Do you ever doubt your atheism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I don't know if I'd quite agree. That we can reason negatively to what this thing cannot be, if our logic is at all to be trusted, and hence come up with ideas such as "necessary," "infinite," "intelligible," that cannot be said to equal comprehension.

It can't? Starting to sound like a god of semantics, eh? Comprehension has a few meanings, I'll grant you that:

the act or action of grasping with the intellect
knowledge gained by comprehending
the capacity for understanding fully
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprehension

-You appear to be angling for the third, but in that case the qualifier "infinitely" becomes redundant. I'm satisfied with the others, and your list of attributes and the process that you have leveraged to generate those attributes appears to be squarely within the remit of those definitions. I -did- suggest using a different word....lol.

I say "infinitely incomprehensible" because everything that is confined to empirical experience, and finite, as all else that is not this thing

What thing? The thing that is not all of the other things? That pretty much describes -any- thing. I'm just ribbing you here, I understand what you mean..lol.

would seem to require, could never have any amount of knowledge that would enable an empirical conception of this thing--as it is only rationally defined, and as it is the prerequisite for any empirical experience in the first place.

Ah, but I don't think anything that could be said to be the ultimate "necessary thing" would fit that bill (as empirical experience is a ways further up, one would imagine). You've also seem to have declared here that we would never be able to determine whether any claim about this "x" is sound - reducing the position, and such claims (in my estimation) to uselessness. As you seem to be alluding to below

Can rational without empirical be conceived as anything, besides a glimmer of the idea only? I don't know, but I don't think so.

Not if we insist that what is valid -must also be sound- in order to lead to truth. We're pretty well aware that our imaginations aren't limited in -all- of the ways that our universe is. We're capable of coming up with empty sets and hollow ideas. But if your bar is that low for god, then go ahead and claim your god? I'm just going to call it imaginary (but you already knew that...lol). I think that the whole god thing just fizzled out like soda though.....right at that point.

[vorlon13]

Being around here has helped firm up my take on things.

Did get quite the charge, however, out of the little blip here, the 'One True Faith' thing, if there is one, it may still remain undisclosed on earth. Ooops! That means all religions on earth are wrong, and the atheists and agnostics included too. That unites humanity in ERROR. LOL!

IOW, humor is universal, even if no religion is or can be.

[FallentoReason]

At first thought, that may appear to be a paradoxical question; like asking, "Do you doubt your disbelief in X?" With certain propositions, however, that is not a meaningless, nor fruitless inquiry to initiate. I have grown increasingly convinced that God, as an idea in its purest form, the free, unconditionally necessary, infinite source of our existence in this particular Universe, is one of those propositions. I am reluctant to use the term Being as this seems an unfortunate presumption, but that this state of affairs--which has historically and in measured respect been the God of true religion--in fair terms, a necessary mechanism on which all rational and empirical experience depends upon, seems to have a mounting case, no longer merely the crowning achievement of philosophy, but apparently also the crown that physical science so desperately seeks: A theory of everything.

But ah, I digress. I could go on but the point is, in atheism, what I am willing to call God, may be a middle ground where two polar opposites can meet, fully aware that in no way does this Ideal of Reason alter any of the functions of our Universe, but instead serves as the systematic unity by which we can perceive reality for what it is, the source of which makes that unity in consciousness we understand as the Self or the Ego possible. At what point of understanding does true religion earn the respect that its name is supposed to represent?

I doubt it daily, based on the fact that I can't account for consciousness through naturalism. But I guess that means I've been pushed to the view that perhaps this universe isn't all that there is, and after death we 'naturally' proceed to the next stage of consciousness, whatever or however that might be. This isn't to say it makes me wonder if "GOD" is real, because adopting that view would be to take a step backwards, philosophically speaking.

[Mudhammam]

I suppose that does place the bar almost uselessly low; however, if there are benefits to belief in a God of this sort (maybe holding out for an ultimate purpose to existence?), that person can at least also maintain a respect for reason and science too.

[Whateverist]

I doubt it daily, based on the fact that I can't account for consciousness through naturalism. But I guess that means I've been pushed to the view that perhaps this universe isn't all that there is, and after death we 'naturally' proceed to the next stage of consciousness, whatever or however that might be. This isn't to say it makes me wonder if "GOD" is real, because adopting that view would be to take a step backwards, philosophically speaking.

I don't understand why, in the absence of a satisfying account of consciousness, you would be tempted to think consciousness persists after death. (Before birth too?)

In general, when something is hard to understand in terms of what we presently understand about the natural world, do you find non-natural options tempting?

Whatever there is that can be understood at all I would consider natural. If there is anything super-, it is simply how hard some things are to understand. Assigning a difficult phenomenon like consciousness to the black box of 'the supernatural' doesn't tempt me.

[FallentoReason]

I doubt it daily, based on the fact that I can't account for consciousness through naturalism. But I guess that means I've been pushed to the view that perhaps this universe isn't all that there is, and after death we 'naturally' proceed to the next stage of consciousness, whatever or however that might be. This isn't to say it makes me wonder if "GOD" is real, because adopting that view would be to take a step backwards, philosophically speaking.

I don't understand why, in the absence of a satisfying account of consciousness, you would be tempted to think consciousness persists after death. (Before birth too?)

Because if consciousness can't be explained by way of the mechanics of this universe, doesn't that mean it must arise from outside of this universe? Mind you, plug in what you will if that's the case; brains in a vacuum, Descarte's Demon, the Matrix etc etc.

In general, when something is hard to understand in terms of what we presently understand about the natural world, do you find non-natural options tempting?

hmm.. it's not that simple, because it's not a dichotomy like you've presented it. In terms of consciousness, I see philosophical problems when trying to explain it through naturalism. I just don't think particles can ever be arranged in such a way as to then hold a *belief* about other particles, or thoughts/emotions/attitudes towards other particles. So that's just merely the conceptual side of things. Thus, scientifically speaking, I think the project is doomed already. It would be like trying to imagine a square circle, and despite the conceptual difficulties, you still believe it can be found scientifically.

As an agnostic, I'm always open to the idea that I'm wrong on this, but given the philosophy thus far, I highly doubt there's a natural explanation for consciousness.

Whatever there is that can be understood at all I would consider natural. If there is anything super-, it is simply how hard some things are to understand. Assigning a difficult phenomenon like consciousness to the black box of 'the supernatural' doesn't tempt me.

Sure, I'm open to the idea that consciousness fits into the natural category. But again, actually proving this to be so seems almost like an impossibility.

[ignoramus]

aren't we all overthinking this.
don't animals have consciousness? they plan, they play, etc
They just don't have the level of intelligence to ask what is "a thought" or "can a thought live outside of my body"

Maybe what we feel as consciousness is just the simple byproduct of the function of the brain (doing it's thing)
We've gained so much ratcheted intelligence over eons that now we are questioning everything?
I would say the simplest most obvious answers are usually the most correct...

[FallentoReason]

aren't we all overthinking this.
don't animals have consciousness? they plan, they play, etc
They just don't have the level of intelligence to ask what is "a thought" or "can a thought live outside of my body"

Maybe what we feel as consciousness is just the simple byproduct of the function of the brain (doing it's thing)
We've gained so much ratcheted intelligence over eons that now we are questioning everything?
I would say the simplest most obvious answers are usually the most correct...

The functionality of a being's consciousness is directly proportional to the size of their brain, and the components making up that brain.
We are superior to most animals because we have developed the frontal cortex(?) which is responsible for such things as planning ahead, short term memory/working memory and other things most animals don't seem to possess.

I think I'm a dualist, because although I recognise there's a correlation between e.g. damaging a part of the brain and then seeing that affect a certain aspect of consciousness, I still think the mind and body are two different things, but they are obviously connected.

[Mudhammam]

Consciousness is certainly a unique challenge; what puzzles me is not simply the fact that a mechanism in nature can manufacture a creature with a sense of a distinct, unified Self, a manifest image that is nothing less than an unfathomable multitude of microscopic machines transmitting information at LIGHTNING speeds, but that this is a thinking subject, a quality that sets us apart from the lower forms.

We can not only rationalize, but discover through our intelligence a sort of logic, that appears in all of nature, from DNA down to the periodic table, to the cosmological constants. Our rationality is able to explain a 14 billion year history beginning with the appearance of time, space, energy, and matter. Not only is this remarkable, it's remarkably peculiar.

[Marsellus Wallace]

I'll doubt my atheism when I get some evidence of a deity. There's nothing at all wrong with saying, "I could be wrong".

Exactly and that is what made you truly debate yourself and realize that religion is bullshit .