Atheist Q and A

I'd be interested to hear atheist opinions on whether the axiom s5 of modal logic is true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)

That if something is possibly necessary, then it necessarily exists.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 82

TheALevelStudent

Original post by leavingthecity

I don't think you understand the meaning of verifiable...there have been people who believe they have experienced God. They have yet to verify these claims.

Well that's the difference between you and me. Some people are ignorant, and some beleive

Reply 83

Original post by leavingthecity

I'm an atheist

Will we one day live in a secular world do you think?

Unlikely if current predictiom birth rates in Africa and Asia come to pass. Global atheism is even expected to drop in terms of its share of the global population.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 84

Original post by TheALevelStudent

Well that's the difference between you and me. Some people are ignorant, and some beleive

That makes no logical sense

Reply 85

chemting

16

Original post by TheALevelStudent

I am no doubt denying the theory of the Big Bang, I fully beleive it as scientifically it seems correct. I'm a man of logic, and I think logically, so logically something must have cause the Big Bang, what actually was the Big Bang? It was a sound, from that one sound, all was created.

Actually, though I understand where you are coming from, that is NOT what the Big Bang is. The name is very misleading. At best, it is just an expansion from a point of singularity, nothing was really "created". No "sound", no "explosion".It is nothing to do with belief, there is a lot of evidence that supports this hypothesis so it is now a theory. If the evidence didn't point to it, then the theory would fail as a sensible model of the universe that has predictive capability.

Original post by TheALevelStudent

Calling God the creator is extremely simplified, God is no physical thing. God is the force, and by einsteins theory, force can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. So God s force is in the creations, and when we die, the force will return back to God.

Its not a great simplification considering all the mainstream religion almost certainly say god is a supreme being that created us all and we should worship it... What you are saying is very spiritual and personal (certainly not very thing) that cannot be turned into a movement - if you don't say god is the creator, then you are not in line with Abrahamic religion. For example, it is perfectly normal to be an Atheist and Buddhist (or atheist and Hindu to a lesser extent).
Regardless, how can you say "god is no physical thing" and then go on to say "god is a force"... a force is quite physical, and it has very physical effects. What sort of force is this (attractive/repulsive), what does this force affect, can you quantify or measure this force? In Einstein's special relativity, mass and energy are interchangeable (mass can be turned to energy and vice versa), so we are all god? The energy from nuclear fusion (or the sun) is god? Dark matter is god? Rest mass/rest energy is god within us? What was the process that "created" the "creations" by the "being of higher power".
To me, you haven't really defined "force" or "creations" or anything. To me, it sounds like something special pleading, inshallah mashallah, hippie, cannabis smoking, starbucks loving yoga teachers would say. If it makes you feel spiritual, then that is great, but it is not very objective, and it most certainly is not evidence of "god"... never mind someone's favourite god.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 86

Original post by Onde

It only necessarily exists if it exists.

So you reject axiom s5 of modal logic? Can you formulate an argument for that?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 87

Original post by Scrappy-coco

Unlikely if current predictiom birth rates in Africa and Asia come to pass. Global atheism is even expected to drop in terms of its share of the global population.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sounds nightmarish to me

Reply 88

shffdnt

Original post by Onde

Assuming that things might be true for which there is no evidence would be to increase the number of axioms, not basing our knowledge only on what can be proved. The thing with empiricism is that it gets results.

Results for what?! Empiricism is used to gain knowledge. Science argues that this knowledge is true. But the tool to search for this knowledge/truth is purely faith based. Surely this is equivalent to religious beliefs of God. Religion argues that it provides knowledge which is true. But the belief of God is faith based.

So understanding and knowledge of anything is based purely on faith. What is then the distinction between science and religion?

Reply 89

Original post by Onde

Assuming that things might be true for which there is no evidence would be to increase the number of axioms, not basing our knowledge only on what can be proved. The thing with empiricism is that it gets results.

Hmm. Haven't we proved 2+2=4? And isn't that the point of having this conversation - we accept things which cannot be proved empirically because it allows empiricism to work?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 90

shffdnt

Original post by leavingthecity

Sounds nightmarish to me

Why?

Reply 91

Original post by leavingthecity

Sounds nightmarish to me

Don't wake up yet. Christianity seems to exploding at an alarming rate in China.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 92

Tinemither

13

Original post by leavingthecity

I'm an atheist

Will we one day live in a secular world do you think?

Original post by TheOpinion

I hope so. However, as long as we have religious texts we will have disillusionment.

I highly doubt we will. Purely because religion is present in some form in every area of life. Even if they are not clear-cut religions, there is the idea of hybridisation, in which people pick and choose certain areas of religions to follow, and create new forms of it. Examples are meditation from Bhuddism (however it is spelt), belief in a single god, or multiple gods, and agreement with specific areas of holy text. As simple as a secular world would be, and the number of conflicts it may prevent, it unfortunately won't happen, I don't think.

Reply 93

Original post by Onde

Did the sun dance about the sky at Fátima, Portugal, on the 13 October 1917, as tens of thousands of people allegedly observed?

Or did the Solar System continue to exist as normal, as astronomers and billions around the Earth observed?

Most likely an illusion.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 94

shffdnt

Original post by Tinemither

I highly doubt we will. Purely because religion is present in some form in every area of life. Even if they are not clear-cut religions, there is the idea of hybridisation, in which people pick and choose certain areas of religions to follow, and create new forms of it. Examples are meditation from Bhuddism (however it is spelt), belief in a single god, or multiple gods, and agreement with specific areas of holy text. As simple as a secular world would be, and the number of conflicts it may prevent, it unfortunately won't happen, I don't think.

Would you say secular society in Britain is Christianity devoid of theology?

Reply 95

Original post by Onde

I said (something) only necessarily exists if it exists.

I do not know what your definition of necessary is.

Original post by Onde

Which?

- ok but can you argue why an axiom of logic is wrong? That statement is just synonymous with saying s5 is wrong but doesn't explain how it is wrong.

- the view of the sun dancing across the sky was most likely an illusion.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 96

Original post by Tinemither

I highly doubt we will. Purely because religion is present in some form in every area of life. Even if they are not clear-cut religions, there is the idea of hybridisation, in which people pick and choose certain areas of religions to follow, and create new forms of it. Examples are meditation from Bhuddism (however it is spelt), belief in a single god, or multiple gods, and agreement with specific areas of holy text. As simple as a secular world would be, and the number of conflicts it may prevent, it unfortunately won't happen, I don't think.

Yep, I believe that we will always use it to manipulate and oppress one another. It works so well....

Reply 97

Original post by Tinemither

I highly doubt we will. Purely because religion is present in some form in every area of life. Even if they are not clear-cut religions, there is the idea of hybridisation, in which people pick and choose certain areas of religions to follow, and create new forms of it. Examples are meditation from Bhuddism (however it is spelt), belief in a single god, or multiple gods, and agreement with specific areas of holy text. As simple as a secular world would be, and the number of conflicts it may prevent, it unfortunately won't happen, I don't think.

I remember richard Dawkins saying that though people are leaving religion in parts of the West, the rise of non religion doesn't not equal atheism or any type of world view most atheists think it does. What happens, even if they give up a irreligious deity, is turn to something like Deepak Chopra

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 98

Original post by HumzaAsad97

Would you say secular society in Britain is Christianity devoid of theology?

No. But much of our law and culture comes from Christianity if that's what you mean.

Reply 99