When Atheists turn around

I have posted a few comments on this forum, upholding ‘Atheism’ as the only true philosophy that can be of service to the human-race. I have changed my views of God, but I am not going to delete any of my posts reflecting Atheism. For I am going to leave them there for reference, in case someone desires to go back and look at some atheistic arguments.

I’ve got to thinking, during the weekend, about the concept of God to all people. The God of you, isn’t my God. No one has the EXACT same concept of God. Everyone adds their own personal tidbits into the Theistic mix, to create unique, yet defined beliefs.

When you debate so long (For months, in my case), against God, you start to feel slightly alone, in that there are probably more people that believe in God than people that don’t. So immidiatly, this weekend, I thought to myself, about all the benefits of believing in SOME SORT of God, of some type. So, I wiped away the title of Atheist. No, I didn’t want to be the hate-stock of the crowd, anymore. I had read some things about Syntheism, throughout the week before, and learned that it attributed Theistic/Atheistic beliefs into it’s baselines. For example, I found that I could never believe in the Christo/Judeo/Islamic God. Because, logic has already proved that he doesn’t, and can’t exist. But I thought of all the possibilities on the ‘form’ of God that I could choose. So, I chose a believe in God, as the creative force of the universe.

very interesting aviemus.

I would agree 100% that the god(s) of christianity, islam, mormons, doesn’t exist.

so, tell me how that makes your god more valid than thier god? (Same thing I asked future man about his omnisoul.)

Why should one believe that believing in your god is any more promising than believing in the christian god?

I mean, yours has one thing going for it, in that it’s not an exclusionary god. Like YHWH, ALLAH, and CHRIST.


Good question. Well, one thing I always liked about Atheism, was the freedom it gave you from the controlling Gods of given cultures. With Atheism, you didn’t have to have a burden of following strict traditions, rules, or be afraid of going to Hell for all of eternity.

The God I have deviced from principles, is a consciouss, creative force. It (God), recides in all human beings, animals, plants. etc.

He IS the principle of creative forces. The force… that drives us to love. Or to hate, or to give to the poor. My God has no rules… he is exactly what human nature incompasses.

I still believe in the Universe being born from chaos, and I believe that science in the ‘creative force’ that molded together what we call our Earth. It’s a natural thing… God is the principle of amazing things happening, to form other amazing things.

In a sense, I am still an atheist. But I have went on, to believing in a VERY light form of Theism.

The God Of Aviemus…sounds ancient…but how shall you convert the stupid-folk without having any similarities with the Christian/Judeo/Islamic God?

skythe i dont remember being asked that, but the reason why one theory is better than another is because of useful atheists like yourself. you say you dont believe in jesus because there are so many logical inconsistencies that have been put forward, despite the fact that the underlying message remains plausible.

so you just take the plausible parts, and change around the stupid contradictory parts so that they are also plausible. theres a lot to be changed, as can be seen by the differences between my and the popes theories. the thing that makes mine more valid is that you totally cant say that the things that are wrong with the wrong religions are also wrong with mine.

you also have to forget any ridiculous rituals that all isolated island men dont agree on. namely all except roughly “treat your neighbor like yourself”

there remains the possibility that god is a lot like what i describe except slightly different, but really the only important part of the theory is that god wants us to do selfless good. if a religion says anything besides this, id say its totally wrong. and if it says stuff in addition to this, i imagine its unprovable and doesnt really matter. (i wouldnt call buddhist discoveries of scientific psychological phenomena a religious revelation, but a scientific one that happened to, lucky for buddha, happen in a religious context)


Yeah, converting people would be a problem. :wink: But, all I can do, is present my ideas, and hopefully poor souls can wonder unto my rantings and find bits of truth within. It would be nice if people could embrace either my concept of God, or another one besides the Xtian one.

Yeah. Does sound ancient doesn’t it?

aviemus, your god sounds like … a polymer, a bond that holds us together, an emotional glue.

good answer. but, is it nothing more than our animal nature at work? I mean look at the way birds can fly in formation, is it the work of god, or the work of spirits or the work of nature?

you could say that god made a system that made natural, rule following life which led to formation following birds.

i think that sounds a lot better than “it wasnt created it just was for no good reason

Skythe, you said for example: the flying formation of birds.

This is somewhat thrown into the mix of: Nature’s work over millions of years of evolution, spirits in the sense that there is conscious life inside the birds, and God himself. I like how you refer to my God as a polymer that holds everything together. That’s pretty much what he is. He is the driving force. The force that molds the bird’s formation together, so that it comes natural to them to fly in such ways.

Many don’t believe in an afterlife. They are constantly questioned why they want to continue to live, if there is nothing to look forward to… after he/she dies.

I’ll tell you. People who don’t believe in an afterlife, continue living because the forces within, make them want to live. Even if they don’t believe in a ‘here-after.’

God is this force. The force of life, that lives without any ‘given’ meaning.

I thought about this more, and I’ve decided that evolution could be the driving force behind the metaphysical glue. There needn’t be a god there. Does there? I mean you know the christian god is a sham, yet believe in a personal deity that fits your set beliefs of how you see the world is working. But, does their have to be a god? Metaphysics (reincarnation, ghosts, spiritual connections) is interesting at best.

Very little proof, if someone says “you’ve lived before as so and so.” should you believe him? The most substantial proof I’ve seen is this guy who had a birth mark where his “past life” was shot. And he substantially looked VERY similiar to him as well, even this though doesn’t necessarily point to the need for a god does it?

Think on this:

You have lived your life. Right now, you are in continual continuation of living your life. You are so attached to living, as you know it, that life is the essence and pillar, holding up anything that is in existance for you. Everything you know, have heard, have seen, is based upon the fact that you have lived long enough to take in all this knowledge. Yet, some day, your body will fail you, and your physical life will be gone. What happens to these thoughts/feelings/emotions/facts/knowledges, after you have died? Mass cannot be created or destroyed… neither can ENERGY. Your thoughts/feelings etc. exist in a energetic realm in your mind. Once you yourself know something, you can never truly forget. But what happens to all these things after you die? They can’t be destroyed. Therefore, they HAVE to go somewhere, in some form of existance. Right?

You are very correct.

This force, as you say, doesn’t necessarily have to be considered ‘God.’
The force, that you have recognized, takes on it’s own characteristics when it applies itself to living things. A personality, so to speak. Many personalities, but all of them pointing to one, distinct personality. This personality has to have a consciousness of some form, in order to exist and uphold itself as what it is. With any energy comes consciousness… comes life. That means, that any conscious being, as science has defined, with a personality, is a living being. God is a living being, for he is a sum of all conscious characteristics.

There are billions of people in the world. There have been many species, that have lived and died through natural selection. God, so to speak, creates personalities (species), and either kills them off because they do not suffice, or lets them live. Natural selection. God strives, naturally, for overall perfection. Bacteria. Insects. Rats. Mice. Birds. Trees. Humans.

The reason I am drawn to call this force God, is because it is the one truth, one personality that contributes to all the trillions of personalities in the universe.

We, as humans, are God. One with him. Your thoughts, are his. His thoughts, are ours. We, as humans, are very close to biological perfection… moreso than any other living creature on this Earth.

[contented edited by ILP]

Hi aviemus :slight_smile:

Very interesting ways. Even if, despite what you mentioned, which I totally understand, I still do not find the idea of a ‘‘god’’ fitting into the belief system of syntheism. Maybe you can clear it up for me?

I quote:

After close examination of this, I would say that this does not prove the existence of an all-powerful, perfect, etc god, right? In accordance to that fundamental belief, your god (your consciousness?) is still limited in many ways.

So bound by human nature? Human nature is not a perfect thing. So we in a very well position as a Gambler-believing that there is an ‘‘animating life force’’ in everything. Then, of course, maybe individuals that do not believe in syntheism and do not believe in a ‘‘creative force’’ would just…I dont know? Could you clear that up for me? The phrase ‘human nature’ is, once you reflect on it for a moment, more problematic than helpful.

Unless you are implying that even such destructive forces like hate are part of the ‘‘beauty’’ of the creative force?

aviemus I think you hold agaisnt some christians the very things God holds against them. Check this out…

These are from the second chapter in Revelation…


Mike’s Hard God Lite - Same great taste fewer sinful calories.

Now wait a tic, aviemus, you went to agreeing with me about god being needed to including him in every sentence. wth?

God doesn’t need to do any of that. Nature has hardwired itself for survival. The very stars cry out their own mortality so why if there was a god would he be an exception to the universes mortality? why would our souls be an exception?


interesting story about an ex-athiest famous philosopher. My favorite quote from the story is:

Honestly though yours and his personal god isn’t any different than the god of islam or the christian god. It’s an exclusionary god, that requires your belief to survive. It’s an exclusionary god of gaps that fills in all the metaphysical holes in the universe. A creationary god?

What do you gain by believing in the god of gaps?

Do you feel happier? I feel happier dropping god. I feel my mind is finally free from trying to wrap my brain around something completely and wholly irrational.

Skythe I never really said that my God needed to be believed in. If you are strong enough in believing in just yourself, and being free, then I say: this is good enough. That is ALL God requires: That you at least believe in yourself as a person. Since he resides in you, you can call ‘believing in god’, just ‘believing in yourself.’ Atheists constantly send out the messenge of human power. And individual power. God does the same thing. Why would he require worship? HE DOESN’T! Would you worship yourself? Unless you were extremely vain, then no. The God of Aviemus promotes nothing but freedom. Freedom and rational thinking.
We as humans are so very much part of God, that we can’t really be considered seperate. From now on, when you refer to the God of Aviemus as ‘he’, you are using a new synonym of ‘we.’

Aqua Destruction/Evil, do come into the formula of life. Just as Creation/Good. They seem at the opposite ends of the spectrum, but if you see if from the rational stand-point, then they feed from each other. They are both beautiful, in a natural sense. Think of the Tao: Good in evil, evil in good. One cannot exist without the other. Some people are overall good, some people are overall evil. God is both. Depending on what you promote. He is us. We are him. What we do morally, reflects directly on what God is, in all his splendor.

Dust of the Earth Very much true, on the fact that many who claim to be righteous, are by no means righteous.
You see many Christians going to church, and while in church, attempting to boost their image unto others as best they can. Then you see them at work, or school, and they are sick-minded and derranged people. I think most of it has to do with social status. Most Christians probably don’t really believe what they claim to believe.

Hi aviemus.

Sure, I see the connotation behind destruction being “part of the natural process of beauty”, but beauty in and of itself is something fully glorious, without the need of destruction where suffering and harm may bw fully inflicted. Surely you have to understand that that type of reasoning is opposed and denying the many victims of horrific destruction. I understand natural destruction, but what about destruction imposed by humans artificially? We can take a look at present Iraq or when the United States atomic-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki causing millions of deaths and long-term effects such as cancer, genetic malformities, etc Surely there is no ‘‘beauty’’ in such type of destruction?

And with that attitude, do you think we can fix our environmental problems? If I, and everyone else, had the attitude of: “Wow, yes, there is so much destruction caused by humans such as industrial pollution, deforestation, water pollution, etc, but I see that there is beauty.” When in fact, this defies all rationality. We know that ‘‘positive thoughts’’ are not the only answer to our societal/global problems. What do you think?

Oh, and I very much agree with you when you mention most of life is comprised of neutrality, since there is no perfection. The only perfection is this chaotic and random universe :laughing:

I am glad you have become more happy as a result of this, but bear in mind always that your god is a product of your lonliness and desire not to be the target of others’ scorn. Whether this makes your new found faith more or less valuable is something you might consider next weekend.


But I thought it was ancient! :laughing:

I liked the old one better, it didn’t have such a bad aftertaste…oh crap, yes it did!

Wow, The God of Aviemus is more ancient than I thought! Cast out the blasphemers!!!

Uhm, didn’t Abraham invent YHWH the same way?

actually Abraham invented Elohim. YHWH came at the time of Moses in the onion layers of the bible.


first edition of the Torah pre-mosaic anti-feminist movement.

Gen 1: creation account (Elohim)
Gen 11: Tower of Babel (Elohim and his god crew take out the tower of babel)

then later Gen 2 - 10 were added and added TWO contradictions (obvious ones at least)

Gen 2 retold the creation account, but this time man was the first creation instead of the last, and women were vilified.

Gen 10 ends the Noahic flood, and one of the very last lines explains that after this mankind spread out and diversified. One problem. We got back together in Babylon some undisclosed time later, and were united, and “there’s no telling what mankind can do in the peaceful state” so what does good old Elohim do? scatter us to the winds.