surreptitious57 wrote:
I think that an omnipotent God would not let insults bother him. And I think that an omnibenevolent one would forgive his blasphemers
Well, then what do you make of this:
(Jesus said:) "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm going to stand with his word on the subject, rather than with anyone's wish to the contrary.
You claim that interpretations of justice vary making objective justice impossible to determine. But the same can be said with regard to religious interpretations of justice. But it has to exist in one form or other as the alternative is no justice at all and this leads to anarchy.
I don't hear anything here with which I would disagree. I think we both realize that there is no substitute for *real* justice, whatever that concept might be. The difficulty only comes when one asks, "But which conception is right?"
Fortunately for us, the situation is not nearly so difficult as is sometimes imagined. God has spoken concerning that.
You tried to equate atheism with Communism but that is a false equivalence because atheism is not an ideology
This is an example of a half-truth. In point of fact, there are
two ways Atheists talk, both modelled earlier in this strand. And they represent two distinct ways of promoting Atheism. They are as follows:
Type 1 -- "Thin" Atheism. This is the kind of which you speak. Its proponents all insist that Atheism is not an ideology, because all it stands for is skepticism about God(s). But this begs an important question: is "thin" Atheism based on facts and evidence, or on nothing at all? If it's the latter, then Atheism is truly "thin," meaning it cannot be criticized for not having the evidence or facts that it does not claim to have. However, it is also trivial in the extreme, being by their own account, merely an expression of the taste preference of people who confess their actual ignorance on the subject. How then can it be an intellectual option?
But if Atheism is in any way a
rational belief, then it is not "thin": it must have some evidentiary basis. This would then make it
Type 2, "Thick Atheism." This type claims to be founded on reasons and evidences, at the very least, and sometimes even to warrant epistemological positions (like Naturalism or Scientism) and even moral ones (like, say, the universal "good" of being an Atheist).
Now,"thick" Atheism proposes to make its case on facts, evidence and logic. But if it does so, then it can be expected to
produce the relevant facts, evidence and logic to justify itself, no? However, "thick" Atheism has a heck of a job to do that, for by any account, the evidence is at least equivocal, if not (as I would maintain) rather heavily against Atheism. By no means is the "thick" Atheist able to make his case rational: and indeed, that was the very reason that "thin" Atheism was attractive in the first place -- that it appeared to free the Atheist from having to make any rational case. Now it seems he'll have to, or risk being rightly regarded as holding his (dis-)belief on merely trivial grounds like preference and taste.
What Atheists need to do, if they admire rationality and consistency, is to pick one of these horses and ride it. Jumping madly back and forth whenever it suits them inevitably puts them in conflict with reason, and lands them in the drink.
Thick or thin? Which is it?
I favour a secular society over an atheist one any way since it is more free. Rather like the one in which you live
I favour a secular society to, but for different reasons. Like Locke, I believe in the Theistic primacy of free conscience, and would not (to parrot Locke) "have men forced to Heaven." So that means I must grant all men and women the option to choose the creed by which they will live and die -- including Atheism.
But what warrant is their for such tolerance in Atheism? It's simply not there. The "thin" Atheists will tell you that Atheism has no content relative to such subjects, and "thick" Atheists will find they cannot rationally connect mere "disbelief in God" with any values at all. Either way, Atheism isn't any contributor to the free society: in fact, you'll find that the most-free societies are Western, Post-Christian ones...like the one you live in.
Atheist societies...there have been some: which one of them would you now hold up as a paragon of freedom, equality and civic virtue?
...Ideas are emotionally neutral concepts...
Only philosophers could ever think so.
I'm going to side with Richard Weaver, the author on this one, whose famous book is titled, "Ideas Have Consequences," and with this thought, offered by one well-qualified to know:
"The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment or, as the Nazi liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil.' I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared, not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."
-Viktor Frankl, Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor
As I am an apatheist and so my position is one of neutrality or indifference
Since when does "apathy" require a defense? Surely truly "apathetic" people have no opinions on the relevant subject -- they ignore it. Yet here you are, apparently finding you're not quite as "apathetic" on the subject of God as you profess; for you wish at least to
discuss your position, if not argue fairly passionately for it.
