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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
(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.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 30 November 2017 4:16:37 AM
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
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
Posted by thinkabit, Sunday, 3 December 2017 9:28:17 AM
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
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?
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 3 December 2017 12:23:36 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
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.
Posted by Pliny of Perth, Monday, 4 December 2017 2:31:45 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
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.
Posted by david f, Monday, 4 December 2017 4:52:49 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
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)
Posted by Bagsy41, Monday, 4 December 2017 8:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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