thejediknighthusezni said:
Wow, atheist types really get hung up on "proof" and "evidence".
Is it to be assumed that such proof and evidence have no place in the mind of the believer? If so, how might a believer properly choose his/her faith from among the many of the world?
You could have placed a video taped security record of the murders in front of the OJ Simpson jury and they wouldn't see it.
If someone yells "Hey! A bus is coming around the corner and will RUN YOU OVER!!!" How much evidence would you need to get out of the road?
Might this not depend on the consequences for vacating this empty street? If, in so vacating, one is forced to leave behind all of one's worldly possessions (presumably in this case conveniently packaged into one trunk of questionable construction) is the lack of sound associated with the lack of sight of said bus likely to play a greater or lesser role than it might had they only to delay their crossing for a few moments more?
To clarify, is not the call of the theist to convert more akin to an individual being cautioned never to cross the road again? What then to do if they might happen to live on the other side?
The objective of governance is not to achieve absolute proof. It is to achieve optimal conditions of pleasantness and decency for the individuals subject to it's jurisdiction.
It isn't enough to hope that people will behave of their own accord. people will quickly imagine "justifications" for anything. People require fear of judgement from an undeniable power.
This is possible...however if so, might such a view potentially contrast with an understanding of free will? For might one's will be potentially free if one is warned of certain destruction should one desist in freely complying with the will of the potential destroyer?
Atheism fosters the idea that there is no inescapable ultimate power.
Aside from death, presumably...
Alternately, with no ultimate reward for earthly actions or religious fervor, is the atheist commonly to be discovered plotting self-explosive retaliation against an enemy seen to be insulting a vengeful deity?
The great totalitarian tyrannies of the 20th Century were essentialy atheist.
Middle-Eastern regimes notwithstanding, naturally...(and was not Hitl--no, never mind)...
Of course, not all forms of theism are created equal.
To identify a form of belief that can be utilized for positive governance, it would have to display certain features:
It must provide a reason to greatly fear the judgement of acts that defeat the purposes of "governance", as opposed to tyranny. It must authorize earthly agencies to enforce the universal principals of Civil Law, while insisting that tyrants bear NO authority to impose their lawless will. It must authorize individuals to defend themselves, their families and their neighbors from outlaw powers. It would not bring discredit upon itself by suggesting that the ultimate power needs to be protected and promoted through violence. It must consistantly promote all that tends to create the strongest and happiest human societies.
Is this to be interpreted as a suggested new religion or might you have discovered one that readily ascribes to the above?
"Absolute Proof" would defeat the purposes of a Creator who wishes to test the character of his creations.
If said Creator might be described as all-knowing, why might He require proof of that which He knowingly created?
Further, if equally considered all-powerful, is it possible that He might willingly have manufactured a rebellious/defective creation? If so why might He have placed blame for said defect upon it? If not, is it to be considered likely that He was incapable of preventing its manufacture?
Keep crying for absolute proof and you will see the type of characters who don't give a damn about that sort of thing holding ABSOLUTE POWER over you and everyone for whom you care most.
Are not all rulers most keenly interested in the retention of power? Do they not use whatever means might avail themselves, be it through acts of real, physical, or imaginary intimidation to retain power?
If so, why might a just and loving god seemingly behave akin to an earthly dictator jealous to maintain power? If it may be considered unlikely that He might fear an uprising, might His threatened punishments be considered real and perhaps carried out merely to pass the time? Or, if false, contrived that He might encourage His people with a great degree less effort than required of a more positive and patient regimen?