Do you ever doubt your atheism?

[Clueless Morgan]

Do you ever doubt your atheism?

Do I have a reason to doubt a position I hold as a result of reasoned consideration, inference based on scientific evidence and logic?

[robvalue]

Well, making sense is just your religion or something.

[naimless]

In response to OP's question, yes.

Particularly in life/death scenarios.

I've had some subjective experiences.

[Mudhammam]

In response to OP's question, yes.

Particularly in life/death scenarios.

I've had some subjective experiences.

Care to explain?

[Brian37]

To the original poster at the beginning of the thread.

Stephen Hawkings "A God is not required"

Instead of insisting on a prime mover or cause, you need to consider that you are making up your own idea of what you want a "god" to be. "In it's purest form" by what scientific study do you define "purest form". This is the same flaw gap filling theists make.

You accept the fact that hurricane does not have a cognition causing it then why would the universe need a cognition either? If you are going to go by the idea that nature itself is a god, that is absurd too.

Instead of insisting on using a vacuous word like "god" just say "i don't know" and wait for science to figure out what is going on.

Trying to re define a word rooted in ancient myth and create a new age si fi woo meaning is absurd.

I do not like it when standard religions fill in the gap like that and I do not like it when atheists or new agers try it either.

"All this" is really no different than the seasons changing, a giant weather pattern without a cause or cognition . QM is not license to fill in gaps. The universe is freaky enough without inserting any kind of myth or woo into a gap.

What you are mentally doing without being aware is trying to justify an eternity and the reality is that we are finite.
.

[Mudhammam]

To the original poster at the beginning of the thread.

Stephen Hawkings "A God is not required"

Instead of insisting on a prime mover or cause, you need to consider that you are making up your own idea of what you want a "god" to be. "In it's purest form" by what scientific study do you define "purest form". This is the same flaw gap filling theists make.

You accept the fact that hurricane does not have a cognition causing it then why would the universe need a cognition either? If you are going to go by the idea that nature itself is a god, that is absurd too.

Instead of insisting on using a vacuous word like "god" just say "i don't know" and wait for science to figure out what is going on.

Trying to re define a word rooted in ancient myth and create a new age si fi woo meaning is absurd.

I do not like it when standard religions fill in the gap like that and I do not like it when atheists or new agers try it either.

"All this" is really no different than the seasons changing, a giant weather pattern without a cause or cognition . QM is not license to fill in gaps. The universe is freaky enough without inserting any kind of myth or woo into a gap.

What you are mentally doing without being aware is trying to justify an eternity and the reality is that we are finite.
.

I was only relaying what struck me as the vague notion of God outlined in classic philosophical disputes and the similarities exhibited in certain scientific discoveries, such as 1) the apparent reality that something is eternal and outside of both spacetime and matter/energy, whether we call it a multiverse, a quantum foam or vacuum state (I have to brush up on the "Big Bounce" theory Diablo linked to so that might discredit the notion of a "first moment in time"), or 2) that determinism might ultimately bow to indeterminism (freedom in the truest sense, which God was often alleged to be). My use of the word God carries no connotations of ancient superstitions any more than theoretical physicists use of the term "God particle" for the Higgs boson does. God to me just amounts to something at bottom ineffable, a reality beyond the grasps of physical science because it may not (or it may) be describable in physical terms; it may not even be physical. I'm saying that neither I nor anyone else can state dogmatically either way until everything that can possibly be known is known, and I'm rather pessimistic as to whether or not that is even possible given our status as: one species, with one kind of brain evolved in a specific environment to perform particular functions, in a Universe that seems infinitely big and yet may only be the size of an atom in comparison to a reality far larger.

[naimless]

In response to OP's question, yes.

Particularly in life/death scenarios.

I've had some subjective experiences.

Care to explain?

Like I was bleeding out pretty heavily once and another time I was stranded in the middle of nowhere when my jeep broke down... basically I realised I didn't want to die like that both times so humbled myself to a higher power of some description - "god" is the word I am most familiar with, "universe" or "nature" is the thought.

I've also had experiences where I have wished things upon the universe that have came true when I have had entire faith in the universe. Things like getting girls, winning insane amounts of money, playing sports at the highest level, etc.

I have also had dreams where everything I asked is explained to me by "god", and experiences where I am creating my reality as if I am "Jesus". But then I have also had dreams of just having a normal day and eating KFC and then the most adrenaline rushing apocalypses so it is hard to put them all in context.

It isn't possible for me to achieve things within the top 1% of humanity without insane psychopathic meditation of the moments it requires. I think science describes some of the objective "how", but the subjective "why" is forever agnostic. Like, looking back it was entirely logical how I bled out or won a tournament but why it happened in those exact moments is quite synchronised.

[Brian37]

I was only relaying what struck me as the vague notion of God outlined in classic philosophical disputes and the similarities exhibited in certain scientific discoveries, such as 1) the apparent reality that something is eternal and outside of both spacetime and matter/energy, whether we call it a multiverse, a quantum foam or vacuum state (I have to brush up on the "Big Bounce" theory Diablo linked to so that might discredit the notion of a "first moment in time"), or 2) that determinism might ultimately bow to indeterminism (freedom in the truest sense, which God was often alleged to be). My use of the word God carries no connotations of ancient superstitions any more than theoretical physicists use of the term "God particle" for the Higgs boson does. God to me just amounts to something at bottom ineffable, a reality beyond the grasps of physical science because it may not (or it may) be describable in physical terms; it may not even be physical. I'm saying that neither I nor anyone else can state dogmatically either way until everything that can possibly be known is known, and I'm rather pessimistic as to whether or not that is even possible given our status as: one species, with one kind of brain evolved in a specific environment to perform particular functions, in a Universe that seems infinitely big and yet may only be the size of an atom in comparison to a reality far larger.

I was only relaying what struck me as the vague notion of God

You don't simply mentally masturbate. Before you present an argument to someone you collect data that is established, you test that data with control groups, then you turn your findings over to independent sources to see if they come up with the same answer. If they do, then you are onto something, if it is knocked down, you start over and try to find the error in the data or methodology.

Vagueness is never a way to start thinking.

"Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" Thomas Jefferson.

You have tons of competing claims about what a "god" is and no human to this date can empirically prove even the necessity of one. Science on top of that is pointing away from a god.

What ifs in science are thought out and reasoned backed up with prior scientific method.

I would simply take the most likly answer which is people like the idea of a god and make them up for a placebo comfort to avoid facing their finite existence. Psychology and even neurology and biochemistry and evolution explain to a much better degree how humans can make bad claims and come to bad conclusions.

[Mudhammam]

You don't simply mentally masturbate. Before you present an argument to someone you collect data that is established, you test that data with control groups, then you turn your findings over to independent sources to see if they come up with the same answer. If they do, then you are onto something, if it is knocked down, you start over and try to find the error in the data or methodology.

Vagueness is never a way to start thinking.

It's called 2,500 years of deductive philosophy. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions reached by a number of rationalists who use common sense, practical logic in extension to arrive at this vague notion of God doesn't even remotely imply that they started with it.

"Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" Thomas Jefferson.

You have tons of competing claims about what a "god" is and no human to this date can empirically prove even the necessity of one. Science on top of that is pointing away from a god.

There are a lot of things you cannot prove empirically that you take for granted or rely on from necessity. The "soul" or "self" is perhaps the most obvious. Empiricism requires certain assumptions to even get off the ground (such as that the Universe is structured so as to make rational understanding possible). Your comments about verification suggest you don't really understand the arguments people have used to justify belief in a god (considering that an entire school of thought places concepts above percepts, God being objectively known by the former, so they claim).

What ifs in science are thought out and reasoned backed up with prior scientific method.

I would simply take the most likly answer which is people like the idea of a god and make them up for a placebo comfort to avoid facing their finite existence. Psychology and even neurology and biochemistry and evolution explain to a much better degree how humans can make bad claims and come to bad conclusions.

If the idea of god is in fact as effective as a placebo, and its universal appeal suggests it is, then it deserves our attention whether or not we believe it possesses an iota of truth about any alleged ultimate, objective world.

[vendetta]

Ofc I do. Because that's how you test your beliefs. Conviction without doubt is blind faith (kinda like religion). Doubt causes you to reasses and reaffirm what you believe.

Now, I wouldn't say there's any doubt in my mind that the Abrahamic god is a myth because there's not, I feel like it's objectively false. But I do allow myself to question whether or not I believe in the possibility of any deity at all and the answer is always no.