Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[Vera_Ljuba]

So are you suggesting that you have material evidence for the existence of any sort of God at all? Even a cruel one? I’m intensely interested in seeing this evidence. Richard Dawkins is too.

Why on Earth would you think that? All I said was that there is no evidence for a benevolent deity. Nothing else. Of course I see no evidence for any kind of deity.

I’ll readily grant this concession: God, if it exists, most certainly allows for evil to exist.

Agreed. This is one of fundamental “thorns” in the side of Christianity, the “problem of evil”. In the thousands of years no theologian or philosopher could present a solution to this problem, namely “how can one reconcile the existence of suffering with a benevolent God”. There are several approaches, but none of them “works”.

But that leads to only more questions such as “What would a loving God do? Annihilate the will of His creation so they couldn’t be cruel or apathetic to each other? Or gift them with will and hope they choose kindness and pathos?”

There are many possible solutions to have a world with “free will” and without “moral evil”, just like there are many possible solutions to have a world without “natural evil”. The simplest solution would be to create every “soul” directly into heaven, so everyone would enjoy the beatific vision - whatever that might be. But this could be discussed in a different thread.

Yes. Yes it does. Our joyful moments in life are so because they’re contrasted with the poignant or neutral moments. This contrast is what generates the appreciation.

That is one kind of appreciation. One can appreciate the cessation of being tortured, but that does not give a legitimate “excuse” for torturing others. Personally I would choose a “lukewarm” existence as opposed to a roller coaster ride of pain and lack of pain. There are a very few people who choose to be tortured, and I think that they are insane.

Respectfully, sir, that isn’t evidence. That’s your perception.

It is not supposed to be evidence for me. It is supposed to be evidence for the believers, at least for those who take the Bible seriously, as the unchanging word of God.

 

[Vonsalza]

Why on Earth would you think that?

Because of your statement: “On the other hand, the speculation of an uncaring (even malevolent, malicious or evil) deity is amply supported by the evidence.”

Agreed. This is one of fundamental “thorns” in the side of Christianity, the “problem of evil”. In the thousands of years no theologian or philosopher could present a solution to this problem, namely “how can one reconcile the existence of suffering with a benevolent God”. There are several approaches, but none of them “works”.

Obviously your opinion; with which many disagree. I think a God that allows man to choose his path is more benevolent than a God that renders man an automaton, incapable of evil - but equally incapable of choosing good as a moral agent.

There are many possible solutions to have a world with “free will” and without “moral evil”…

I’ll agree here. Assuming the existence of God, He made creation as He saw fit. I’m sure it could have been created in another way should the Divine Will so desired.

I’ll dissent here by say that your objection doesn’t mean anything, though. They could have not put up the “stop sign” in my neighborhood. Regardless of the “could have”, they did. And if I run it and get caught, I get a $120 ticket.

The reality of it has no relationship with my feelings.

Personally I would choose a “lukewarm” existence as opposed to a roller coaster ride of pain and lack of pain.

Given that dichotomy, I would agree. But no one is arguing for that.

In a slightly more realistic scenario in choosing between “lukewarm” -or- a roller coaster ride of “suffering” and “joy”, I pick the latter.

But this scenario is only slightly more realistic in that it includes the reality of both suffering and joy. In truth, you don’t have the option of perpetually picking “lukewarm”. It’s a waste of your time to pretend you do.

It is not supposed to be evidence for me. It is supposed to be evidence for the believers, at least for those who take the Bible seriously, as the unchanging word of God.

Then you’re arguing with the wrong people by choosing Catholic Answers forums. A Catholic will hold scripture in very high regard, but it’s merely a by-product of the Church that we are members of. The Church is not beholden to the Bible. The Bible is beholden to the Church.
Christ didn’t write a book. He started the Church. Our Church (and maybe that rebellious, unsubmissive Orthodox Church as well it’s complicated)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Obviously your opinion; with which many disagree.

Not just mine. There is no writ issued by the church which would present a comprehensive argument to reconcile the alleged benevolence of God with the actual suffering in reality. Not the “free will” defense, nor the “greater good” defense or any of the other even less convincing arguments can be accepted, even though the skeptics do not reject them “out of hand”. They are all analyzed, and found wanting. In the next two paragraphs I will give a very short summary why they are insufficient. But if you are interested, there is a wonderful summary available on-line: “the tale of the twelve officers”. infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

I think a God that allows man to choose his path is more benevolent than a God that renders man an automaton, incapable of evil - but equally incapable of choosing good as a moral agent.

No victim has ever agreed that the torturer’s freedom is more “benevolent” or “important” than her suffering. If you argue for the freedom of the torturers, then you argue for the continued existence of psychopaths, sociopaths, murderers, rapists, torturers… etc.

Of course your dichotomy is incorrect. Just because someone is rendered incapable of committing evil acts, it does NOT make him an “automaton”. There are many people (not just saints) who would never do harm to others, simply because they are good human beings. You view reality through a “black or white” glass. Most of the actions are neutral. This gets rid of the “free will” defense.

I’ll agree here. Assuming the existence of God, He made creation as He saw fit. I’m sure it could have been created in another way should the Divine Will so desired.

Yes. And he chose the one with incredible amount of pain and suffering, none of which was logically necessary. As such he cannot be called good or benevolent. Pain and suffering alone would not disqualify the usage of these adjectives. Unnecessary, gratuitous pain and suffering does. And since no pain or suffering is logically necessary for an omnipotent being, there goes the “greater good” defense.

I’ll dissent here by say that your objection doesn’t mean anything, though. They could have not put up the “stop sign” in my neighborhood. Regardless of the “could have”, they did. And if I run it and get caught, I get a $120 ticket.

It just so happens that we are talking about the “what if” scenarios, so the objection is relevant.

In a slightly more realistic scenario in choosing between “lukewarm” -or- a roller coaster ride of “suffering” and “joy”, I pick the latter.

My “lukewarm” scenario can be sprinkled “joy”. You need to give a rational argument, which proves that to have “joy” logically necessitates “suffering”. One can have joy without negative counterparts. The Catholic belief system gives two examples: “the Garden of Eden” and “heaven”. If you are interested, I can give you other scenarios.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not the “free will” defense, nor the “greater good” defense or any of the other even less convincing arguments can be accepted, even though the skeptics do not reject them “out of hand”. They are all analyzed, and found wanting.

Again, it appears that multitudes obviously disagree on the “found wanting” part. The God you propose that annihilates “free will” is, to me, a less benevolent God than the God that allows its calamitous existence.

Of course your dichotomy is incorrect. Just because someone is rendered incapable of committing evil acts, it does NOT make him an “automaton”.

As their ability to behave otherwise is destroyed, yes it does. That part of their moral being is essentially “lobotomized” per your view.

Yes. And he chose the one with incredible amount of pain and suffering, none of which was logically necessary.

In order for this argument to approach anything resembling soundness, you must prove that this extant God must successfully appeal to your personal grasp on what is and is not logical in order to exist. Then you must prove that your standards for this are universally objective.

The best of luck to you on both counts.

My “lukewarm” scenario can be sprinkled “joy”.

Then you self-contradict as “joy” is not emotionally neutral, which is what you advocated. You really need to make up your mind before forming rhetoric.

You need to give a rational argument, which proves that to have “joy” logically necessitates “suffering”. One can have joy without negative counterparts.

No, they cannot. The “really good” is only “really good” because it contrasts so strongly to what the subject otherwise experiences.

Do you think the trust fund baby experiences the same joy when $50k is deposited into their accounts as scheduled - as opposed to - the individual who spent most of a year trying to turn a stressful $50k deal they really needed that was fraught with the probability of failure and finally achieves it?

Of course not.

The Catholic belief system gives two examples: “the Garden of Eden” and “heaven”. If you are interested, I can give you other scenarios.

I’ll pass.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again, it appears that multitudes obviously disagree on the “found wanting” part.

Indeed, some people do. There are people who are are satisfied with the explanations because they already accept it as an axiom. For them everything that is allowed by God is the “optimal solution”, because denying it would be a criticism of God. Their line of thought is:

1. God is the ultimate goodness.
2. Therefore anything and everything performed or allowed by God is “good” (in the sense that limiting the freedom is wrong).
3. The counter-examples (Holocaust, etc…) are simply “measurement errors”, if only we would be privy to the necessary information, we would agree that the Holocaust was the best thing since sliced bread; and if only ONE extra Jew could have escaped the gas chamber, the resulting world would be MUCH worse than the actual reality. The usual expression is: “this is the best of the possible worlds, because if it were not, God would have created a better one” - taking EVERYTHING into consideration!

They always “vote” for the continued existence of the psychopaths and sociopaths, because their removal would be detrimental to the well-being of the world.

On the other hand, none of the attempts have been satisfactory for the skeptics, who do not accept the basic “axiom” that God is “good”, and therefore everything he does or allows is good. They are open to the arguments - if only some would be forthcoming.

The God you propose that annihilates “free will” is, to me, a less benevolent God than the God that allows its calamitous existence.

If only you would realize that limiting the freedom of certain individuals would NOT annihilate their freedom, it might be worth while to continue this conversation. We habitually try and frequently succeed to limit the freedom of the criminals, because in our “limited” view it is a bad idea to let the child molesters, rapists and other assorted brethren go free and wreak havoc on the rest of us.

You are free to start a new grass-roots movement which would advocate the release of the psychopaths from the prisons. I wonder how many people would join you. Your slogan could be: “Let’s be like God and allow the freedom of the child-molesters!”

 

[Vonsalza]

Indeed, some people do… Their line of thought is…

And some people do… and their “line of thought” is something else. Your generalization drawn conclusions arise from such specific and subjectively chosen (then representationally inflated) circumstances that they are difficult to take seriously. For example, your if “1” then “2” from your list might be the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Please prove that anything this God allows must be “good”. It is requisite for your conclusion to stand as sound. Otherwise, it’s a trash argument.

Again, good luck.

On the other hand, none of the attempts have been satisfactory for the skeptics, who do not accept the basic “axiom” that God is “good”, and therefore…

Concerning “God is ‘good’”, most skeptics I know have enough difficulty without that last word. They have issue with “God is.”. Perhaps you don’t speak for most skeptics?

You are free to start a new grass-roots movement which would advocate the release of the psychopaths from the prisons. I wonder how many people would join you. Your slogan could be: “Let’s be like God and allow the freedom of the child-molesters!”

Your conflation of “people who advocate the will” with “people who advocate the freedom of child-molesters” is probably one of the best and obvious examples of a false equivalency I’ve seen in a long time. I think it’s textbook-worthy.

Respectfully, I don’t think your command over the basic rules of western logic is as strong as you imagine.

Take your list:

1. God is the ultimate goodness.
2. Therefore anything and everything performed or allowed by God is “good” (in the sense that limiting the freedom is wrong).

First, in order to draw a conclusion, you typically need at least two premises. You give one. Then you draw a conclusion that is different from what is plainly stated. You kinda need at least one other premise containing a relevant value in order to do that.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Please prove that anything this God allows must be “good”.

That is self-evident. To allow something “evil” (all things considered) is an evil act. To perform or to allow gratuitous evil acts is “evil”.

Your conflation of “people who advocate the will” with “people who advocate the freedom of child-molesters” is probably one of the best and obvious examples of a false equivalency I’ve seen in a long time. I think it’s textbook-worthy.

What is the difference? You argued for the unlimited, unbridled free will. That includes child-molestation. You said that it is better to have unlimited free will, even if it leads to morally evil acts. Are you going to back-pedal now?

 

[Vonsalza]

That is self-evident. To allow something “evil” (all things considered) is an evil act. To perform or to allow gratuitous evil acts is “evil”.

As I disagree, the onus is on you to proof your premise.

Proclaiming something as “self-evident” doesn’t make it so. I’m sure you feel the same way when some silly theist like myself proclaims God to be “self-evident”.

I don’t get to do it. Neither do you. So reconstruct your argument with fewer “self evident” statements.

What is the difference? You argued for the unlimited, unbridled free will. That includes child-molestation. You said that it is better to have unlimited free will, even if it leads to morally evil acts. Are you going to back-pedal now?

Allow me to display the false equivalency you’ve made:

-Free will advocates thusly advocate the possibility of child molestation; as it is also a result of will.
-However, do they also advocate other acts of the will, such as being nice to people?
-It appears they do. So is “being nice to people” the same as “child molestation”?
-No?
-Then declaring the advocacy of free will as tantamount to the advocacy of child molestation is a false equivalency.

Now, if you’d like to argue that child molestation is part of the nigh-infinite possible outcomes of the exercise of will, I’m 100% with you. Other outcomes include “picking out blue shirts” and “feeding hungry people”.

Provided free of charge.

---

And I don’t argue that our will is completely unlimited. I don’t believe it is. For instance, I can’t choose to spontaneously fly. I can’t choose to be born apart from a sin-prone state. Or as a dog.

However, I do think our capacity to sin is what gives value to our choice not to do it. The moral agent turning toward God of his own personal choice is the thing that delights God the most, in my humble opinion.

I think this to be likely, and I’ll even promote it. But I’m not foolish enough to try and advocate this as a knowable, verifiable fact.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As I disagree, the onus is on you to proof your premise.

The evidence was in the next two sentences. Allowing or performing a gratuitous evil act is itself “evil”. That is a definition, and definitions may be accepted or rejected, but they are not subject to “proof”. Now, if you wish to say that allowing or performing gratuitous evil acts is compatible with benevolence, then you just left the realm of rational behavior. Mind you, I did not say that allowing any pain or suffering is evil, only that gratuitous pain and suffering is evil.

And if you wish to argue that the Holocaust was NOT gratuitous evil, then you have a very steep hill to climb. Can you prove that the Holocaust was a “blessing in disguise”?

-Free will advocates thusly advocate the possibility of child molestation; as it is also a result of will.
-However, do they also advocate other acts of the will, such as being nice to people?
-It appears they do. So is “being nice to people” the same as “child molestation”?
-No?
-Then declaring the advocacy of free will as tantamount to the advocacy of child molestation is a false equivalency.

Not at all. I did NOT say that there is an equivalence. It was you who said that allowing evil acts is compatible with the benevolent behavior of the deity. All I did was pointing out that child molestation is part of the free will. Keep reading below.

Now, if you’d like to argue that child molestation is part of the nigh-infinite possible outcomes of the exercise of will, I’m 100% with you. Other outcomes include “picking out blue shirts” and “feeding hungry people”.

Absolutely. But allowing to pick blue shirts, or feeding the hungry people can be allowed, even if one makes child molestation impossible.

I am all for a limited “free will”, where everyone is allowed and able to perform both helpful and neutral acts, only the evil acts are disallowed. And that can be achieved by creating everyone with a good, loving disposition. There is no need to place a special barrier into our mind to prevent certain acts, it is enough if the person - FREELY - chooses NOT to perform such acts. I am sure that Pope Francis (or you ) would never contemplate kidnapping, raping and torturing a child - such an act would be completely alien to his (and your) general disposition. And yet, no one would deny that the Pope (or you) have sufficient free will.

And I don’t argue that our will is completely unlimited. I don’t believe it is. For instance, I can’t choose to spontaneously fly. I can’t choose to be born apart from a sin-prone state. Or as a dog.

Agreed. So you also see that there can be limitation on our actions, and it will not annihilate our free will. I am very glad that we can agree on this very important principle. Limited freedom does not equal to no freedom (or lack of freedom).

However, I do think our capacity to sin is what gives value to our choice not to do it. The moral agent turning toward God of his own personal choice is the thing that delights God the most, in my humble opinion.

Personally, I could not care less about “sin” and “what delights God”; I only care about other human beings. But since it is important for you, let’s bring God’s “delight” into the equation. If one freely chooses to worship (or love) God, that would be something that God appreciates - said you. (How would you know that is beyond me, but what the heck. ). If one chooses to turn away from God, that would be something that God dislikes - again said you. So what is the “sin” which we can perform, but it does not have a negative effect on other humans?

You got it, I hope. It is “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”. One can do the worst kind of “blasphemy” to indicate that she does not care about God. And yet, that blasphemy would not adversely affect any human being. Since blasphemy is supposed to be the ultimate sin, which cannot be forgiven (says the church), we now have a state of affairs, where even the worst kinds of sins are allowed, and yet, there is no negative effect on other humans.

So we have everything. Wonderful “sins”, acts pleasing God, and yet, no moral evil toward other humans. Ain’t life wonderful? Of course, directly creating everyone into heaven (do not pass “Go”, do not collect “200 dollars” as in Monopoly) would be an even better solution, in my opinion.

 

[Vonsalza]

Now, if you wish to say that allowing or performing gratuitous evil acts is compatible with benevolence, then you just left the realm of rational behavior.

sigh
Yet another unsubstantiated, subjective “slippery slope” conclusion…
I hold that a creator that would degrade my will to behave as I wish would be identifiable as “non-benevolent”.

Mind you, I did not say that allowing any pain or suffering is evil, only that gratuitous pain and suffering is evil.

Good luck drawing that line of distinction objectively. I don’t think it’s possible.

Not at all. I did NOT say that there is an equivalence.

No, you didn’t explicitly label it as such. However, that’s irrelevant.

And if you wish to argue that the Holocaust was NOT gratuitous evil, then you have a very steep hill to climb.

Another example of your penchant for false equivalencies. A “free-will-er” is “pro-holocaust”? I’m starting to think you just don’t know how to identify them.

So what is the “sin” which we can perform, but it does not have a negative effect on other humans?

Some would argue that any sin further degrades existence and thereby affects all humanity through some spiritual butterfly effect.

But I would guess that negative behaviors towards one’s self would be the best example of what you’re asking for.

You got it, I hope. It is “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”.

Crud, I didn’t “get it”.

There is much debate as to what the quintessential “blasphemy” is. Folks in my camp would argue that it’s simply the refusal of turning to God - redeemable at absolutely any moment prior to one’s death.

Of course, directly creating everyone into heaven (do not pass “Go”, do not collect “200 dollars” as in Monopoly) would be an even better solution, in my opinion.

I think that’s your fundamental issue, based on this statement and the scores of other posts I’ve read from you elsewhere.

I think you need to “get a grip” on the notion that objective reality doesn’t depend in any way on our feelings. If there is a God, there’s absolutely no reason why that God would have to appeal to my sense of justice or reason. None at all.

Objective reality exists before you’re born, while you live and after you die. Its existence depends in no way at all on your personal feelings toward it.

I’m not going to try to materially prove the existence of God to you. We both know I can’t. But “I don’t agree with the administration” does not disprove the existence of the administration. Your fundamental thesis against the Christian God is thunderingly irrelevant.

It is the philosophical equivalent of a toddler thrashing on the ground because daddy said “it’s time for bed”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I hold that a creator that would degrade my will to behave as I wish would be identifiable as “non-benevolent”.

Would you, now? If God would have prevented the Holocaust, the Nazis might have complained that their “precious” free will to send to Jews into the gas chamber was violated. The Jews would have been grateful. Which side are you on? Do you support the torturer or the victim? (And this is NOT a rhetorical question!)

Good luck drawing that line of distinction objectively. I don’t think it’s possible.

Baloney. We do it all the time. When we see a child molester, we call him evil, because we know that the torture is not beneficial. When we see a doctor to administer a life-saving procedure, we know that it is not a gratuitous suffering (evil), even if the treatment is painful. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “evil is as evil does”. And also the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck… then we rightfully assume that it is a duck, and not an elephant in disguise”. We all do this, all the time, when it comes to evaluate the behavior of other humans.

The problem is that the believers are unwilling to use the same “yardstick” when it comes to God. Their attitude reminds me of this old sign:

Rule #1: The boss is always right.
Rule #2: In the case when the boss is wrong, refer to rule #1.

Another example of your penchant for false equivalencies. A “free-will-er” is “pro-holocaust”? I’m starting to think you just don’t know how to identify them.

The “unlimited free-will-er” is either pro-Holocaust, or does not give a damn either way. Definitely not AGAINST the Holocaust.

If there is a God, there’s absolutely no reason why that God would have to appeal to my sense of justice or reason. None at all.

In that case there is absolutely no reason to call that God “good”. But, of course, there is only ONE understanding of justice or reason. You just do not wish to apply it to God.

By the way, did you read the “tale of the twelve officers”? I would like to see your reaction to it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Would you, now? If God would have prevented the Holocaust… Which side are you on? Do you support the torturer or the victim? (And this is NOT a rhetorical question!)

No, but it is another false equivalency. And you seem incapable of seeing that despite the hand-holding I’ve provided.

Baloney. We do it all the time.

Not objectively, we don’t. At least not as individuals.

Tax evasion. Is that a “gratuitous” evil or just a “normal” one? How do you tell?

How about theft?

Drug dealing? To minors?

Murder? But, like, the murder of a really bad person!

And also the duck principle:

…Which immediately falls apart if you can identify at least one way in which it does not conform to a “duck”. :doh2:

The principle is useful in forming theories, guesses or hypotheses. It is not a suitable basis for establishing facts or conclusions.

The “unlimited free-will-er” is either pro-Holocaust, or does not give a damn either way. Definitely not AGAINST the Holocaust.

As I am a “free-will-er” that is against Holocausts, your false dichotomy is revealed as such.

That’s the elegant simplicity of philosophical “soundness”. It only requires one exception to fatally wound a premise. Unfortunately for you (and your genuinely silly assertion), I’m not the only exception. Far from it.

---

As we’ve established that your rhetoric is critically dependent upon all kinds of faults such as unproven axioms, false dichotomies and false equivalencies, I think I’ve found a reasonable stopping point.

If anything sticks with you, let it be this:
The reality or non-reality of God (or anything) appears to have no dependency whatsoever on anyone’s concession to it - including yours.

I surrender the floor.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If anything sticks with you, let it be this:
The reality or non-reality of God (or anything) appears to have no dependency whatsoever on anyone’s concession to it - including yours.

Since I never argued for or against God’s existence, this remark shows that you did not read or cared about what I said. I disagree with God’s goodness, but I have actual arguments against it. It is not an empty disagreement. You had your little summary, so I will have mine.

We all rely on the “duck principle”. It is expressed in the concept of “Justitia” (the goddess of justice), whose statue is depicted wearing a blindfold, while using a scale to measure the deed of the accused. It does not matter WHO committed (or permitted) the deed, be it Joe Psychopath or God, they are equally innocent or equally guilty (everything else being equal). The major problem for the apologists is that they refuse to realize that IF an act committed by a human and it is heinous, then the same act committed of permitted by God is equally heinous. God does not get a “special treatment”. To agrue otherwise is the well-known fallacy of “special pleading”.

We all rely on the concept of limiting the “free will” of the criminals. We put them into jail where their freedom will be limited or taken away. That is one of the fundamental pillar of our society. If and when education is possible, we forego the incarceration. Hopefully, sometime in the future we shall be able to change the mindset of the criminals, so they will be unwilling to commit crimes.

Your little questions about gratuitous evil are very telling. None of those actions can be evaluated due to the lack of information provided. It shows that actions cannot be separated from the circumstances, that everything needs to taken into consideration - contrary to what the catechism asserts.

You keep on identifying yourself as a “free will-er”, who is nevertheless against the Holocaust. That gives my a little hope that eventually you will realize that UNLIMITED “free will” is not the final “good”. Actually it is a very bad idea. The constructors of the driverless cars are on the right track, when they allow certain freedom of choosing the path and the speed of the cars, but make sure that the cars cannot be “totally free”, so they cannot cause accidents. That is what a good constructor does.

That’s the elegant simplicity of philosophical “soundness”. It only requires one exception to fatally wound a premise.

I agree, though it will not be useful for you. The premise that “God is good” falls apart when the zillions of counter examples - all visible here in this existence - are taken into consideration. As I said before, during the millennia none of the theologians or apologists could present a valid argument to solve the “problem of evil”. The fact that there are some believers who disagree only shows that they are unwilling to observe the evidence.

One more time I will direct your attention to the “tale of the twelve officers” (infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html) which provides a good summary against the different attempts to reconcile God’s alleged “goodness” with the actual state of affairs we can all plainly see.

Have fun with it.

Here is a very short excerpt:
“I thought about intervening,” said the first officer, “but it occurred to me that it was obviously better for the murderer to be able to exercise his free will than to have it restricted. I deeply regret the choices he made, but that’s the price of having a world with free agents. Would you rather everyone in the world were a robot? The attacker’s choices certainly weren’t in my control, so I can’t be held responsible for his actions.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As I am a “free-will-er” that is against Holocausts, your false dichotomy is revealed as such.

Too bad that God did not agree with you, and allowed the “free will” of the Nazis to prevail against the free will of the Jews. It was rather unpleasant for the Jews.

 

[PRmerger]

Apart from perhaps having a more open mind and considering new points of view, I do not think atheism leads to much positive. I am no expert, but if one purposely cuts oneself off from the divine, one loses out on much good (apart from God’s grace.)

More to the point, does a positive good come from atheism? Can one be an atheist and not eventually turn to nihilism and hedonism as philosophies?

I think atheism can produce something good: a love for truth.

If one is an atheist because he thinks it is the path of truth, then that is a good thing. He is an atheist because it is the only answer he sees to the questions of life.

Of course, he is wrong, and if he removes the blinders and pursues the truth to its logical conclusion, he cannot remain an atheist…

but to your question, the answer is yes, a good thing can come from atheism–pursuit of truth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

but to your question, the answer is yes, a good thing can come from atheism–pursuit of truth.

Unfortunately, some (not all) atheists decide not to pursue the truth.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think atheism can produce something good: a love for truth.

If one is an atheist because he thinks it is the path of truth, then that is a good thing. He is an atheist because it is the only answer he sees to the questions of life.

Of course, he is wrong, and if he removes the blinders and pursues the truth to its logical conclusion, he cannot remain an atheist…

but to your question, the answer is yes, a good thing can come from atheism–pursuit of truth.

What “truth” would that be? Scientism?

 

[PRmerger]

What “truth” would that be? Scientism?

Well, yes, in a sense. It leads to the idea that science is one way to answer questions about our world.

It leads to the idea that we should pursue truth and where it leads.

 

[Russell_SA]

Well, yes, in a sense. It leads to the idea that science is one way to answer questions about our world.

It leads to the idea that we should pursue truth and where it leads.

Curious about the undertone dismissal of the identity of “science” as a search for truth in this discussion. Could both sides explain what they think science is, what truth is, and why science may not be a plausible way to truth? Or are truth and science separate?

 

[PRmerger]

Curious about the undertone dismissal of the identity of “science” as a search for truth in this discussion. Could both sides explain what they think science is, what truth is, and why science may not be a plausible way to truth? Or are truth and science separate?

Oh, please be assured that there is no dismissal going on here.

It is indeed a plausible way to truth.

It’s simply not the ONLY way to truth.

Adding ONLYs to things is what fundamentalists do, peculiarly enough.