians, with utterly no deniers to any claims anyone made on the grounds of that school, if they even attempted to involve their belief system. That is why I cannot imagine believing what so many mothers and fathers who give birth to unlucky children with deformities believe. And again, I know that these people do not think this way at all, they are simply mislead, so i'm not taking anything away from her, as she definitely as described, gave the utmost care and treatment to this baby.