Zone1 Is Atheism Depressing?

[ding]

You didn't really answer the point made. Just walked around it.

How did God build the universe if he's only spiritual?

What do you think Arthur Eddington meant when in 1928 he wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time."

 

[BreezeWood]

What do you think Arthur Eddington meant when in 1928 he wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time."

not really sure - a stuffy cold. another of the special finds in support of christianity.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I find atheists often have two points in common. One, they toss aside that God is spirit when they call for physical evidence for God. Second, they have unrealistic expectations of God, stemming from the idea God can do anything, taking no note that God may have something else in mind. The mindset is that anyone should be able to be in command of God, and look upon God as a kind of personal Genie. It is better if God is approached from the perspective we are the Genie and are there for God to command, not vice-versa.

First, you have to prove the existence of spirits, if you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a superstitious religionist. We live in a universe with trillions of galaxies with each one of those galaxies containing hundreds of billions of suns and innumerable planets and moons. Our universe is billions of years old, so how many life forms could potentially be out there? Perhaps there is life that is much more evolved and technologically advanced than we are. Our 21st-century technology would be considered witchcraft or sorcery to someone living 300 years ago. So what makes you think that we will ever have evidence in this physical world for God or His angels?

Your shallow, condescending comments about atheists, make you fair game for atheist contempt and scrutiny.

 

[ding]

First, you have to prove the existence of spirits, if you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a superstitious religionist. We live in a universe with trillions of galaxies with each one of those galaxies containing hundreds of billions of suns and innumerable planets and moons. Our universe is billions of years old, so how many life forms could potentially be out there? Perhaps there is life that is much more evolved and technologically advanced than we are. Our 21st-century technology would be considered witchcraft or sorcery to someone living 300 years ago. So what makes you think that we will ever have evidence in this physical world for God or His angels?

Your shallow, condescending comments about atheists, make you fair game for atheist contempt and scrutiny.

It is primarily physicists who have expressed the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind; Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker, Wolfgang Pauli and George Wald, all contemplated it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

really, what are they their rational reasons for believing in - god ... any different than mythology - surly not a desert, self serving religion their monotheism is more rational than atheism.

This question is well addressed in the extensive literature, the question has a very long history, lots of good arguments exist for the existence of God, go and explore them, I see no point in me laboring the point here other than to say the presence of the universe is compelling evidence for God.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

First, you have to prove the existence of spirits, if you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a superstitious religionist. We live in a universe with trillions of galaxies with each one of those galaxies containing hundreds of billions of suns and innumerable planets and moons. Our universe is billions of years old, so how many life forms could potentially be out there? Perhaps there is life that is much more evolved and technologically advanced than we are. Our 21st-century technology would be considered witchcraft or sorcery to someone living 300 years ago. So what makes you think that we will ever have evidence in this physical world for God or His angels?

The sciences cannot provide an explanation for the presence of the universe. This isn't a comment about our current level of knowledge but rather a statement about the limits of material, mechanistic explanations.

Your shallow, condescending comments about atheists, make you fair game for atheist contempt and scrutiny.

I can't say I saw anything improper or impolite in what he wrote.

 

[ding]

I can't say I saw anything improper or impolite in what he wrote.

Merriweather is a she and the nicest person on this board, whereas I am not.

 

[BreezeWood]

This question is well addressed in the extensive literature, the question has a very long history, lots of good arguments exist for the existence of God, go and explore them, I see no point in me laboring the point here other than to say the presence of the universe is compelling evidence for God.

really, what are they their rational reasons for believing in - god ... any different than mythology - surly not a desert, self serving religion their monotheism is more rational than atheism.

you really did not answer the question ...

your reference would imply the desert religions - what is the difference than the beliefs of mythology active or not.

 

[ding]

So what makes you think that we will ever have evidence in this physical world for God or His angels?

If the universe popping into existence in an improbable manner being implausibly hardwired to produce intelligence along with you and everyone else being hardwired to believe in a universal right and wrong, I doubt you will ever find any evidence you will accept. So one must wonder what you are really trying to accomplish here.

 

[ding]

you really did not answer the question ...

your reference would imply the desert religions - what is the difference than the beliefs of mythology active or not. really, what are they their rational reasons for believing in - god ... any different than mythology - surly not a desert, self serving religion their monotheism is more rational than atheism.

He did answer your question. The existence of the universe. But you are correct, monotheism is more rational than atheism. Atheists doesn't even attempt to explore the origin questions. They just criticize those that do.

 

[Meriweather]

First, you have to prove the existence of spirits, if you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a superstitious religionist. We live in a universe with trillions of galaxies with each one of those galaxies containing hundreds of billions of suns and innumerable planets and moons. Our universe is billions of years old, so how many life forms could potentially be out there? Perhaps there is life that is much more evolved and technologically advanced than we are. Our 21st-century technology would be considered witchcraft or sorcery to someone living 300 years ago. So what makes you think that we will ever have evidence in this physical world for God or His angels?

Faith cannot be filed under either science or superstition. It is a philosophy of life and existence. Stoicism is a well-known philosophy. When speaking to a stoic about his/her philosophy, would you begin with, "We live in a universe with trillions of galaxies with each one of those galaxies containing hundreds of billions of suns and innumerable planets and moons. Our universe is billions of years old, so how many life forms could potentially be out there?"

Your shallow, condescending comments about atheists, make you fair game for atheist contempt and scrutiny.

My grandmother married an atheist. So did I. Family discussions on faith and atheism have been common. Consider, these comments and conclusions were presented to me by atheists, a couple of points they gave me that I, too, thought made sense, so I didn't accuse these atheists of being shallow or condescending. However, if your assessment differs, why not present something you consider to be thoughtful and intuitive?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

you really did not answer the question ...

your reference would imply the desert religions - what is the difference than the beliefs of mythology active or not.

Very well, I'll elaborate. The universe is clearly there, we acknowledge that it exists. But we cannot explain it's presence scientifically. That we cannot is obvious when you look at the nature of scientific, material explanations.

Such explanations always presuppose the existence of material actors (laws, fields, material quantities) and therefore any effort to explain all that exists must include explaining these actors, but to do so requires us to introduce other material actors and we get infinite regress. Infinite regress isn't an explanation it is an admission of an absence of an explanation.

We can escape this conundrum by considering non-scientific explanations, that is explanations that do not rely on mechanistic models and laws, causality and so on. If we are willing to remove the restriction that only scientific explanations are meaningful, we escape the conundrum.

Once we do that explanations like "In the beginning God created..." become legitimate viable explanations and we can infer that "God" is not causal, that is to say God (or whatever you want to call it) can act non causally, it can innately act, it has innate will and intent that is itself uncaused (call this "spirit") rather than a consequence of some preceding causal process.

Asked to choose between the two alternative approaches to explaining the presence of the universe, I find the latter to be the better of the two.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If anyone has the time, here is perhaps the best debate ever recorded about the existence of God and touches upon this very question of causality and so on.



Bertrand Russell
Frederick Copleston

 

[TruthNotBS]

Faith cannot be filed under either science or superstition. It is a philosophy of life and existence. Stoicism is a well-known philosophy. When speaking to a stoic about his/her philosophy, would you begin with, "We live in a universe with trillions of galaxies with each one of those galaxies containing hundreds of billions of suns and innumerable planets and moons. Our universe is billions of years old, so how many life forms could potentially be out there?"

My grandmother married an atheist. So did I. Family discussions on faith and atheism have been common. Consider, these comments and conclusions were presented to me by atheists, a couple of points they gave me that I, too, thought made sense, so I didn't accuse these atheists of being shallow or condescending. However, if your assessment differs, why not present something you consider to be thoughtful and intuitive?

You're criticizing atheists for supposedly not "seeking God" or being interested in your religious mythology and claims about reality, but why should they? You refuse to define God when asked to do so and what it means to "seek God", so why make claims and use terms you refuse to define? We have our five senses and a physical world to interact with, what else are we supposedly obligated to "seek" and do to satisfy your version of "God"? I don't discount the possibility of God's existence, but I doubt He's a religious dogmatist or chauvinist.

 

[Meriweather]

You're criticizing atheists for supposedly not "seeking God" or being interested in your religious mythology and claims about reality, but why should they? You refuse to define God when asked to do so and what it means to "seek God", so why make claims and use terms you refuse to define? We have our five senses and a physical world to interact with, what else are we supposedly obligated to "seek" and do to satisfy your version of "God"? I don't discount the possibility of God's existence, but I doubt He's a religious dogmatist or chauvinist.

Recommending people seek God is not criticizing them for not doing this. It is merely giving them a starting point--if they are interested. Nor do I criticize anyone who is not interested in the Bible. The Bible is relentless, difficult to understand and comprehend, an enigma. Personally, I've always recommended seeking and finding God before tackling the Bible. Also, the reason I recommend people seek and find God is then there is no need to rely on anyone's (especially my) version of God. A vicarious experience of God through someone else--or the Bible--is like asking someone else to drink a glass of water for you because you are thirsty.

God is love, God is caring--and that starts with you and extends to all others. That love is beyond imagining--it must be experienced. That rules out religious dogmatist, chauvinist, and about every other adjective that is not centered in love.

 

[BreezeWood]

Asked to choose between the two alternative approaches to explaining the presence of the universe, I find the latter to be the better of the two.

really, what are they their rational reasons for believing in - god ... any different than mythology - surly not a desert, self serving religion their monotheism is more rational than atheism.

(the two alternative approaches ... scientific / non-scientific explanations)

its very difficult to not chose the metaphysical forces as the origin of the universe that lends itself to a scientific conclusion at some time in the future ...

again - not seeing in your answer and approach a difference between monotheism and mythology as being not equally valid explanations for the origin of the universe and the creation of life on planet earth. mythology with the greater latitude and variety as being more suited using that approach for the answers with multiple dimensions.

 

[BreezeWood]

He did answer your question. The existence of the universe. But you are correct, monotheism is more rational than atheism. Atheists doesn't even attempt to explore the origin questions. They just criticize those that do.

you've made yourself believe what the desert makes up than what is the actual truth ...

 

[ding]

you've made yourself believe what the desert makes up than what is the actual truth ...

I see reality as it is. It's one of my important secrets of success.

 

[BreezeWood]

I see reality as it is. It's one of my important secrets of success.

Atheists doesn't even attempt to explore the origin questions.

were you born in texas or did you decide to move there ...

how is a disinterest any different than believing a book of forgeries and fallacies to answer questions they simply makeup answers to suit an agenda having nothing to do with - reality.

 

[ding]

were you born in texas or did you decide to move there ...

how is a disinterest any different than believing a book of forgeries and fallacies to answer questions they simply makeup answers to suit an agenda having nothing to do with - reality.

You don't have disinterest. You are full of hate.