How I am an atheist.

If there was no concept of God, I would not be an atheist. I continue to be happy to examine any argument or hypothesis for god, and eagerly await an approach I’ve not yet heard.
I’d rather not have to be an atheist, but theists seem to demand that people like me are labelled thus. And in respect to their views that there “exists” something, someone, or several things to which the term “god” applies, I am an atheist remaining in a state where I have not yet heard anything convincing. But I have heard plenty of attempts; few agree with one another, and most are pretty vague and diffuse ideas.
Here are a few reasons, as posted in “The God-Hypothesis” (so called).

I’m only an atheist because:
I do not have a god in my life;
have not seen a convincing argument;
think the idea upon which most versions are historically based was inherently ignorant;
do not see what the difference is between a self caused physical universe and a self caused god - though the version without the god seems less incredible;
think religion is most generally a pack of lies designed for social control;
and that god is more about a traditional habit of thinking and is not compatible with reason and evidence.

But apart from that, I’m open to hear any “hypothesis” and discuss it.

But the persistent refusal to stick their head over their self made parapet does not give me much hope that any Theist has any kind of reason to believe in god and is just responding to their sense of confusion and wonder buy trying to fill a gap in their cognition. Thing is that knowledge and reason take centuries, hard effort and the will to put aside childish things of the past to investigate new horizons. By this method god has faded from an endemic assumption of all human culture to a washed out set of confused ideas; evident in this and other threads. But the idea of god also drags down progress like a yoke whose inertia persist in making enemies inter-faith, intra-faith, against science, reason, and logic. The inertia caused by the will to believe is destructive to human kind.

That was the problem of the original cosmological argument, the Kalam version fixed it and claims that God always existed, is infinite, transcends time and space etc.

IMO it was also invented to explain the world and origin of everything, provide people with a sense of hope and a purpose etc. But yes, I think that it’s mostly just social control.

Agree entirely with everything else.

There’s still no difference as the universe could be eternal. The part about God being infinite (in what sense?) and transcending space and time seems unnecessary and, in Lev’s words, more incredible.

Nice OP, by the way, Lev. My stance is very much the same as yours.

There are a few versions of a cosmological argument, many seem to rely on an assumption of universal causality; that nothing happens without a cause.
Thus the universe has to come into being through the agency of another thing; god.
Clearly this breaks it’s own requirements, as god would also need to be a creation too. Like turtles, it’s gods all the way down, then as each god will also require an act of birth/creation.
If it is absurd to imagine that all this wonder and awe and ‘stuff’ came into being by itself, how much more absurd is it that there is ALSO an infinite regress of creator gods to create (or even in some versions to maintain) the universe? Or if you are going to insist on one god then such a being has to be more remarkable than his creation.

So god as a First Cause? This is simply a contradiction in terms. Do we need to go down that route?

Kalam has been renewed by the Big Bang, but on what grounds? If there has to be a prime mover, then how can a super intelligent being spring into being? But maybe you have something I’ve not yet thought about…
Give me a try.

I think the overall difficulty with this sort of speculation is that even if you could prove an immaterial creator of the material of the universe. There is no grounds for a continued existence for such a being, and no reason to attach all that other stuff; salvation, benevolence, intentionality, will, purpose, miraculous acts, concern, which the Theist really wants. In fact there would be no reason to think of such a creator as god.

Spinoza used a good proof of god, in much the same way, but what he follows up with is a logical definition which basically unpacks everything any one would want of a god concept and destroys it all.

Thanks. The OP was adapted from a post I made in “The God Hypothesis”, thread. I was getting so exasperated with no one bothering to suggest a hypothesis, and when I asked Bob for one, he basically told me to leave the thread.
But in making it clear the manner of my atheism, I decided to extend it and post it here, as the godists were not interested; trying to tar me with the “atheism is a system of belief” brush!

I tend to fall on a sort of new-age/law-of-attraction vibe, and am sympathetic to most religions and theism, though I am probably still closer to existentialism and perspectivism at the core of things: I don’t “believe in” the law of attraction or God so much as I believe that existentialism and perspectivism allow for some creative ways of interpreting the world, and that since we’re all wormfood & stardust anyway, it doesn’t really fucking matter what you or me or anyone thinks. - I mean this is literally the ultimate fruit of atheism and existentialism: complete freedom - think whatever you want and do whatever you want, don’t tread on me, in motion to the ocean.

I mean when Nietzsche gets to his grand conclusion that “life is will-to-power and nothing besides, and you yourself are this will-to-power and nothing besides!”, is he really that far from “God”? Or some varied interpretation of God? I mean holy shit, one of the grand masters of atheism and his epiphany is … well, I mean believe whatever you want, right? (As an aside, I don’t think most atheists understand N’s Madman speech at all, but that’s a different discussion.)

Look … “God” (insofar as we give it any meaning, most atheists don’t) is a necessarily personal topic, much as the issue of your own life and death is a personal topic), as it is highly emotional and highly subjective, and understand this: that’s before we get into whether or not it’s “real.”

I happen to think whether it’s “real” or not is secondary to the entire discussion, in the same way it’s secondary to ponder if we’re just brains in a vat or living in the matrix. “God” is a very powerful concept (or meme) that remains extremely significant if nothing else. Trashing it with typical “I’m an atheist hurr durr” drivel is so fucking boring, man. Seriously. Look around, atheism won. Capitalism is atheistic; public schools are secular; law is secular; science is atheistic; technology is atheistic; from Freud on down no one in the West takes God or theism seriously anymore. You got the world you wanted. Religious people are fringe as shit. No one gives a shit if you’re atheist. Yeah, you and everyone else, pal.

PS - Surely if you don’t want to find God, you won’t. That has to be some kind of axiom here.

this is ridiculous…no one knows anything about origins…this theist/atheist stuff is non-productive…lets get down to how we behave toward each other…

WHy don’t you start a thread of your own?
Either contribute to the thread of leave it.

Yeah here’s the axiom.

Morons who “don’t give a shit”, ought to fuck off to another thread, and talk about shit they like, such as believing any shit you want, and pretend it is knowledge.

Thanks.

why don’t you discuss these issues…

I’m happy to stay on thread and discuss “these issues” on a thread in which they are relevant.

But “getting on” with each other in my view means searching for truth, and not believing any shit that you like. That pretty much discounts religion as a means of “getting on” with each other.
There are many things mobilised to get people arguing with each other, attacking each other, and killing for a belief, and one of the most effective is religion.

Until you know what a god is, you can’t know if you “have one in your life”. The truth is that there is nothing that you call “a god” because the language has changed.

Every atheist is an atheist merely out of ignorance of the language.

with love,
sanjay

so you lack evidence for a deity…
what is the big deal…why should you care…
how are you being threatened…
sounds like it is just talk and argument …
you don’t have evidence…nobody has evidence…
you need my help on this thread…
you have a false belief system.

what is YOUR definition of god…

I do not have a 'belief" on this issue. Can’t you read?

I don’t define a thing that is bollocks.
What do you mean “god”?

THe usual crack pot response.

so you are saying god is testicles…I don’t have a definition…
why don’t you like the god=ultimate reality of everything especially origin of the universe

I doubt that the phrase “ultimate reality of everything especially origin of the universe”, means anything, but if it does there is a perfectly good name for that already: it is “ultimate reality of everything especially origin of the universe”. Calling it “God” just confuses the issue by implying that the “ultimate reality of everything especially origin of the universe”, has either intentionality, purpose, a personality, a discrete existence, or all of the same.
You do not advance and argument for god simply by describing a thing for which you already have no warrant for.
You still have all your work to do saying what you mean by “ultimate reality of everything especially origin of the universe”, and whether or not it represents anything about the universe.
So what so you mean, exactly?

This is nothing new, Pantheism has been around a long time. I feel that God is inherent in paradox it’s self, and God is the essence, which necessarily fill in the vacuum when the critical stage is set for a showdown when the absolute entropy is reached by the simple question 'Why"?
It is the question Christ asked on the cross, of having been abandoned. This christ was the foreshadowing, and the answer to this question is forthcoming. Necessarily and consequentially, because IT has to happen, whether by a process of natural reaction, or, in a re-personified miracle.