'Evidence' or the 'lack of': The same journey

This is my first posting and I do not even know where this goes.My understanding however, from what i have contemplated, is that those who both love as well as reject God are equally drawn nearer to devinity. Those who continually ask the question, Is there a God? and those who say, There is not a God, are on an equal footing...because of where the mind is centered. An individual who is drawn into contemplation, to inquire and investigate the 'presence' or 'lack of' are embarking on the same journey....so where is the conflict in all of this.What I do wonder about is apathy. Where does that fit in?

Thread copied here from the 'Evidence' or the 'lack of': The same journey thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

What do you mean by divinity?
A - Closer to being God-like in a sense that God is the most important thing?
B - Closer to being virtuous in a sense that virtues (good, honest, loving, caring...) are more powerful then any God could ever be? The mind is centered on what?
A - Centered on idolizing "God?"
B - Centered on maximizing virtues (being a good person) that are more accessible to all people then any God imagined throughout history? The same journey to where?
A - Journey towards converting others to believe in God because He is God?
B - Journey towards spreading as much virtue (love, honesty, compassion...) throughout those we touch in our lives as possible? Apathy about what?Apathy about "A" answers? - Why should it matter if anyone is apathetic towards a God who isn't worthy of the name, or worship?Apathy about "B" answers? - The only people I know of who are apathetic towards virtues such as peace, love and honesty are criminals or insane. In both cases, I hope they are removed from society and given some help as fast as possible.The questions in your main paragraph all seem focused on the "B" type answers. However, your last question about apathy only makes sense to me if you're suddenly switching to thinking about God in the "A" type answer sense.Really, those who are apathetic towards God, yet still grow and develop virtuous lifestyles are simply cutting out some unneeded baggage so that they can focus more energy on that which really is important... virtues like loving our family and friends and doing what we can to help as many as we can.In which case, I feel that being apathetic towards God is only a good thing. That is, while there is no objectively verifiable evidence to point towards God being anything other than imagination. Once evidence like that exists, then honesty and curiosity would demand we give such things more respect. But, until that happens, being apathetic towards "God the concept" while pursuing a virtuous lifestyle is nothing more than a good, honest step in the right direction.It should be noted, however, than within our current social system, it is very easy to find yourself in a position (through peer pressure, or perhaps "personal experience") where believing in God (A-type) is the best path along the virtuous journey (B-type). In this situation, dumping God would cause one to dump the virtuous journey... in which case, dumping God would be a bad thing. It can be confusing And, by the way, Welcome to EvC! Have a look around, it's fun here Edited by Stile, : How rude of me, not saying hello to a first poster and all.

Does the actual existence of god play any role in your theory?

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

I think I get what lindsay is saying. If you say that you believe in God, and then you set out to try and prove that God exists, by doing so you will approach the truth about whether or not God really does exist. Similarly, if you say you don't believe in God and then set out to prove that God does not exist, in the process you will also approach the truth about God's existence. In that case, the actual existence (or nonexistence) of God does play a role in the theory: it is the absolute truth that both the believer and the nonbeliever are approaching by trying to confirm their beliefs.Apathy, then, would manifest itself in the person who says, "God does/doesn't exist. I know I'm right, so I won't try to confirm that what I say is true." By refusing to attempt to get closer to the truth, this person is not taking the same journey as the aforementioned believer and nonbeliever. And this is where the arguments start: a group of people with different beliefs, one or more of whom is apathetic about his or her beliefs, decide to just argue instead of mutually trying to find the truth and resolve their views.

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

The way I understood what Lindsay was saying was, both those who believe and don't believe had God in their mind, whether in a negative (existence) sense or a positive one. Having God in your mind is considered a good thing.Thise who are apathetic don't take a position, and thus don't consider gd at all. And this is considered bad.The thing is, most of us who are atheists would love to be apathetic toward god's existence, but the fundamentalists who are trying to force their beliefs on others force us to consider it and fight against it.

Well as Oni keeps pointing out.......Why is the existence of god even considered a question worthy of an answer?In principle I agree with him entirely. In terms of objective evidence we might as well be asking whether or not the immaterial toilet goblins who created the universe for fun and giggles and who now spend their time telepathically invoking religious experiences in humans for a laugh are worthy of belief.But in practise people do believe in gods and so the question of god's existence will be given more credence purely because some people believe it might be true.

The conflict, mostly, is not between folks who are "on the journey", but between those who feel that they have reached the conclusion, or close enough anyways, and those who have reached a very different conclusion.Edited by Aware Wolf, : No reason given.

Well, also because of the supposed relevance of the answer. God and the orbiting teapot might have exactly the same amount of evidence, but which one is going to impact you more, should it (He) turn out to actually exist. Pascal's wager has an emotional component that can be powerful.

The bottom line is that no matter whether or not you're willing to answer a question, you probably have some guess or opinion about what the answer is. And even if you lack the desire to find out whether your guess is correct, you're probably willing to defend that guess against other people with other guesses. And that's why this forum exists.

I think it is almost impossible not to consider God at all. If you live in modern civilization and interact with other people, at some point in your life these people are going to mention God to you. And if you live on top of a mountain a million miles away from any other human beings, there's a pretty good chance that one day your mind is going to turn to the concept of who created the world, whether there is any higher power watching over us, etc. Human beings by nature are inquisitive, and that is why they consider the concept of God.

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

On that basis I would have to adhere to every single conflicting requirement of every single deity to avoid every form of spiritual damnation humankind has ever conceived.You do know that unless you are shrouded head to toe in pink on every third Thursday of every month with the letter a in it that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn will damn you to hell?

Very few people consider their beliefs to be wholly unevidenced. And those that do end up with that as an enlightened end point, rather than a ignorant starting point, tend to be those who have evaluated the evidence and decided that faith is more important than evidence. In my EvC experience.

I was not aware of that, thanks. My point was that, logically or illogically, people think that the question of God's existance is important because they think it will affect them. I'm not saying they're right or logical or consistant.

Fair point.But my point is that as a result of this perceived importance even those who consider the question of god's existence no more or less valid than that of immaterial toilet goblins or the IPU are constantly required to justify our non-belief in that particular "absurdity".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.