Ask afleitch

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My position is that evidentially I can see no reason to believe in the existence of a god as a point in itself, yet even if I was to assume a 'first cause', why should I invest any time in thinking about it?

Why should you not?  Now, I suspect your actual personal experience in thinking about it isn't quite as non-existent as you've portrayed it in this thread.  You just never found a "first cause" that you found personally satisfying.  Not that I think there needs to be a first cause, since that idea itself assumes a somewhat anthropomorphized Divine which experiences time in the same fashion as us humans, just on a vaster scale.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I hinted at before, there is probably far less to be ‘lost’ (if the deity is capricious) in holding the  position I do (though it is not the reason that I hold it) If we assume that there is a god and that this god is in the Christian mould, then if a tendency towards non-belief is simply a neutral trait (as in it tends to be more resilient in some people more than others), then the person who does not believe in god because his faculties do not direct him to that path is not in error. However if non-belief is the surest way to damnation in whatever literal and metaphorical sense that may be, then if that assumption is correct then non-believers have been created simply to be damned. This is not a new philosophical problem by any means and I know that it is not necessarily a position that you yourself would hold. Contrary to this, if holding a position of belief is also neutral then this position wouldn’t necessarily curry additional favour with god. So what is the believer to do? The believer simply not bothering to seek out god (prayer, meditation, worship etc) is contrary to how they were ‘made’ (given that they have some sense of the spiritual and are receptive to it), and such inaction could be contrary to the will of god. However an over eagerness towards seeking god could lead the believer to believe things or do things also contrary to god. So the pursuit of god by the believer seems to be set with potential pitfalls despite the believers being endowed with the potential to ‘taste’ the divine. For the non-believer passivity towards god is also a neutral position. Should the non-believer seek knowledge of the world; of the empiric and measurable, then if these are also predefined by god then a non-believer who is observing the definable and measurable is on safer ground as opposed to the believer observing the ‘truth’ but one that is tantalisingly difficult to define.

Of course, all that assumes that God is more interested in us reaching a particular destination than in us taking the journey.  If the destination is what is important and one is unable to discern the correct destination, then non-action is just as viable a course as any other, but what if the journey is what matters?  Do you think your current life activities and musings are sufficient to count as a "journey"?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think your current life activities and musings are sufficient to count as a "journey"?

A journey to where and to whose standard? Whatever journey I'm on, it's no longer my own anyway, once you start sharing your life with someone. And if the journey is what's important in terms of faith, then there's a lot of assholes sharing that road! If being on The Road is more important to god than what conclusions I reach without caring much about a set path, then I regret nothing.

I think I know you better than to believe you think good and evil are irrelevant.  Still, that does leave the definition of "what is good".  So let's start with that old, yet most important, chestnut.

        What is good?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So wait; everyone else gets 'what does your church do' and 'how do you worship' and I get 'what is good?'

It is rather pointless to ask 'what does your church do' unless you are part of an organized group.  Similarly, wouldn't it be ridiculous to ask an atheist how they worship, especially when you've already made clear you don't see the value in engaging in Pascal's Wager?  I suppose I could ask what sort of meditative or reflective practices you engage in, but that doesn't particularly interest me since I'm far more interested in intent than form when comes to these sorts of issues, in part because I think the Divine is concerned far more about intent than in form, and that to the degree the Divine is concerned about form it is solely because of the effect form may have on intent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I note that your apparent definition of good, enlightened self-interest, is precisely the definition I would use for evil.  (Yes, pure capitalism is evil.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I get that you don't hold to the concept of absolutes, so on to the next question, or actually a pair of questions.

What is your definition of evil?

Must evil by definition be "ungood" or is it possible for an action to be simultaneously good and evil?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If I don't hold to the concept of absolutes on the question as to what is 'good', why would I hold a different position on what is 'evil?' (which I consider too strong a word anyway)

I wasn't expecting you to hold a different position.  Indeed, it would be bizarre if you did.  But even tho you don't believe in an absolute definition of evil, I was still expecting you to have a working definition for your own everyday use, if only because society in general makes much of the concepts of good and evil.