God is indifferent

[minkymurph]

The “only” trouble is that all these perceived benefits are the results of blind faith. There is no evidence of an afterlife. But blind faith can be reassuring. And since it is blind, it is impervious to falsification.

Many people prefer this kind of faith compared to the harsh reality. Personally, I prefer the reality. But each 'is own.

Forgot to say in that last post we are now back to our original positions.

If one prefers blind faith to harsh reality then one is either making a voluntary choice. I have also encountered those who believe in God that are realists to a greater extent than those who don’t. This is based on the fact I have encountered radical atheists who not only believe it is possible to rid the world completely religion, but that it will happen. In my view these beliefs, and they are beliefs, are not realistic.

They also believe the resulting society will not be synonymous with historical and current examples of atheistic societies. In my view this is not possible. I personally believe the only way an atheistic society could be established would be through dictatorship. Any ‘utopia’ can only be established through dictatorship and I would describe an atheistic society as ‘utopia.’ Communist Russia, Mao Tse Tungs China and Pol Pots Cambodia are historical examples, and North Korea is contemporary example. I have heard radical atheists say these are extreme examples and they are correct, but they are the only examples that to date we have. I also believe atheism is vulnerable to radical individualism that produces a society of individuals that are self serving, self absorbed, and at worst narcissistic.

My minor was politics and I in conjunction with a co-author we are working on a book that argues what we have termed ‘autopia’ (neither utopia nor dystopia) is the most preferable state. One reason being and a utopia will inevitably create a parallel dystopia and yes - we do produce evidence. It is centered on Northern Ireland and one of the arguments we make our beliefs (or in fact lack of them) are intrinsically linked with our identity and sense of self, and also the position we occupy in our immediate community and society in general. For this reason they are not readily overturned as to overturn them would require us to in effect become another person and member of another community. If you are interested PM me as we both come to the work with bias, and we are also seeking to establish those with conflicting and contrasting views - my co-author is Protestant and a unionist, can actually formulate a code for society without having to give up who they are or sacrifice what they believe - or in your case don’t believe.
We have not been successful in getting an atheist on board due to the fact we don’t know any atheists that would have the desire to make a positive contribution or in fact be capable of it. Many atheist’s here would call themselves ‘Protestants’ and ‘Catholics’ for reasons I have eluded to.

There are times in my life when I have chosen to believe in God. One reason is Peter Ustinov once said, ‘The pessimist may be right in the end but the optimist has a better time on the trip.’ In my view the atheist may be right in the end but the believer has a better time on the trip.

This is based on my personal observations and personal experience. If on my death I find there is no God or He is indifferent, I will be no worse off. At present, there is not much I am compelled to deny myself as a result of my belief. If I did not believe in God or believed He was indifferent I would be relieved of current obligations and responsibilities I feel towards my fellow man and society in general. Go in peace.

 

[minkymurph]

As a last general comment, the atheists I know and some prominent atheists consistently make statements such as; I despise religion, I can’t stand religion, I hate religion.’ I don’t think any rationale person could conclude where despising, hating and can’t standing underpins anything it is healthy and can produce good in society. The assertion, ‘It is true’ does not make the ‘it’ any more attractive.

Indifference can’t produce very much.

It cannot be demonstrated irrevocably and conclusively God does not exist or is indifferent. If one is uncertain as to what is true, what is underpinned by healthier sentiments and can be calculated to produce the better result is in my view the better option.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If one prefers blind faith to harsh reality then one is either making a voluntary choice.

Sure, but that is NOT a choice of WHAT one believes, it is a choice of what one prefers.

Indifference can’t produce very much.

Indifference is not necessarily “catholic”.

It cannot be demonstrated irrevocably and conclusively God does not exist or is indifferent.

Could you say that it cannot be demonstrated irrevocably and conclusively that “married bachelors” do not exist? In the inductive system we call the physical world it is usually impossible to demonstrate something irrevocably and conclusively. It is sufficient to demonstrate something beyond “any reasonable doubt”.

 

[minkymurph]

Sure, but that is NOT a choice of WHAT one believes, it is a choice of what one prefers.

Indifference is not necessarily “catholic”.
Vera_Ljuba;14506895:

Could you say that it cannot be demonstrated irrevocably and conclusively that “married bachelors” do not exist?

Absolutely not - there’s one lives in my house. I call him my husband.

Seriously, I don’t understand your comment.

In the inductive system we call the physical world it is usually impossible to demonstrate something irrevocably and conclusively. It is sufficient to demonstrate something beyond “any reasonable doubt”.

In a civil court the balance of probability is sufficient.

‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ is the criminal burden of proof, and the reason why only 10% of prosecutions for rape in my jurisdiction end in conviction.

Prosecutors in my jurisdiction always tell complainants in rape case if a ‘not guilty’ verdict is returned this does not mean the jury does not believe them. It means the required standard of proof has not been reached.

 

[tonyrey]

Vera_Ljuba;14506895:

Could you say that it cannot be demonstrated irrevocably and conclusively that “married bachelors” do not exist?

Absolutely not - there’s one lives in my house. I call him my husband.
If it’s **your **house it’s more likely he’s a visitor - or a servant…

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s start with the hypothesis that God exists. Let’s also stipulate that God created the world, and he has the power and knowledge to make it whatever he wants.

Looking around the world as it is, we can conclude that God is neither benevolent, nor malevolent. There is both good and bad in the world…
Based upon this, observed world there is no sign which would point to a beneficial God, or a malevolent God. The only rational conclusion is that God is indifferent, if exists at all.

If God is indifferent or non-existent the only rational conclusion is that there is **neither good nor bad **in the observed world. The OP is incoherent…:whacky:

 

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;14507227:

If it’s **your **

house it’s more likely he’s a visitor - or a servant…

Ok I’ll rephrase on the ground I am the visitor and the servant.

There’s one living in the same house in which I reside.

 

[minkymurph]

If God is indifferent or non-existent the only rational conclusion is that there is **neither good nor bad **in the observed world. The OP is incoherent…:whacky:

I think it could be argued it would not be the only rationale conclusion that there is neither good nor bad in the observed world, but the good and bad would be subjective, subject to individual interpretation, and there would be no collective agreement on what constitutes good or bad. As I understand this is what Vera perceives to be a benefit of either not believing in God or He is indifferent may be interpreted. Not sure how a society composed of individuals who have no collective sense of good, decide what is good and bad only in accordance with their own individual perceptions, teach their children to do the same, and restrain ‘bad’ - whatever bad is - through sole reliance on the notoriously unreliable kindness of the heart. I’m sure someone who has this vision of society could describe how it would function, but it’s beyond my capacity to do so.

 

[Vonsalza]

…Not sure how a society composed of individuals who have no collective sense of good, decide what is good and bad only in accordance with their own individual perceptions, teach their children to do the same, and restrain ‘bad’ - whatever bad is - through sole reliance on the notoriously unreliable kindness of the heart…

Absolutely.

I think it would be good if we stripped those foul Kulaks of their ill-gotten property and used it to provide for the millions of gentile working-class people that we are obligated to serve!

6 million dead Ukrainians later…

See what a good idea that was!

-Comrade Joseph Stalin

 

[minkymurph]

Absolutely.

I think it would be good if we stripped those foul Kulaks of their ill-gotten property and used it to provide for the millions of gentile working-class people that we are obligated to serve!

6 million dead Ukrainians later…

See what a good idea that was!

-Comrade Joseph Stalin

A fundamental characteristic of a democracy is freedom of religion. Take that freedom away and the result is dictatorship. That is a fact, and a fact history has repeatedly demonstrated.

 

[inocente]

I think it could be argued it would not be the only rationale conclusion that there is neither good nor bad in the observed world, but the good and bad would be subjective, subject to individual interpretation, and there would be no collective agreement on what constitutes good or bad.

No one thinks that though, except for a few who say God allows evil to produce a greater good. According to them, we see evil only because we can’t see the bigger picture.

According to them, the Holocaust only seems evil, but in reality a loving God allowed the slaughter of six million so that a greater good would flow from it, a greater good beyond our intelligence to comprehend. According to which all is permissible in the name of the greater good.

Only those (hopefully few) religious fanatics claim bad is good. Everyone else, theist and atheist alike, “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness” (Romans 2).

 

[minkymurph]

No one thinks that though, except for a few who say God allows evil to produce a greater good. According to them, we see evil only because we can’t see the bigger picture.

According to them, the Holocaust only seems evil, but in reality a loving God allowed the slaughter of six million so that a greater good would flow from it, a greater good beyond our intelligence to comprehend. According to which all is permissible in the name of the greater good.

What I was eluding to is by and large the average atheist does not argue there is neither good nor bad in the observed world. Quite the opposite - they often argue religion is the cause of all the worlds evils. I have also come across the argument on an atheist forum any cause of evil other than religion is irrelevant. My interpretation of this would be we can legitimately ignore any cause of evil other than religion which is somewhat scary.

This being the case it is not the only rationale conclusion an atheist would draw, but I can see where tonyrea is coming from. If God does not in fact exist what is to prevent us from rationally concluding nothing of itself is either good or bad?

Only those (hopefully few) religious fanatics claim bad is good. Everyone else, theist and atheist alike, “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness” (Romans 2).

Law and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human. We believe these elements were incorporated into nature by God. I don’t if the atheist would agree law and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human and they are free to argue they are not. If they do, I have no doubt they have their reasons as why this should be the case but it is up to them to state those reasons as I personally do not know what they are.

 

[inocente]

What I was eluding to is by and large the average atheist does not argue there is neither good nor bad in the observed world. Quite the opposite - they often argue religion is the cause of all the worlds evils. I have also come across the argument on an atheist forum any cause of evil other than religion is irrelevant. My interpretation of this would be we can legitimately ignore any cause of evil other than religion which is somewhat scary.

This being the case it is not the only rationale conclusion an atheist would draw, but I can see where tonyrea is coming from. If God does not in fact exist what is to prevent us from rationally concluding nothing of itself is either good or bad?

My experience is different - I’ve never met an atheist who says he doesn’t know good from bad. Anyone who genuinely says he can’t tell good from bad needs psychiatric help. He’s a psychopath or something.

What atheists have said to me is that what they judge bad may differ from what another thinks is bad. Which is how it seems to be. We all think the Holocaust is bad, but we differ on whether condoms are bad.

And in Romans 2, Paul doesn’t say the law is written on their hearts, he says the requirements of the law are written on their hearts. We are moral agents with a conscience, not rule books. We must obey the requirements of the law, our conscience, not slavishly obey orders.

As to whether religion or atheism is the cause of all evils, imho only fanatics argue that we are not all human with the same human nature.

Law and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human. We believe these elements were incorporated into nature by God. I don’t if the atheist would agree law and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human and they are free to argue they are not. If they do, I have no doubt they have their reasons as why this should be the case but it is up to them to state those reasons as I personally do not know what they are.

There’s another thread running at the moment where atheists are arguing that conscience is a fundamental part of human nature, and a Catholic is arguing they are wrong.

 

[minkymurph]

What atheists have said to me is that what they judge bad may differ from what another thinks is bad. Which is how it seems to be. We all think the Holocaust is bad, but we differ on whether condoms are bad.

Perhaps that’s because atheism does not embrace a common good and is individualistic.

There’s another thread running at the moment where atheists are arguing that conscience is a fundamental part of human nature, and a Catholic is arguing they are wrong.

Can’t comment - haven’t seen the thread other than:

Catholics don’t always agree with each other. Protestants don’t always agree with each other. Atheists don’t always agree with each other.

Catholics don’t always agree with everything their Church teaches. Protestants don’t always agree with everything their Church teaches.

Sometimes Protestants agree with Catholics but will not concede they do and vice versa, and sometimes atheists and those who believe in God agree but will not concede they do.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it could be argued it would not be the only rationale conclusion that there is neither good nor bad in the observed world, but the good and bad would be subjective, subject to individual interpretation, and there would be no collective agreement on what constitutes good or bad. As I understand this is what Vera perceives to be a benefit of either not believing in God or He is indifferent may be interpreted. Not sure how a society composed of individuals who have no collective sense of good, decide what is good and bad only in accordance with their own individual perceptions, teach their children to do the same, and restrain ‘bad’ - whatever bad is - through sole reliance on the notoriously unreliable kindness of the heart. I’m sure someone who has this vision of society could describe how it would function, but it’s beyond my capacity to do so.

Because it couldn’t and wouldn’t function successfully! If morality depends solely on each individual’s opinion it is worthless. If there is no rational basis for deciding who is right and who is wrong it becomes a matter of taste rather than a categorical imperative - and unChristian into the bargain. Jesus didn’t leave us to formulate our own moral principles but gave us clear instructions based on universal love: for God, for His creatures and for ourselves.

 

[minkymurph]

Perhaps that’s because atheism does not embrace a common good and is individualistic.

Can’t comment - haven’t seen the thread other than:

Catholics don’t always agree with each other. Protestants don’t always agree with each other. Atheists don’t always agree with each other.

Catholics don’t always agree with everything their Church teaches. Protestants don’t always agree with everything their Church teaches.

Sometimes Protestants agree with Catholics but will not concede they do and vice versa, and sometimes atheists and those who believe in God agree but will not concede they do.

Forgot to add - sometimes we misrepresent what another has said unintentionally, and sometimes we do it intentionally.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;14509679:

Ok I’ll rephrase on the ground I am the visitor and the servant.

There’s one living in the same house in which I reside.

Then if God is indifferent both of you seem to be made in His image and likeness.

 

[minkymurph]

Because it couldn’t and wouldn’t function successfully! If morality depends solely on each individual’s opinion it is worthless. If there is no rational basis for deciding who is right and who is wrong it becomes a matter of taste rather than a categorical imperative - and unChristian into the bargain. Jesus didn’t leave us to formulate our own moral principles but gave us clear instructions based on universal love: for God, for His creatures and for ourselves.

I agree it couldn’t and wouldn’t function successfully.

 

[minkymurph]

Then if God is indifferent both of you seem to be made in His image and likeness.

You may have a point.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14511359:

minkymurph;14511354:

Law and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human. We believe these elements were incorporated into nature by God.

There’s another thread running at the moment where atheists are arguing that conscience is a fundamental part of human nature, and a Catholic is arguing they are wrong. :shrug:Can’t comment - haven’t seen the thread other than:

Catholics don’t always agree with each other.

When you said “We believe”, I thought you meant Catholics.