your logical fallacy is ad hominem please use proper thread topic
Logical Fallacies
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=105601072&f=27&o=70

The fig tree is an interesting story that I think a lot of people misinterpret. It may seem petty or silly, I've always seen it as a parallel and resemblance to the punishments God had done prior but with much lesser stakes. He is capable of anger and pettiness, but ultimately Jesus and God are good. His cursing of the fig tree is so small in comparison to all the good Jesus had done, not only for those living at the time, but all of us after his death. We only can relate to the human nature of the story because we do not understand the reasoning of God himself.

over ten years ago now. i lived my life getting drunk and chasing my own lusts. i found my self at home with health failing getting drunk and playing video games. i got it into my head to find the truth of it all. one day i stumbled onto this vid. the video is about how the bible got translated into english. but mostly it is about a man named william tyndal. when the vid was over i just couldnt understand how a person could throw away everything for the goal he chose.
anyway the vid i am talking about starts @ 2:15
Unforgettable Story-William Tyndale Publishing an English Bible-Leading to the 1611 King James Bible

They’re K*lling the Last Christians in Syria—And No One Cares

Israel bombed the last of the Christian churches in Gaza. The media will never care about this region and it's not because of any religion. They want constant conflict there. The military industrial complex relies on it for its profits. The irony is the majority of funding of these wars come from Christian politicians who are Zionist shills.

I am a devout Christian and this is my hot take: looking at numbers, especially high numbers of millions and millions of people dying is actually an appeal to our emotions, and thus, usually fuels an emotional argument. We look at the high count of people dead, or currently suffering, and thus point our finger to it and illicit some kind of accusation. Usually it's either "God is immoral!" or in this case "Athiests are also immoral!"

Therefore, I remind myself that, although yes, suffering is bad and should illicit our attention, the sheer multitude of numbers or high count of # murdered should not weigh into the real crux of the matter: suffering exists.

To explain it further, I ask the person reading this now, if you could take away a zero from a big number of deaths, say instead of 6 million Jews dead in the holocaust, but rather it was 600,000, would that make a difference? I am most certain the God denyer would say 600,000 is still too many people dead. Okay, then take away another zero, if only 60,000 Jews died in the holocaust, is it now acceptable? Is the suffering now to some acceptable level? Or take away another zero? Say only 6,000 Jews died in WW2? Or 600? Or 60? Or how about just 6?

At what point would a God denyer suddenly say "this is now an acceptable level of suffering"? You see, it's not about numbers. Not at all. The only thing that needs to be discussed is: Why does suffering exist, at all?

I am open to a civil conversation like this to anyone on these forums.

Quantity matters

At what level is "too much" to you? Can you explain it, or articulate some kind of definition of "acceptable level of suffering" versus "unacceptable levels of suffering"?

Because I can almost guarantee you, the next person over will disagree with your definition, as this is an argument that appeals to emotions, not logic.

Well I can't assertively suggest a line to draw of what is too much, but that line certainly exists, because we can look at the upper and lower bounds

Everyone thinks 1 single person suffering doesn't matter

vs.

Everyone thinks every person in the world suffering does matter

So a line must exist between those upper and lower bounds of too little vs too much. Usually this comes down to economics, competitiveness, and productive capability relative to other nation states or a neutral observer

Then I suppose we could talk about captivity. Does captivity just have to be someone held against their will, or does captivity also entail economic captivity, that is, no means to leave. Then there's also state captivity where the state doesn't allow you to leave the country

If we narrow captivity down to being held against their will, the argument can be made that all suffering outside of captivity is entirely self-inflicted, a deliberate rejection of God, thus just.

This post was edited by El1te on Mar 12 2025 05:35pm

There's a few things you said which could be explored further for a meaningful conversation. And if I overlook some of your other points, I apologize, its not meant to dodge, more that I think the focus should be in other areas. For example, the words "doesn't matter" and "does matter".

Yes, suffering does matter-- its existence should tell us something. Whether 1 person suffering, or 1 gazillion people suffering. It does matter. But in what way does it matter? How does a theist explain suffering? How does the atheist explain suffering. I am a devout Christian because the existence of suffering is more evidence that God does exist. The existence of suffering points to a reality of moral right and wrong. It certainly does matter.

Back to your comparison however, "either 1 person thinking suffering doesn't matter" versus "everyone in the world thinking suffering does matter", I think is besides the point. Truth is truth regardless of who believes in it.