Well, a creator God could do whatever. That God would be an objective and absolute authority on what is just. If said God doesn’t exist, then “just” is merely subjective and it becomes a matter of personal preference.
1 Like
Interesting perspective, as it often seems that it is non-believers who find certain religious ideas about what happens when we die to be horrifying. See the exchange about hell. As a believer death in an godless universe isn’t frightening. You won’t know it actually happened. And, you get away with whatever evils (which really doesn’t exist anyways) you were never held to account for.
1 Like
Believers find it horrifying too. That’s why they obey God’s rules.
Then, isn’t that a matter of coming to believe in the harder road to travel, so to speak? And not an easier way to deal with something (the prospect of death) we don’t want to face?
To a non believer it would probably be the harder path. To the believer it would be the easier one, as you don’t need to rely on internal measures to define the universe/how they should act.
Imo religion was invented more to control the masses instead of needing there to be ‘more’. Creating the concept of heaven/hell were ways of forcing good behavior on Earth.
Then it would be fair to say that the non-believer also follows the least uncomfortable path.
That seems odd to me as a believer. Why would anyone think following internal measures would be the hard road? I eat when hungry. Remove my hand from too hot. If one is going by internal measures then that is the simplest path. Something uncomfortable to oneself? Remove it? Something more pleasurable? Pursue it. Isn’t a typical criticism of religion the cruelty/hardship of self-denial (rejection of internal measures)?
Heaven? Sounds pretty cool depending on what all happens up there. Videogames, pizza, candy, and naps would be my version.
Eternal torture in a lake of fire because you didn’t kiss the ring of the terrorist? Now that sounds horrifying. Especially when said terrorist “gave” me free will and a mind that rejected the conclusion of his/her existence because it didn’t make logical sense.
If hell is real I’m scared of it.
1 Like
Exactly. It would be easier for me to face an unknowing death without judgement for any action. I’m not a believer so that death becomes easier to face. Narrow is the way. I believe I can face eternal punishment. Or, that my loved ones might. Easier? Goodness no!
I’m not too scared of being judged for my actions, I’ve lived a pretty good life. I’m not certain of what happens when you die but I don’t think I’m being sent upstairs or downstairs. I just have a bad feeling I’m hanging out in that coffin in a slumber.
Maybe everyone gets into heaven though? That’d be pretty cool and all loving. Beats having a test the whole world takes and comes up with different answers.
I would agree.
Because you are more likely to be looked upon negatively for said measures. You obviously lose the ‘well God told me to’ excuse that has been prevelent for the majority of recorded history.
What happens when you make said decision and don’t have the backing of a billion+ people and religious protections to do so?
Edit Example: what happens when the bakery you run doesn’t serve gays. Not because God told you to, but because you just think they’re weird.
1 Like
Is “just” not subjective in any society that we’ve seen throughout history? Back in the day, it was “just” to sacrifice small children to the Sun. We perceive “justice” as the avenging of wrongdoing. However, if someone has not done anything wrong (according to his or her society’s standards); how can he or she face justice?
And by this reasoning, how could a Creator God possibly determine what “justice” is, when we have no premonitions or clues as to what his absolute definitions of right and wrong may be? If God is fair, how can this be? Are we then to say that God may determine what is fair and unfair? That is inherently unfair.
3 Likes
If just is subjective, then there is no inherently unfair. Nor is there an objective way to judge a religion’s god.
It’s funny, because in this scenario it is likely secularists who are opposing their fellow secularist’s ability to follow his internal measure.
The vast majority of the planet believes in a God of some kind. I’d say it’s unlikely that both the people in this example would be non believers.
I never said the baker isn’t religious. Just that his religion isn’t what’s telling him to be prejudiced against gays.
Seems to me his enemy in the scenario are still largely secularists.
Why? Because they’re gay? Plenty of gay people aren’t atheists. They just take the ‘dont hate people’ thing a LOT more seriously than many of their straight counterparts.
Why would you think secularists are the enemy in a scenario about a guy who won’t bake gays a cake and it’s explicitly said it’s not due to his religion?
Agreed.
Well, it’s largely secular people and reasons against him being able to follow his secular internal measure.
Secularism wouldn’t preach that he not hate gays. Secularism doesn’t preach anything, by it’s very concept, and can’t have an opinion on anything.
Not hating gays for being gay ACTUALLY sounds like a religious teaching. It’s just not really adhered to
How are religious people his enemy, in other words? Would they not be on his side, arguing that he should be able to follow his conscience?