Christopher Hitchens Died of Cancer. Why?

[Scriptur]

Since you favor naturalism then a naturalist says all that happens is natural including babies getting cancer. If you say that is wrong then you are saying naturalism is horribly wrong also. Stop talking out the side of your face.

If you don't address this self-contradiction you harbor then you're just shutting your mind down and can't go much further in the discussion.

[Skeptic]

I never said it was wrong, I said that in a naturalist framework it simply is.

In the context of a God however I do not understand how babies come to contract cancer while simultaneously under the care of a 'just' God.

Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying, you are being incredibly intellectually dishonest.

It's too bad, I was looking forward to some decent discussion on this site, but if this is the level of discourse that can be expected then I believe I'm done here.

Best of luck to you.

[Scriptur]

I know that you said in a naturalistic framework that naturalism is alright no matter how horrific. Therein lies the problem which shows how dead your conscience is because you accuse God's treatment of sin as a problem, but not your own horrific atheistic world view when the same events take place.

And you did say God is wrong with this statement: "I still fail to see how giving babies cancer is just" even after I gave the explanation which all I can do is repeat. Sin begets sin and hurts loved ones as the realistic operations of nature. I think a real life example would help you. Let's say you were a profuse smoker and had a baby. This can hurt the baby's development. You should stop blaming God and start blaming yourself. Grow up! Stop blaming others for what you are responsible for.

You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest and disingenuous with yourself. It's too bad you didn't want a genuine sincere conversation, but instead prefer to shut your mind down to the explanation and your obstinate doublestandard.

Christians don't need luck. We have eternal life: not only eternal blessings but an ability to have a relationship with Jesus that which you don't have. Luck won't save you.

[Skeptic]

So I am now back after a short temp ban for what was referred to as 'doubletalk.'

If possible, I would like to set aside this specific discussion about cancer for a bit and ask, with complete sincerity, what is meant by 'doubletalk' in this context.
I truly don't understand what it is that I did wrong here.

The way I seem to understand it is as follows (and please do correct me if I'm wrong).

You seem to feel that I am being hypocritical because I do not judge 'nature' in the same way I would judge the actions of a God.
Is that what the issue is/was?

Please, be patient with me as I am truly trying to understand where our disconnect was.
Thank you.

[Scriptur]

Ya, you shouldn't say one thing then mean another or hold a doublestandard. That is doubletalk, contradicting yourself, like calling yourself atheist but you're really agnostic, or claiming what happens to babies is ok in a naturalistic only world but not if God exists.

[Skeptic]

Ya, you shouldn't say one thing then mean another or hold a doublestandard. That is doubletalk, contradicting yourself, like calling yourself atheist but you're really agnostic, or claiming what happens to babies is ok in a naturalistic only world but not if God exists.

I guess what confuses me is that those are two completely different contexts, so it seems clear to me that the standards of judgement would be different.
Let me try to explain as an analogy, and maybe you can tell me where I'm going wrong.

If I said "When I kill someone it's not immoral, but if you do it it's immoral" then that would obviously be a double standard and I would be a hypocrite.
BUT, if I say "When I kill someone it's immoral, but if they die of a heart attack it is not immoral" that seems perfectly logical to me.

The difference is that in one instance there is an intelligent being that caused the action, and in the other there is not.
And, as I see it, those are the same as the scenarios we were discussing - one in which God exists, and one in which He does not.
'Nature' is not an intelligence or a being of any kind - so it has no intention.

I'd be interested to hear where I am going wrong here... or what, if anything I just said, seems illogical.
I feel like I'm not fully understanding your perspective - or perhaps you're not fully understanding mine.
Either way, we seem to have a disconnect that I am hoping to bridge.

[Scriptur]

I think you messed up your grammar. Try to proof read what you write and double check it. Anyway, these are not different contexts. The context is the same natural event.

When you kill someone you admit it is immoral. But you're contradicting yourself because you said that which in nature whatever happens is ok because nature has no intention. Make up your mind. You are talking out the side of your face. Just as you do this so you hold a false world-view.

But when someone dies of a heart attack that's ultimately not God's fault but it is the fault of sinners no taking care of themselves properly so why blame God? You are committing the fallacy of sinning bearing false witness to form your argument. Even if you weren't sinning bearing false witness, your argument still breaks down because you hold two standards, not treating God as you would like to be treated.

You are holding a doublestandard because naturally it is ok to die of a heart attack you said in your view {say from eating too much chocolate} which you seem to hold lower standards than for God who allows someone to have a heart attack due to their sin. Such a position is morally bankrupt. You are morally decrepit.

Take the point to the extreme. Let's say in a natural only world every second woman was raped and every third man was murdered out of jealousy or other such evil. To you that would be perfectly acceptable because to you nature has no intention even though these acts are really honestly full of intention. Your position is entirely stupid. You live without any moral code. You're evil and you are going to Hell.

Your problem remains, you hold a doublestandard, a lower standard for nature without God and such a position is morally bankrupt. To you what Hitler did, what Stalin did, what Mao Zedong did are alright because they are just part of nature. Whereas God says they were evil acts that will be punished even eternally.

You see I have no doublestandard, but you do. Any belief that contradicts itself eventually breaks down as your faith does. You can carry on this way, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's not healthy for your or anyone you are around.