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.

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

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?!

So, the answer to the age old 'what is the meaning of life' question doesn't look like being answered anytime soon.

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.

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.

If we are unfair in our assessment, then we will be off the mark in our conclusion. Atheists and nihilists probabley have many overlapping tones. Possibly a good chunk of atheists are nihilistic in their beliefs that nothing matters. But I think it's unwise to speeak for a group and exaggerate their logic. Atheism is wrong. The conclusion that God doesn't exist is wrong. Simply it's just not true. But if we exaggerate a person's logic, how will that point out their error?

Politicians/the often undeserving rich and powerful, have the power to change the world! Just by leading by compassionate example and the provision of clean cheap safe power and the clean always available water that power alone would both enable/guarantee!

The only subjective evidence of God and his/her purpose is in us and a few exceptional human beings, e.g., Gandhi, Mother Theresa and progressives conservatives like Disraeli Abe Lincoln and new deal, Roosevelt etc.

However, in many cases, opposed by vested special interest/resident evil!

Resident evil backs greed and suicidal policies such as coal fired power and such, which accelerates man made climate change!

And in the face of incontrovertible evidence, the economy would be vastly better served along with common humanity! By cleaner, cheaper, safer nuclear energy!

And used as it should be, like manna from heaven and something we can use to change the world for all time! And for the better!

And in so doing, do God's work here on this tiny speck of dust in the absolute vastness of the incomprehensible ginormous universe!

Can the universe or the unified field of energy it is, think, dream or love?

Well you and I can and we are an integral part of that unified field of energy, euphemistically referred to, as the known and unknown universe!

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but had to exist in some form as pure energy? Before the creation of the universe or unified field of energy!

When you or I think a thought there is a transfer of energy between one synapse of the brain and another! And none whatsoever in a once living corpse!

Why couldn't that thought form/energy also been the creator? And why couldn't the unified field of energy be part and parcel of it even if widely dispersed individualised divine sparks?

And so he created man in his own image, in his own image did he create him. When two or more gather in my name I am also there. As you do to the lest among you you also do unto me!
Alan B.

Why couldn't that thought form/energy also been the creator?

Sabine Becker - 2008 - ‎Science
.thorium was also detected in human brain samples (thin sections of hippocampus) and protein spots of human brain separated .
Thorium was the god of Vikings who took Saxon brain samples after Thor hammered them .

Humans have been inventing gods for a long time. They invented Zeus, Jupiter, Thor and the other ancient gods. Now many humans believe in the god of the Bible, the Koran, the Indian pantheon and other gods who have replaced the ancient deities. There is no more reason to assume their existence than the existence of the ancient deities. All gods are created in human minds and exist nowhere else.

You know, all this talk about atheism, is about as interesting as a bunch of spinach.
And did you know, you can boil a whole bunch of spinach down, to fit inside a 350ml container, in five minutes: Take note!

Jimmy Jones had a lovely balanced view on life, split between socialism, Christianity and outright debauchery, preached from the side of a Greyhound bus:Take note again.

I think God simply decided to let him go his own way in the end. Again take note!

Preston: Some may choose to include the golden rule and faithfulness to husbands and wives in their morality but in an atheistic universe they would not be doing anything wrong if they made up a morality that espoused greed and adultery instead.

Are you supposing that Atheists would be either on or the other. I think not. Most people are honest in the main with some personal deviation from time to time. If you think that an Atheist World would be just one Bacchanalian Party I think you are wrong. Or, maybe that’s what you would hope for. I’ve always found that the very people that are quick to accuse others of moral in-fortitude are the very people that are morally bankrupt. They are therefore everyone else is.

Preston: One cannot fail if there is no objective goal and one cannot be cruel if there is no objective moral standard.

Of course you can, as I said before most people have in innate high moral standard. To say otherwise is a reflection on ones’ own moral standard. If you have a high moral standard & fail has nothing to do with whether it is Religiously based or Atheistically based that is immaterial.
Cont.

Cont.
Preston: the serious atheist should recognise that an atheistic universe would be one that is fully determined, that is, one without any free will.
The laws of physics acting on physical matter would fully determine everything that a person thinks, says, and does and nothing could make it otherwise.
"The next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience did not bring into being"
The fact that we feel like we genuinely interact with each other must be nothing more than an extraordinary illusion.
and the wishful thinking that cannot cope with the stark realities of life."
But I forget, if everything is fully determined by the laws of physics acting on matter then we have no influence over how we feel about things or what we do about them anyway.

What garbage. An excuse for ones’ own lack of moral standards given half a chance. A very stupid Statement & wrong.

Preston: "Atheists are to be admired for their commitment to truth and their refusal of superstition, sentimentality.

Exactly.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«The conclusion that God doesn't exist is wrong.»

Well the conclusion that God exists is wrong because then one would think of Him as an object - only objects can exist and all objects are limited. Without God one could not even conceive of existence, so how could God possibly be limited by this existence which depends on Him to begin with?

---

Dear David,

«There is no more reason to assume their existence than the existence of the ancient deities.»

Yes there is, because to assume the existence of a particular deity, can be more beneficial for one person at a particular time and to assume the existence of some other deity can be more beneficial to another person at another time.

Assuming that a deity exists is a great technique, whereas its actual existence or otherwise is of no importance.

While some may be concerned about the actual existence of this or that, such concerns are irrational and when it comes to God - fruitless.

«All gods are created in human minds and exist nowhere else.»

No, they don't exist there either: all you can find in human minds are thoughts and thoughts after all, are just thoughts, not gods.

To Yuyustu,

[Well the conclusion that God exists is wrong because then one would think of Him as an object - only objects can exist and all objects are limited. Without God one could not even conceive of existence, so how could God possibly be limited by this existence which depends on Him to begin with?]

I'm sorry Yuyutsu, but this still sounds like a word game with some philosophy of what it means to be an object. Consider the reality of God. If God is real and everything depends on Him to exist, then by that very observation He exists. If God is not real then nothing depends on Him, and He doesn't exist. This isn't about conjuring the correct image or the complete reality of His being. We can all be wrong about who God is and what He is, but He is still there.

In the case of whether God is real or not, whether He exists or not; then the theists and the atheists can not both be right. My point that atheism is untrue, is simply that it is not true. In the same way of pointing out anything else that isn't true. But the main point I was trying to address is that, in my opinion, the exaggeration on what an atheist is doesn't do much to correct an atheist. All they have to do is say that the exaggeration is wrong, and often they will be right in that statement. It won't help in correcting the matter.

If the exaggeration is still true (a rarity but still does happen, like exaggerating how a person behaves now to how they will if they continue down the same path) then the exaggeration holds merit even though it stretches what is actually going on. Exaggerating beliefs doesn't ever seem to fit this rarity. I could be wrong on that. But so far I don't see it.

In the beginning nothing that was made, was not made, if not by him.

When we contemplate the wonderment that is the universe and everything in it, from the smallest grain of sand to the equally numerous stars!

What do we see? Nothing except energy that takes various forms as atoms literally vibrating just below the speed of light!

A universe in a grain of sand or eternity in a flower.

There is nothing in the entire universe that we can see, touch, feel or smell, or in any way perceive. That is not part of this eternally vibrating, unified field of energy. Nothing.

We cannot live or exist outside it, for if we did, we would simply cease to be.

We are created IN the image and likeness of God! As an integral part of all there is! And IN it! IN being the operative word.

Resident evil, also part of all there is, would have us believe we are just individuals, able to exist outside of the collective or unified field of energy! Were we able to do so, would simply cease to exist!

The lesson here folks is, we can all be happy doing for each other and in so doing, turn this place into a literal paradise, rather than ghettoised camps opposed to each other in an eternal quest for more!

We are not individuals and greed is not good.

But rather, we are a collective with vast power at our fingertips, just waiting for us to realise who and what we are! And our divine heritage as the sons and daughters of the universe! Or unified field of energy, or all this is!

So what are we waiting for? Let's get started and begin to turn this lifeboat planet, into the veritable paradise it could be, that we all can share!

I'm not saying we become an anthill, where no individualism is tolerated or venerated but rather.

United we stand, divided we fall.
Even though our backs are to the wall.
Together forever, you and I!
Alan B.

Holt Gas-Electric tank 1917 4-cylinder gasoline engine developing up to 90 horsepower as a generator to the two electric GEC track motors powering each track , the first true "tank" to be designed and constructed by and for the United States. Later technology used Thorium steam turbines of 370hp on each track providing 36 gallons drinking water per day . Fuel was recycled as depleted Thorium armour plate and fusion gun-ammunition.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We are up against the limitations of the human mind.
How can we speak of "the reality of God" when there is no reality but God!? The more I try to say, the more I find myself speechless.

«the exaggeration on what an atheist is doesn't do much to correct an atheist.»

When taking food we say: "God is the eater, god is the eaten, God is the process of eating".
Realness is nothing but God, existence is nothing but God - and it's not an exaggeration to say that atheists too are God.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your argument which you keep repeating is: "It's so because I say it's so".

' Your argument which you keep repeating is: "It's so because I say it's so".'

sounds exactly like man made global warming, the big bang and evolution fantasy made up by god deniers. Repeat the lie often enough and the dumbed down accept it. Certainly the god deniers are the least rational. One would need to flush their brains down the toilet to deny a Creator, a Designer and a Lawmaker.

Sells and Yuyutsu - sorry, but I find it difficult to interact with your comments because often I am not confident that I understand what you are saying.

One response I will make to Sells though is, I do not purport to be an atheist myself. What I wrote in my article is what I believe must follow if atheism (as I understand it as per the Oxford dictionary definition) is true.

I think that in a universe without God then absolute relativism in meaning and morals must prevail. There would be no objective standards of meaning or morals to measure anything against so all such beliefs anyone had about these are relative.

As far as determinism goes, I don't think it is a "faith" claim to say that in an atheistic universe there can be no free will. Rather it is a matter of logic. If all there is is atoms then everything just happens because of the laws of physics acting on atoms, not because we "choose" to do things for reasons.

Dear David,

Which particular argument of mine are you referring to? That God cannot exist because that would belittle Him? Are you claiming otherwise?

God is self-evident (though not his existence):
If you see anything - That's God.
If you hear anything - That's God.
If you smell anything - That's God.
If you think anything - That's God.
If you feel anything - That's God.
If you don't feel anything - That's also god.
You are - therefore God is!

The problem is that we have all kinds of notions of God being high-in-the-sky, whereas all you need to find God is to look into yourself.

The only consistent way to be an atheist, is to deny yourself. http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/who-is-atheist.html

---

Dear JP (the author, I presume),

«What I wrote in my article is what I believe must follow if atheism (as I understand it as per the Oxford dictionary definition) is true.»

According to the very narrow definition of that dictionary, I too would be an atheist. Note also that the Oxford's definition relies on the definition of 'God', which the dictionary does not and cannot provide.

«I think that in a universe without God then absolute relativism in meaning and morals must prevail.»

But then "a universe without God" is a nonsensical combination of words. A universe without recognition of God is of course not only possible, but also was the case more or less until humans appeared on earth. Morals however, are still the same whether one recognises them or otherwise.

«As far as determinism goes»

The concept of determinism is a result of taking the material world too seriously!

Dear Yuyutsu,

None of your arguments are based on evidence. They are just assertions of belief. Have a good day.

Graham your 'definition' of atheists is incorrect.
Atheism is not a belief that no gods exist.
It is a lack of acceptance of the claims made by people who say god does exist.

In a courtroom we dont decide if someone is innocent or guilty. We decide if they are guilty or not guilty. A big difference.
It is the same for atheists.
We are not saying "there is no god' just that theists have not met the burden of proof for their claims of a gods existance.
I have seen no evidence therefore it would be stupid of me to believe in a god until there is proof.
That is the atheist position and nothing else.

Therefore your whole article is rubbish and misleading.
You should concentrate on your own horrific beliefs and stop writing about things you know nothing of.

Dear JP,

I don't know whether Determinism or Free Will is valid. However, the laws of physics as currently understood do not support Determinism. Two of the greatest discoveries in physics in modern times are statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Both support a probabilistic rather than a deterministic universe

if people are to blinded by irationality that God exist it is even easier to see by human behaviour that the devil exist. No one could be as evil as to murder the unborn without the devils help could they?

david f

My (very limited) understanding is that statistical and quantum mechanics only have an influence at the micro level and Newtonian mechanics, which is deterministic, is what operates in everyday life.

More importantly though, that issue seems rather irrelevant to the primary matter under consideration. To have free will requires that human beings have some degree of control over what they do. If for whatever reason – be it due to statistical, quantum or Newtonian mechanics or whatever – humans have no control over what they think, do, and say, then they have no free will.

If there is no free will then things happen solely as a consequence of the laws of physics operating on atoms. In those circumstances we would not meaningfully communicate with one another on the basis of reason. We would just produce uncontrolled static and any apparent communication would be just an illusion.

Do you think that we are meaningfully communicating with one another now? I think we are. If so, then we must be in control of what we are writing and if that is true then there must be something more in this universe (and in us in particular) than just atoms that enables us to control what we do. There must be something other than, greater than, matter, something “super”natural in us. Perhaps this is what the soul is, does.

Planets communicate with their sun. " Just going around to the left a bit." "OK not too fast , you know it upsets the atoms ". "What atoms?" " Oh you know , gravity waves, isomers , time-warp , quantum leaps" . "no.."

To Yuyutsu,

[We are up against the limitations of the human mind.
How can we speak of "the reality of God" when there is no reality but God!? The more I try to say, the more I find myself speechless.]

There's a difference between acknowledging God, and understanding Him. Atheists don't acknowledge God, don't believe God is real. That isn't a deep perspective of what is real or a deeper perspective of what God is. It is a lack of acknowledgement. Honestly, I don't know why your defending the idea of atheism when you also believe in a concept of God.

[When taking food we say: "God is the eater, god is the eaten, God is the process of eating".
Realness is nothing but God, existence is nothing but God - and it's not an exaggeration to say that atheists too are God.]

Ok, we'll have to disagree on what God is. But for the moment let's ignore that and consider your view of God. If God is everything (both the eater, the eaten, and the process to eat), then your right that atheists also are part of that everything that God is. But that doesn't mean that their conclusions of God not existing is correct. They can still be in error and believe something that isn't true.

Does that make more sence?

As to our different views of God, one thing that we both probabley agree on is that God is greater then us and incomprehensible to a large degree. But where you would say that God is everything and that Existance is dependent on God; I would say that indeed everything is dependent on God, but God is not everything. He is the creator and sustainer of everything, but He is Holy and seperate. This is a different view then from God being the universal force, or if Him being a pandemic God. Though it shares the belief that everything comes from God, and only exist because God allows it.

Dear JP,

I think you are correct. Free will/Determinism is irrelevant to the laws of physics. I was arguing with a believer in determinism who incorrectly brought in the laws of physics. He assumed that matter behaved in a deterministic matter all the way down the atomic level. That is not your argument. He then resorted to the appeal to authority by pointing out eminent and bright people who believed in determinism.

Hume said reason is the slave of the passions. We are driven by irrational motivations and then use our reason to justify or explain our acts.

I don’t know whether we are meaningfully communicating. However, I think it takes a leap of faith which I haven’t made to accept the last three sentences of your post. I have no reason to think there is such a thing as a soul or a supernatural of any sort. The fact you believe you are meaningfully communicating I don’t think means that you are in control.

david f – I don’t think it is a matter of faith on my part to believe that we are meaningfully communicating; there is good evidence to support the contention. You have written something that expresses rational ideas and I have replied along lines that make sense in view of what you wrote (even if we do not agree about everything) and you in turn reply, also along lines that make sense. Other people can read our comments and follow the discussion.

So why is that not clearly meaningful communication? It seems to me to be indisputably so.

If we are meaningfully communicating how can this be possible? If all that exists in the universe is nothing but atoms bumping into each other (which would be the case if atheism is true), how can atoms bumping into each other generate a logical interaction of ideas, such as we are having here?

It seems to me that that is impossible. It is only if we ourselves have at least some control over what we think, say and do that it is possible for rational discussion to take place. In order to have such control there must be something about us that enables us to override the otherwise deterministic nature of the universe. Hence the very fact of our discussion now gives us, I think, very good reason to believe we have a soul or some or other element that is not part of the physical natural world.

If you have not seen it perhaps you would like to read an earlier article I wrote for OLO which is relevant to this discussion: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1715

Yuyutsu: you say--
God is self-evident (though not his existence):
If you see anything - That's God.
If you hear anything - That's God.
If you smell anything - That's God.
If you think anything - That's God.
If you feel anything - That's God.
If you don't feel anything - That's also god.
You are - therefore God is!

Let me fix this for you:
God is self-evident though not his existence- according to you because without any justification you assert it so
If you see anything - That's part of the universe.
If you hear anything - That's part of the universe.
If you smell anything - That's part of the universe.
If you think anything - That's part of the universe.
If you feel anything - That's part of the unvierse.
If you don't feel anything - Then you're most likely dead! (or unconscious or some other altered state of mind)
You are - therefore you can enjoy the beauty of the universe and its workings by making *real* observations on it!

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«There's a difference between acknowledging God, and understanding Him.»

I think that we can agree that understanding God is out of the question: God can be experienced, but not understood.

«Atheists don't acknowledge God, don't believe God is real.»

First and foremost, atheists do not believe in themselves, they don't believe that they are real. Yes, they may tell you that they exist, but by that they only mean that their bodies exist, including their minds and memories, etc. Had they known themselves, then they would also have known God (whether they called Him by this name or otherwise).

This makes the discussion between Graham (JP) and David so fascinating: JP acknowledges himself (suggesting the idea of "soul"), whereas David doesn't.

«Honestly, I don't know why your defending the idea of atheism when you also believe in a concept of God.»

I was not defending the idea of atheism. Rather, I was saying that the difference between theists and atheists (as defined by the Oxford dictionary) is shallow enough to bridge.

Technically, we are all born atheists, having as little babies no concept of God. So what? Do we have no God until our brain is developed enough for concepts? Then suppose we have dementia and lose the memory of the concept of God - do we then live without God? Would we then be forsaken by God? Of course not!

The question whether one holds a belief that "God exists" is therefore not as important. More important is whether or not one lives as one who constantly acknowledges God's presence would. The concept of God and the belief that He exists may be helpful, but not essential for a life in God.

«They can still be in error and believe something that isn't true.»

This is correct. However, while many faults can bar us from the Kingdom of Heaven, having intellectual errors (or missing limbs for that matter) isn't one of them.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I would say that indeed everything is dependent on God, but God is not everything.»

Indeed. Everything depends on God, yet God is not limited to "everything".

«He is the creator and sustainer of everything, but He is Holy and seperate.»

This is a very healthy perspective and I encourage you to continue to think of Him this way. Doing so you will be safe from danger.

---

Dear Thinkabit,

«Let me fix this for you:»

Thanks, but no thanks: It ain't broken!

Eer...aah... Which God are we talking about?

To Yuyustu,

[atheists do not believe in themselves, they don't believe that they are real]

One thing. We should all strive for is to be honest. In our assessments and our follow through. Just as I advised earlier to not exaggerate a belief of someone else, I'd recommend to you to not misrepresent a belief by saying something that they haven't said. A misrepresentation of someone else's beliefs is a distraction from any other points or discussion and can either put them in a stance to disregard you, or to correct your errors and leave everything else alone.

[we are all born atheists]

I don't know about that. Atheism seems to be an identifier of specific disbelief. Of all the things to not believe in, not believing in God is the only no belief I know if that people identify themselves as. In that respect I'd say atheists are those who not only don't believe in God, but have a bone to pick regarding God and theism. As to your point of not believing in God in our early baby years or remembering the concept of God later in life, I'd bet agnostic would be a more accurate term. It's not a specific disbelief as atheist hold.

[Would we then be forsaken by God?]

In my experience it's a bad idea to start pondering God's decisions as if we would know them. Usually goes down a slippery slope that leads farther from what God actually said or does. To answer your question, no, I don't believe that God would forsake those who never had the chance to live and know life, or to forsake those who under memory loss don't know that they once knew God. I think He would reach out to them, or if they already knew Him and believed, He would hold on to them in spite of their handicap of memory. These are my conclusions based on what has been written in the bible.

(Continued)

(Continued)

[The question whether one holds a belief that "God exists" is therefore not as important.]

[while many faults can bar us from the Kingdom of Heaven, having intellectual errors (or missing limbs for that matter) isn't one of them.]

Yuyustu, this belief you hold strongly to that it doesn't matter what a person believes, in my opinion only creates confusion. The aspect of it being about our actions instead of our beliefs I can get behind, but to discount beliefs as a whole, what good can come from that? It removes any standards that can be a foundation in one's life.

As for the Kingdom of Heaven, that's a very Christian and Jewish concept. It's not the same as Narvana, or some other afterlife destination. One core premis of finding the Kingdom of Heaven is to believe in and follow God. And as a Christian to believe in Jesus and follow Him as well. This is something we can put forth in our studies and in our teaching, the importance of finding God and relying on Him. Otherwise how will someone know the right way to be. The right path to follow to step in line with God's teachings?

Your view of holding specific beliefs as unimportant only removes a foundation that could help people find God and to stay true to following Him. Being moral doesn't measure up in my opinion because we all fail on that measure. On the big elements like do not murder, it's universally acceptated by most moral codes. On the smaller faults like don't don't talk about someone behind their back or don't lie, those are often seen as good attributes but just as universally ignored. We should be moral, (or strive to be) but more important then that is to know and rely on God.

The biggest action anyone can do (and should do, because we all fall short) is to be forgiving and merciful. More important then that still though is finding God and relying on Him. At least if we're trying to follow God, or considering the Kingdom of Heaven.

This thread is more or less dead but anyway,..

david f: You say "However, the laws of physics as currently understood do not support Determinism. Two of the greatest discoveries in physics in modern times are statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Both support a probabilistic rather than a deterministic universe."

This is not true.

Statistical mechanics is based on more fundamental physics: either classical physics (eg. Hamilton's equations) which is deterministic or quantum physics (eg. time-dependent Schrödinger equation) which is either deterministic/random probabilistic/other. In itself statistical mechanics doesn't require or imply a philosophy of a non-deterministic universe.

Quantum mechanics also doesn't require or imply a non-deterministic universe. But rather the commonly stated randomness of it results from a particular interpretation of the equations.
In general, for QM you assume/state a particular philosophical position that you hold and then interpret the equations of QM from that standpoint. However, the most common interpretation that is taught at school/uni is the indeterministic Copenhagen interpretation. This interpretation is so prevalent among teaching institutions that it is quite often taught to the exclusion of all others at highschool and the under-grad level, hence many physics students think it is the only interpretation.
Over the last century or so various deterministic interpretations have been proposed, such as de Broglie–Bohm theory (which is nearly as old as the Copenhagen interpretation) and also the many-worlds interpretation circa 1950's (well at least many-worlds is not indeterministic and is mainly considered deterministic although it is debatable whether the question of deterministism makes any sense here).
The de Broglie-Bohm theory (also called pilot-wave theory) has experienced a rise in popularity lately because it fits snuggly with some of the new "digital physics/informational physics" philosophical approaches.
There are many other mainstream interpretations of QM, you can read about them and their associated philosophical stands here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics : Each of these have other related philosophical positions in addition to the question of determinism, such as realism, postions relating to the flow of time, etc...
There are also other minority interpretations which for whatever reasons are not as widely known/debated: Eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

thinkabit: & on & on & On.....

In other words. None of the "Navel Gazers" really know squat, &, when it comes down to it, "your guess is as good as mine."

Philosophers. Now there is a great branch of Pseudoscience for you. They quote people who lived thousands of years ago. Those peoples thoughts don't have any real relationship to the people, knowledge & thoughts of todays world. Even the thoughts of the Great Philosophers of 200 years ago don't relate to todays world.

Philosophy Professors say they do but they have a job that pays well, so they would, wouldn't they?

My problem with these arguments is that my denial of the existence of God is limited to the candidates proposed so far - Allah, Christ, Indian, Greek, Roman etc -
you name it. There is no compelling evidence (or even any rational evidence) for any of them. Maybe there is a first creator but it is yet to be conceived.

Two horrible World Wars last century, European and other imperialisms, enslavement of native peoples, the Holocaust etc. All were mainly carried on by Christians. Why didn't their prating of love, kindness etc. stop all those atrocities. I doubt that atheists would have been worse than those bloodthirsty Christians.

Belief in a Supreme Being – inferred by Science?

I believe it is perfectly rational to postulate the existence of a transcendent Supreme Intelligence behind what we call the universe.
Such an Intelligence would have to be, as Lonergan (Spitzer 2010, p143) concludes :"...unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself which is the continuous Creator of all else that is..." must exist. This Reality corresponds to what is generally thought to be "God". Lonergan's view is a Meta-physical argument for God's Existence. (Spitzer, 2010, Chapter 3)

Science and Creation

Science itself cannot deductively prove or disprove creation or a creator but in my mind it is an indicator of the existence of a Supreme Intelligence. We live in a Universe that is explainable through the sciences and the fact that man is an ‘intelligent” being is capable of developing the various science disciplines and hence able to through his intelligence to discover the myriad of intelligible aspects of the Universe.

Contemporary cosmology gives an insight into the creation of the Universe, as Physicist Arno Penzias states :

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable, the observation of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”
(Brock 1992, cited in Bradley 1998, p40)

Robert J Spitzer SJ, PhD, in his book “New Proofs for the Existence of God” (2010) develops this insight by examining the hosts of concepts that gave rise to the “Big Bang Theory, as shown through the General Theory of Relativity, Hubble’s redshifts, Penzias’s and Wilson’s universal background radiation, black holes, quantum cosmology, inflation and many other related ideas and discoveries. He comments “In the view of many physicists, this remarkable cosmological theory points to a creation event as well as an ordered unfolding of the universe.” p14

Part3
In his book Spitzer looks at many other issues around the Big Bang and the question of the numeric coincidences necessary for an anthropic universe (Ch 2,) and p48 he notes the comment by Paul Davies in his book (God and the New Physics, 1983, p189) “….the numerical coincidences could be regarded as evidence of design. The delicate fine tuning in the values of the (Universal) constants, necessary so that the various different branches of physics can dovetail so felicitously, might be attributed to God. It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. Such a conclusion can, of course, only be subjective. In the end it boils down to a question of belief. Is it easier to believe in a cosmic designer than the multiplicity of universes necessary for the weak anthropic principle to work?”

Spitzer notes in Chapter 2 that there are some 20 different Universal Constants that play a crucial part in determining the structure and nature of the Universe. In the following quote I briefly look at the opinion of one physicist on one of those constants.

According to Penrose (1983, p343, quoted by Spitzer p58) “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes – about 1/10th to the 10123 of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.”

Given this highly improbable occurrence Spitzer (p59) observed that many physicists have concluded that our universe was influenced by a supernatural designing intelligence.

Part 4
While others who find it difficult to accept the idea of such a metaphysical explanation have postulated some new naturalistic explanation such as a limitless numbers of unseen, unverified actual or potential universes in an effort to explain the conditions for the weak anthropic principle. It would be arguable that such postulations are scientifically questionable if not dubious. Spitzer examines the multiverse postulate in detail on p67 et op. He notes (p73) physicist Fred Hoyle’s observation (which moved him out of atheism) (Hoyle 1981 Engineering and Science, California Institute of Technology, pp 8-12) :
“...a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelmingly as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
What I have presented above is a very truncated summary of some of the arguments presented by Spitzer in the first few chapters of his book and I would recommend any one interested to obtain a copy to work their way through.

Given an infinite number of universes with varying physical parameters any of the universes is equally probable as long as the parameters don't conflict. Our universe is the one we happen to be in. That does not mean our universe is designed by a super intelligence. A number consisting of all 5s extending into infinity might seem improbable, but it is just as probable as any other number.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

My claim that "atheists do not believe in themselves", was supported by the link: http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/who-is-atheist.html
See for yourself the degree of correlation between belief in oneself and belief in God.

Regarding agnostics, most definitions, including Oxford's, count them as atheists. Some call them "weak atheists".

I do not discard the importance of belief, it's a great religious technique, but if it remains merely an intellectual idea then its value is limited.

The Kingdom of Heaven and Nirvana (a Buddhist concept) are just two different perspectives describing the same: the Kingdom of Heaven is a positive state where one crowns God as their absolute ruler with no reservations, thus no selfishness remains and nothing of the world can shake or upset them. Nirvana describes this state negatively: that the world has been extinguished and no longer effect you, so what remains? God!

«Being moral doesn't measure up in my opinion because we all fail on that measure.»

But we can keep trying and gradually improve our morality. We still occasionally fail, but we can progress a lot up to a point. The last bits of immorality can only disappear by the grace of God.

---

Dear Pliny,

Why be concerned about the existence of God?
What difference can it make?
Don't look for a creator - seek God instead and meanwhile worship Him, using whatever form appeals to you most, be it Allah, Christ, Indian, Greek, Roman - or your own.

Both questions: God's existence and how the world came about, are material questions of no spiritual benefit, so don't waste your time on them.

In some decades, you shall leave this world and later on, this whole world itself will no longer exist, so forsake the illusion of existence and seek instead that which is true, immutable and everlasting!

.

Dear Graham Preston & Peter Sellick,

.

I have just (rather belatedly) discovered your exchange of articles and comments on “serious atheism and atheists” as seen by each of you, presumably, as theists.

Allow me to suggest that, at the beginning, there were probably neither atheists nor theists, just “ordinary people”. Logically, some of those ordinary people must have later become theists. Then, some of those two categories subsequently constituted a third category called atheists.

To complete the picture, there are those who “sit on the fence”, as it were, and constitute yet a fourth category, classified, for convenience sake, as agnostics.

Now, you introduce at least one new category of “serious atheists”, perhaps two, if you consider that, by the same token, there is also a category of “serious theists”. So we now have five or six categories :

1. Ordinary people
2. Theists
3. Serious theists
4. Agnostics
5. Atheists
6. Serious atheists

To clarify my own position, my mother had me baptised by an Anglican priest when I was a baby and later confirmed as a young boy. I simply did what I was told.

But having realised, rather late in life, that there is and never was any god or gods, I now like to think of myself as just an ordinary person. It makes no sense to me to describe myself by reference to a figment of the imagination (atheism or serious atheism).

From this point of view, your debate on morality takes on an entirely different dimension. As there is and never was any god or gods, and as there is no morality in nature, it can only be a purely human construct. The so-called revelations of the prophets, priests, philosophers and others were all ordinary people just like you and me. They mistakenly attributed their ideas on morality to that figment of their imagination they called god.

Morality or humanism is an integral part of mankind and always has been. It is an essential element of our survival instinct. The following brief description is worth contemplating :

http://www.meetup.com/en-AU/Humanist-Society-of-WA/pages/1587611/Beginning_of_Humanism/

.

That's the best description of this ongoing debate I have ever read. Well done Banjo.