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?

Nope.

No... I have no evidence to suggest that anything other than a disbelief in god(s) is rational.

Rephrase the question? Are you putting the feelers out for an idea that "god" is a TOE? I could certainly say that this seems to be what many were searching for when they started imagining gods, if that's the question. There's never a point at which I'd call a theory a god, or God, personally.

No, I don't doubt my atheist views. I'd need new evidence and argument of the kind theists haven't been able to produce for decades at least. But I live in the knowledge that I could doubt, given evidence.

No, and I won't unless someone comes up with compelling evidence to support their theism.

(August 16, 2014 at 3:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: Rephrase the question? Are you putting the feelers out for an idea that "god" is a TOE? I could certainly say that this seems to be what many were searching for when they started imagining gods, if that's the question. There's never a point at which I'd call a theory a god, or God, personally.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "putting the feelers out" but no, I'm not suggesting God as a theory in any sense but as a title that properly encompasses the infinitely incomprehensible that our philosophy and sciences seem directed towards as the source of everything (I don't think that can be captured by a scientific theory, btw), this substance or whatever you may have it being: unconditioned, necessary, free, and in some way separate from the physical, spacetime Universe.

I hear you pickup. Even if (romantically) we feel the need to blame "something" for "everything", it won't be the current religious crowd.

They won't even be vaguely interested in this new entity.
The vast majority are only in it selfishly for personal salvation.

"An ammoral entity which created everything ..." what use is that to anybody if they cannot benefit from it somehow.

No, but I qualify it all the time as I recognize I have room for counterparts for most of the trappings of Christianity - just minus the god.

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".