The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The truth about 'serious atheism' > Comments

The truth about 'serious atheism' : Comments

By Graham Preston, published 27/11/2017

Now, if it is correct that there is no God, then certain things logically follow: these things are so regardless of whether any particular atheist believes them or not.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. All
Graham, thank you for inviting an extended discussion of my article about the serious atheist. Firstly, dictionary definitions of atheism or god are not useful. My point, in many of my articles, is that the word “god” is empty if it stands for an abstract notion of the existence of a supernatural being that may exist or not. In order to understand what Christians mean when they talk about god one must abandon all notions derived from speculative or mythological meaning. This the why the Christian understanding of God differs from all other discourse. If you read me closely, you will see that I have more in common with atheists than with perhaps the great majority of Christians. God is not a being at all. God is revealed in the meaning of historical events whose power clings to us through the ages. This god is the inverse of the classical Greek notion or any other religious notion for that matter. This is a god revealed where we would least expect (Him) to be, in the dereliction of the cross, a scandal for the religious. It is just too easy to take a dictionary definition of god or the common, or garden variety of religious belief to righteously assert one’s atheism.
Posted by Sells, Monday, 27 November 2017 2:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Secondly, the accusation of an assertion being merely subjective portrays a false epistemology that only recognises objective truths, those that are associated with evidence that anyone can see. Most of the truths that form our lives are subjective. They are born out of interpretations of experience and in no way can be called objective. My article on scientism may be useful here. A vision of the common good may indeed be subjective and still be a truthful view. I find your relativism unbelievable since it leads the elimination of judgements we make every day of our lives. I agree that the universe has no inherent meaning as if it was created for a purpose. But human beings do long for real things like peace and love and plenty and freedom etc.

Thirdly, I think your “faith” in a deterministic universe is overblown. The argument for this is hopelessly circular. Our experience is of being able to direct our actions according to our thoughts. But of course, the counter argument is that this is an illusion for which there is no counterargument. Philosophers have dined out on radical scepticism for centuries and it has led nowhere
Posted by Sells, Monday, 27 November 2017 2:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article - and excellent response too, Peter.
I find myself in agreement with you both!

I think that you both just look at reality from two different angles:
Is there anything in fact which you two disagree on?

What I do suggest in order to keep this discussion at its current high quality level, is to concentrate on the important questions, such as morality, how we ought to behave and what we ought to aspire to - and leave aside distracting and inconsequential questions which are only there for the purpose of feeding materialistic curiosity, mind-games and jokery, such as whether and how this world came about or whether God exists.

There is no principle difference between one who happens to opine that "God exists" and another who happens to opine that "God does not exist". Therefore, rather than discussing "serious atheism", why not discuss seriousness itself?!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 27 November 2017 3:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, the answer to the age old 'what is the meaning of life' question doesn't look like being answered anytime soon.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 27 November 2017 4:25:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only place without evidence of God is in politics, insanely indifferent politicians, the rich and powerful, organised crime and pulpit pounding fanaticism!

Simply put, I cannot look at a night sky and the billions of stars, which number more than there are grains of sand on the beaches of the world and believe there isn't a creative force, a creator and purpose.

I mean many stars had to die and be reborn countless times, just to create the matter we humans are made of or breathe. And in absolutely perfectly timed sequence.

The odds of chance or serendipity creating something as complex as a human being in a billion years or so, just doesn't stack up, given had there been that vast primordial soup? There would have been vast deposits of nitrogenous coke. Rather than their complete absence.

And there'd be better odds of a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard and creating a fully functional flyable 747, than chance and a few one celled organisms, so organising themselves as to create something vastly more complex!

A living breathing human being motivated by the whole gamut of human emotions.

Nor do I buy a now scientifically disgraced big bang theory. Given if true, the universe, would be now slowing down instead of accelerating.

From nothing you get nothing and it you can't believe in a creative force with power and purpose, then as the only other choice, is even more improbable magic!

Self serving politicians and some of their more asinine decisions may make it harder to believe in God? Only made unbelievable by prevaricating politicians and special vested interest!

Little wonder more than a few a turning their face away from a Creator and the decent fair play that would compel!

And by creator in no way shape or form, should that be read as church! But rather, led by example, Christ's golden code!

Not from words/man made invention, pounded into a pulpit!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 27 November 2017 5:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Discuss 'seriousness'. Late Latin seriosus, from Latin serius .
"weighty, important, grave," probably from a PIE root *swer- "heavy". Sells lends weight to atheism which is non-spirit being , absence of weightlessness. Lack of un-weighty ( the non-almighty ) is serious non-non-existence of Buddhists and is grave , itself an absence of soil for the non-living who lose weight after prayers by serious well-fed important vocalists of hot air.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 27 November 2017 5:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy