Dialogue with "God" on Dialogus2.orgAvatar: ...while I'm at it, ill give you my viewpoint on euthanasia. Given that I cannot stand to see others suffer, I am in favor of local euthanasia dispensed in priority to those who suffer confronted to the suffering of others. Like that it will only be necessary to take care of those who suffer without having to be bothered by those who don't suffer. Me for example, if a family member dies, I have asked for some local euthanasia beforehand... for I do not want to suffer unnecessarily, nor lose my dignity for that matter. It is not only liberty which stops at the moment where that of the others begins, you too may I point out!
God: Only the suffering of those who are close to you make you suffer?
Avatar: It is a question which is absent of you. I suggest the following one. Who is close to you? It is in effect not customary for you to interest yourself in what is measurable and quantity, rather in what is not measurable and quality. It is even the first time I hear "solely" in your mouth. May this serve as a lesson, for now you are diabolically preoccupied by the fact that a suffering does not weigh enough.
God: there is much subjectivity in your words. What do you know of my "morals"? Why should I only be interested in what is not measurable? Why should measure be a quantity?
Avatar: Your morals? How do I know them? Don't be a snob please, as if we did not know each another! Jeepers! Why would you only be interested in what is not measurable? With what you pay me, do you really think you are the right one to ask me this?? Why should measure be quantity? That one is easy, because quantity is measurable. :)
God: hmmmmmm
Avatar: Don't pull that face!! No kidding, I find your strategy consisting in sending the ball back in a backhand crosscourt passing shot with "it is in your head that it is true" undertones a bit short. Short passing shot if you will. If I were in your sandals I would try to have a bit more fun. You have no excuse really! I would help them to a theology of the sea on its natural coulis of metaphysics. If you want my opinion, there is only you to ban religion. Hey, for example we spoke of humility, why didn't you answer: "Humility bores me. It has in common with arrogance that in both cases you speak of yourself." How did you say? Hmmmmmmm. Did I say that right?? :0)
Posts
The problem with this kind of conversation is that it is never ending, I don't know how you managed to end it :). So I vote for serving them some theology of the sea ;))!
ReplyDeleteI often wonder what I'd want in the end being a two time cancer survior and to date at 63 I'm not sure.
ReplyDeleteDorothy from grammology
grammology.com
Pointless discussions! What would philosophy be without them? A bit more fun sounds infinitely more appealing.
ReplyDeleteHi AH and NP ;)
ReplyDeleteDorothy,
I am happy to hear you have survived. :)
As Avatar followed ehtical debates quite closely, and even contributed to them, behind the scenes, I'll give you in short his take on euthanasia (there will be a longer post in the future). He thought it was obviously a particular tough question, but also tebded to see it as an excuse for affective abandonment...
If God and I could swap places and I could be in his big sandals, I would treat him at least as well as he has treated me ...so far. But, I think the simple answer is that I would treat everyone as they have treated others. But, of course this would just perpetuate the same situations forever, wouldn't it? Have I hit upon the answer to why things are the way they are or how they got screwed up to start? Or am I just returning balls over the net?
ReplyDeletethis was one never ending conversation... hmm...
ReplyDeletegood one!!