"How do I know God exists?" - the first step to atheism

[Abracadabra]

You know what's funny too Abra? your sig on Atheism is still as dead wrong as you are about reality. Atheism means only one thing rejection of the god claims usually because of a lack of evidence (something you refuse to give for your asinine positions) any other question after that is a seperate question for the specific Atheist. In fact, you're an Atheist and I can prove it, do you believe in any of the god claims? no? then you're an Atheist.

I've already posted this several times, but I'll do it again for your sake.

I have studiously read the forum rules and definitions of "Atheism" the very day that I joined this forum. I wanted to make sure that I was in compliance with what this web site expects of its members.

So yes, I am an "Atheist". In fact, according to a definition given on these very forums I'm a "Strong Atheist" or "Gnostic Atheist" (i.e. proclaiming to have knowledge that certain Gods definitely do not exist.

Gnostic (strong) atheist

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

I'm definitely a strong atheist when it comes to Gods like those of Greek and Hebrew mythology, etc.

But at the same time, I recognize that I am also an Agnostic Spiritualist. In other words, I am open-minded to a possible spiritual essence of reality and proclaim that this cannot be ruled-out based on current human knowledge. (the italicized part of the above defintion of "Strong Atheist" actually permits a Strong Atheist to also be agnostic toward other types of "gods" (or spirituality).

In fact, I personally prefer to refer to that as "Agnostic Spiritualist".

So in my Religions views I list myself as: Gnostic Atheists, Agnostic Spiritualist.

Totally within the accepted definition of "Gnostic Atheist" provided by this very web site.

I claim that certain types of Gods cannot exist (i.e the biblical God, etc.), whilst simultaneously keeping an open mind to other types of spiritual concepts that I personally claim cannot be ruled out by current human knowledge in any field of study, including the sciences.

I personally lean toward the Eastern Mystical view of spirituality as being the most likely candidate for the truth of reality.

And that's where I stand. It's a very consistent position that many people apparently seem to have difficulty comprehending for some reason.

So yes, I'm both a Gnostic Atheist and an Agnostic Spiritualist simultaneously, and I'm in total harmony with the meanings of both of these terms.

So there's no inconsistency at my end at all.

---

I've seen some people here mention the concept of the "soul". The only difference I can see between the definition of the soul and the mind is that the soul carries on after death.
That being said, I know I have a mind. Its the term for me, my personality, my thoughts. Its demonstrable because without a mind I would not have an opinion. It really boils down to: "I think therefore I am".
The same cannot be said for the soul. Its very nice in a poetic sense but there is nothing to indicate anything of me will live on after I die.
That being said; isn't the existence of the mind, the essence of who we are enough to sate such longings for something transcendental? It can be damaged and destroyed but doesn't that make it more precious? Although a man may not hold onto the dream that is eternity I don't think that makes him any less capable of grasping the beauty and the eloquence behind what makes an individual an individual.

These kinds of questions are extremely interesting.

The first thought that comes to my mind when these types of questions are raised, are questions of people who have suffered severe amnesia.

If they have basically forgotten who they are. Their entire past. And can't even recognize their own family and friends. Does this mean that the "person" they used to be has "died"?

Doe this mean that the body now contains a brand "new" awareness. And brand "new" individual?

I think arguments can be made on either side of the fence.

However, my personal view is that the awareness would still be the 'same person' even though they no longer remember their past.

And these types of questions are indeed the very types of questions that are interesting to ponder in terms of Eastern Mysticism.

If, when we die, we are reincarnated into a completely new body and we have absolutely no recollection of our past life. How would this be any different from the situation of someone who has suffered extreme amnesia?

That new awareness could potentially be the same underlying being.

I think as difficult as this concept is to grasp, this may very well be how it actually works in some sense.

This is why the question of "What is it that is aware?" is such a paramount question.

If the biological brain the thing that is 'aware'?

And if so, how can that be? A biological brain is nothing other than stardust in a given configuration. What is it that would be having this experience of "awareness"?

The stardust? The configuration?

What sense does it make to say that either stardust, or "a configuration" could be aware of anything?

This is precisely the reason the Eastern Mystics chose to believe in "mysticism" (i.e. that something far more mystical is going on).

I tend to agree.

And my only position on that is that I can't "rule it out".

Neither can I "rule-in" why a mere configuration of stardust should be able to experience anything.

What is it that is having the experience?

That's the $64,000 question.