Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

What will quantum physics research do to Atheism?

A "personal creator God"? What manner of thing is that?
You must be referring to the Christian idea.
I find the idea of God having any kind of personality, far beyond the possible.
I see God as the sum of all probabilities. As well as the sum of all possibilities.
The sum total, in fact, of all that exists, with all that exists being part of the whole consciousness.
People argue about 'purpose'; I have no idea why.
To me, the purpose is too obvious to notice.
I suppose that is why so few notice it.
The purpose of all that manifests potential consciousness is to manifest consciousness.
To be conscious.
Hard to see how that would be such a stretch, for so many, but it is, apparently.
People generally either believe, or not, based upon their emotional response to the word 'God'.
If it is good, they believe, if not, then they don't. End of story.
But the truth, of course, is far simpler than that.
When one becomes conscious of living, one becomes conscious of living.
That, in sum, is God Consciousness.
I can only conclude that almost nobody has even realized that they live.
Perhaps, they actually don't!


Our consciousness is a fragment of the whole, but the whole remains undivided, it is not simply that sum of its parts.  That is why we can become aware of it.

Quote
Christianity for its part has lost its inward and contemplative dimension and therefore its true intellectual life and therefore cannot really engage in any discussion without simply repeating age-old dogmas without understanding their profound meanings.  If atheism is proven to be false beyond doubt it is still unlikely to convince many of the absurd claims of most Christians.

This gives Christian dogma too much credit. What profound meaning is found in Christianity? The only use the religion has ever had was providing a cultural unity to Europe.

Quote
Christianity for its part has lost its inward and contemplative dimension and therefore its true intellectual life and therefore cannot really engage in any discussion without simply repeating age-old dogmas without understanding their profound meanings.  If atheism is proven to be false beyond doubt it is still unlikely to convince many of the absurd claims of most Christians.

This gives Christian dogma too much credit. What profound meaning is found in Christianity? The only use the religion has ever had was providing a cultural unity to Europe.

Is this a rhetorical question?  If not it goes beyond the scope of this thread, I'd be willing to post a thread on Christian esoterism in the next couple of days if you were genuinely interested, otherwise I'm sure you've heard authors like Meister Eckhart and Pseudo-Dionysius mentioned on this site.

Quote
Christianity for its part has lost its inward and contemplative dimension and therefore its true intellectual life and therefore cannot really engage in any discussion without simply repeating age-old dogmas without understanding their profound meanings.  If atheism is proven to be false beyond doubt it is still unlikely to convince many of the absurd claims of most Christians.

This gives Christian dogma too much credit. What profound meaning is found in Christianity? The only use the religion has ever had was providing a cultural unity to Europe.

Is this a rhetorical question?  If not it goes beyond the scope of this thread, I'd be willing to post a thread on Christian esoterism in the next couple of days if you were genuinely interested, otherwise I'm sure you've heard authors like Meister Eckhart and Pseudo-Dionysius mentioned on this site.

I've been doing a lot of research lately on Early, pre-Nicene Christianity, so yea a discussion of this nature would be welcome.

The only use the religion has ever had was providing a cultural unity to Europe.

You act like Christianity was composed by a scheming malevolent Jew in the basement of his gold synagogue of Satan.

Christianity is an aggregate of prior religions, most of which are European if not outright Aryan (from India and the Middle East).

It has some parts that need editing, and some that do not... the only change I want is an end to egalitarian morality. Praise the stronger, wiser, etc. as in The Odyssey.

Well, that and an end to duality -- but the two are inextricably linked.

Christ loves cocks.

The only use the religion has ever had was providing a cultural unity to Europe.

You act like Christianity was composed by a scheming malevolent Jew in the basement of his gold synagogue of Satan.

Christianity is an aggregate of prior religions, most of which are European if not outright Aryan (from India and the Middle East).

It has some parts that need editing, and some that do not... the only change I want is an end to egalitarian morality. Praise the stronger, wiser, etc. as in The Odyssey.

Well, that and an end to duality -- but the two are inextricably linked.

Christ loves cocks.

Explain how my statement that "Christianity provided Europe with cultural unity" equates with "Evil Jewish Conspiracy".

The Roman Catholic Church allowed for Greco-Roman culture to be absorbed by then-savage Celtic and Germanic people. Christianity was a bastardization of Greek philosophy and religion, Buddhism, Hellenized Judaism and Zoroastrianism and later added a lot of Germanic religion. But it helped create a larger European identity under the guise of Christendom. It served a roll up until the enlightenment. We should have ditched in then.

Dispensationalism in the protestant tradition in the USA certainly was composed by a scheming Germano-Canaanite however. Our founding fathers despised Jesus Christ and the concept of "Judeo-Christian" and the myth that we were founded on them didn't exist until the late 30s.

You state the things you state as if they were facts. Yet you were not present, to know them.
Do you hold your beliefs on faith? Isn't that the very thing you ridicule about religion?
Let me guess: your beliefs originate from books. Written by people you have never met.
Or taught by teachers who are agents of a political system.
You refer to 'we', as if you were contemporary with the ancients, and they should have behaved as you now suggest.
By what authority do you claim The Founding Fathers despised Jesus?
Or that you have knowledge of exactly what transpired in the '30s?

I say these things by way of irony, and of the arguments of which you are so fond.
I really don't care what you believe, or why. So you don't have to answer.
My point is this:
Unless you were either present at events you claim to be factual, or you are privy to Divine Revelation,
how can you claim to know the truth of those events, or claim the counter-claims of others are false?
I don't see how you can. Or why, really, you would want to.
Not that it matters, really. After all, what does? You're a nihilist, aren't you?



You exist somewhere between a contrarian and Poe's raven, crow.

Humour me.
It's probably the first time in my life I wrote a logic-based post, like the last.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac
in this recent debate with Rowan Williams, Dawkins very briefly mentioned that quantum research is one of those things that makes him a little bit uncertain.

So there is probably a limit to how much we can know given our brain capacity.. most people can't even grasp or visualize the fundamentals of it so that says something. But the use of mathematical savants, technology, and plain old hard work should allow for more exploration into it over coming years.

How will this change the whole landscape of religion/non-religion?

Quantum physics will continue to remind us how little we know about reality.

As to religion/atheism, the latter is obviously on the rise. Unfortunately, many atheists are merely reactionary moderns who use the concept of 'science' (just as many so-called religious people use their 'faith') as an excuse not to look into things more deeply. Whereas the problems of religion have been enumerated pretty well, those of atheism/materialism have not. I think Cargést makes a good point:

Too many people believe that the object(s) of their religion(s) are (or should be) tangible, physical things that exist in the material universe with which we interact.  As far as I understand it, any "spiritual" aspect of life is necessarily interior, thus, instead of evidence, we must attain invidence.

A man floating face up on the water will never know the depths beneath him, though the sky may entertain him.  You need to turn your perspective around before you can begin to explore whatever's behind your experience.

Rejecting anything spiritual because there is no evidence for a concrete, material version of a supernatural being is tantamount to willfully limiting one's existence. I hope that future findings in quantum physics will open the eyes of intelligent atheists to amazing new realms of possibility.


Rejecting anything spiritual because there is no evidence for a concrete, material version of a supernatural being is tantamount to willfully limiting one's existence. I hope that future findings in quantum physics will open the eyes of intelligent atheists to amazing new realms of possibility.


I am hoping science can reveal something that can settle this debate, but atheists will never win. It doesn't look like any amount of evidence or discovery is going to stop people from slicing animals open on altars or shouting how atheism is just a religion itself, as if that somehow proves their creator. I see no end to these awful arguments from design, and rehashed 2012 God of the Gaps arguments, from the fringes of the few gaps that are still left. I see no end to the number of people who will say nonsense like atheism is as much a leap of faith, or announce that science and reason are somehow limiting while constructing an appeal to stupidity. There will always be a smaller gap they'll hide God in. God will always be too big, humans will always be too dumb to figure it out. Even if we get a near complete understanding of physics people will still cling to these notions as they cling to transitional fossil arguments. The brain makes us do this. Well, most of us.

God give me the strength to deal with your believers.


"the fundamental truth that there is no God, no soul, no nothing." How can you be so sure about that? Maybe you're right but what is the proofs of that? To my knowledge, there is no evidences in science about it.  If you can't back it  up with proofs, your argument have the same weight of someone who believes in God.



Right. So let's believe in holy men in the sky and our personal version of an afterlife. That will make the uncertainty go away.



I'm not saying that we should believe in a god or anything like that. I'm just saying that atheists don't have ultimate proofs that there is no god or souls. So it's as much speculative as someone who claims  there is some god.


Not at all. The reasonable doubt standard applies. There is absolutely no evidence anything exists at all beyond a life form that evolved naturally in a natural universe that possesses a brain that invents these things to find order in the world. All the evidence points to that. Every single shred.

Reasonable doubt?  I have a very reasonable doubt that anything that you've just said is true.  My doubt is based on the following facts: 1.  I believe the  Bible to be the true word of God.  2.  I doubt things which go against what I believe.  3.  What you have said goes against the Bible.  C.  I doubt what you have said.

My doubt is based on real premises and is the logical outcome of those premises.

How about another one?  I  have a very reasonable doubt that you have actually said anything at all.  My doubt is based on the following facts: 1.  I don't know whether my senses can be said to be accurate.  2.  My belief that you have said something is based on my senses.  C.  If I can doubt the veracity of my senses, I can doubt that you've said anything.

I don't like the word atheist because it creates a yes-no duality. Either you go to church and love Jesus, or you believe in nothing. Then belief itself takes on overtones I don't like which is a sort of blind faith in the shepherd. There is a middle ground for nihilists who are not blind to the supernatural but doubt it takes the form of the nomad shepherd god in the sky.

I don't like the word atheist because it creates a yes-no duality. Either you go to church and love Jesus, or you believe in nothing. Then belief itself takes on overtones I don't like which is a sort of blind faith in the shepherd. There is a middle ground for nihilists who are not blind to the supernatural but doubt it takes the form of the nomad shepherd god in the sky.

What form does it take? All of these threads are vague pussyfooting around what everyone really believes.

I'm just an analist therapist. I don't know what form it takes. I think that's necessary but I don't know why. I know that I will never believe the faggot fairy tale of Mary, Judas, David and Jesus from the updated version of Who's Who in the Desert: 400 BC Edition. The point I was trying to make is that even if you think Christianity is shit, that doesn't mean you have only one other option which is to deny everything but what you can actually touch...