Atheism: hatred of God ideology

[Dr.Barré]

How, precisely, does vastness or complexity warrant deification? I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen things within sight and reach that are "vast and complex". None of which appear to be gods. Speaking of vastness and complexity, at the core of it, just how complex -is- something when reduction works so well? When it is simply a conglomerate of exceedingly simple pieces? Vast according to whom,tiny verbose primates? Unimpressive.

Please provide me with an estimate of how many electrons there are in the known universe.

[Tiberius]

I did state my definition of God as pantheistic from the beginning of this thread. I am not arbitrarily "calling' existence God. I argue it. The deification of existence is warranted by the seemly limitedless size and complexity of the universe which science has dramattically revealed. The cosmos is infinitely incomprehensible.

Can you reply to my PM about your duplicate account(s) please. Otherwise I will have no choice but to ban all of them.

Can you understand why coming into a thread and accusing us of all hating God might cause us to get a little miffed? As it turns out, with your definition, none of us hate God...indeed, we all believe in God, since we all believe in existence (presumably). We call ourselves atheists not in reaction to your God, but in a reaction to the God of theism. We aren't apantheists, we're atheists.

[Creed of Heresy]

That something is extremely complex and cannot be understood NOW does not make it a god, or a godly personification. Remember that rainfall and sunshine and clouds and thunder and lightning and snow and drought and flooding were all considered to be acts of godly figures which we have long since learned to not be true. You are making an error in judgment to proclaim that it "must be god" just because it is not yet knowable...especially given that scientific pursuits into learning of the universe via physics has only really had maybe two centuries to progress. Yet we already are simulating things like micro-singularities, discovering the fabric of the universe, developing theories on how the universe works and functions.

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I reach for the edge of the universe knowing that along some paths of cosmic discovery that, at least for now, one must be content to love the questions themselves." Just because something is not explainable now does not warrant it to be considered godly, and to attribute such a claim is unnecessary. Superfluous, at best. I could call the universe a Super Sunshine Fairy Princess...doesn't make it so.

Then again, this is a matter of subjective opinion. You view the universe as a god because it is so vast and huge and unknowable. I see it, as many atheists, not as god. Because we do not see the universe as unknowable. We see the universe as vast, certainly, and very very very difficult to comprehend, but not impossible, therefore no need to call it god.

[pocaracas]

I did state my definition of God as pantheistic from the beginning of this thread. I am not arbitrarily "calling' existence God. I argue it. The deification of existence is warranted by the seemly limitedless size and complexity of the universe which science has dramattically revealed. The cosmos is infinitely incomprehensible.

yeah... not everyone is aware of what that means.... pantheistic...
Hence the requests of clarification.

You argue that god is existence? please argue ahead, but refrain from stating that atheists hate this god of yours.... maybe we are quite comfortable with it...?

[genkaus]

How, precisely, does vastness or complexity warrant deification? I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen things within sight and reach that are "vast and complex". None of which appear to be gods. Speaking of vastness and complexity, at the core of it, just how complex -is- something when reduction works so well? When it is simply a conglomerate of exceedingly simple pieces? Vast according to whom,tiny verbose primates? Unimpressive.

Please provide me with an estimate of how many electrons there are in the known universe.

10^80 approximately.

[Creed of Heresy]

Please provide me with an estimate of how many electrons there are in the known universe.

15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 was one estimate (the Eddington Number).

[The Grand Nudger]

Please provide me with an estimate of how many electrons there are in the known universe.

So you don't argue it after all, merely assert it. Good for you - get in line. Your "argument" is as vacuous as your usage of the word "god".

[Dr.Barré]

I did state my definition of God as pantheistic from the beginning of this thread. I am not arbitrarily "calling' existence God. I argue it. The deification of existence is warranted by the seemly limitedless size and complexity of the universe which science has dramattically revealed. The cosmos is infinitely incomprehensible.

Can you reply to my PM about your duplicate account(s) please. Otherwise I will have no choice but to ban all of them.

Your software did not recognize my email as valid. Hence, I re-registered. As you note, I made no attempt to conceal this account as I used the same avatar

Can you understand why coming into a thread and accusing us of all hating God might cause us to get a little miffed?

I am not accusing anybody. I am stating my theological/philosophical position. One of my areas of reach is sociological phenomenology. Is it not a precious hypocracy that atheists mock and degrade theism, but when atheism comes under serious attack, you cry foul?

As it turns out, with your definition, none of us hate God...indeed, we all believe in God, since we all believe in existence (presumably). We call ourselves atheists not in reaction to your God, but in a reaction to the God of theism. We aren't apantheists, we're atheists.

Pantheism is a form a theism. Thus, you a-theism would reject Pantheism.

It is on the level of the human spirit that most atheists hate God.

It has nothing to do with believing things. I do not "believe" things. I am a rationalist which should be clear from the characteristics of my post.

What motivates me here is an agenda to awake atheists from what appears to shallow thinking and a dogmatic slumber.

You are the first to at least try to address my arguments in a rational manner. Otherwise, the posts have been expressions of naughty children.

Please dear atheists. Meet my arguments and/or defend your atheism, or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd have to make an argument first, now wouldn't you?

[TaraJo]

Please dear atheists. Meet my arguments and/or defend your atheism, or not.

That's the whole point you don't seem to get: we don't have a belief to defend. Theism, whether it's Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, Pantheism or any other belief system, they all say "this is god." All atheism says is "I don't believe you." We have nothing to defend; you do.