Do you ever doubt your atheism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, but an idiom that has historical significance as philosophers have long referred to this simple sum total (simple seems to be what we're striving at) as "God," though perhaps a name change is justified given the attributes superstitious minds have unfortunately heaped upon this incomprehensible source.

Meh, I don't assign significance to an idea or title just because it's been around for a grip.

That's a fair point; it could consist of multiple necessary parts.

-and in an effort to be giving when I receive, I suppose if one holds to reductionism there would , at some point, be some"x" that is neccessary to all of those as well...but at what point we might stop, I couldn't tell you. Reducing the irreduceable - seems to me to be a problem of limited comprehension rather than some informative concept.

Free as in not bound by the laws of causality--which we can only deduce as a principle that applies to finite, empirical objects, because otherwise it would simply be another part of the series and must then itself have a cause--I think QM has shown that this is in fact the case with certain quantum particles coming into existence seemingly without cause, free in the correct sense.

QM, oogity boogity,, lol. QM -does- challenge us, and yet we can describe (and predict) QM in deterministic ways. This probably suggests that we don't fully understand causality, not that causality doesn't hold for some "x" - though, to be fair...we just don't know.

It's infinitely incomprehensible in this way: If we examine "the logic of logic," we find at bottom certain paradoxes, for example, how a thing might be necessary and unconditioned, upon which all contingent and finite things depend upon, because otherwise nothing could have initiated the series; how space would seem to be infinitely divisible and yet finitely traversable between two given points, etc. While reason can lead us to concepts such as these, and in fact depends on them, it doesn't help us to comprehend them--whether it's a something that is non-spatial and non-temporal--or has existed for all eternity. I agree that it may appear

But that just might be the essence or sum-total we can arrive at being incapable of conceiving anything outside of our experience (aided by the light of reason, which can only understand objects in experience, but by doing so depends on a logic that itself depends on incomprehensible categories of existence).

That's a big chunk of comprehension you just offered for what has been described as "infinitely incomprehensible". If you wish to maintain that attribute, you're going to have to give all of that up. Let the "Infinitely incomprehensible" be, truly, incomprehensible - or drop the "infinite" bit...or perhaps, rephrase is as "currently unintelligible".

Fucking Immanuel Kant.

lol, indeed......

[Mister Agenda]

If I heard a former atheist give a reason for converting that didn't make me want to roll my eyes, that might get my attention.

[pocaracas]

So, if I understand it properly, pickup, you're saying that we can call the collection of all the unknowns which, among other things, may be providing us with a common ground on which to experience reality a "god"?
I'd prefer to call them unknowns.
The term "god" carries too much baggage, rendering it improper for the concept you want to pass over.

Seen like this, I see no reason to doubt any atheism.

[Brakeman]

Nope no doubt, I know way too much now. Maybe if I have a severe brain injury in the future, but not if I can keep my wits about me.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Never been given a reason to doubt my position. Or, rather, never been given a reason to believe.

[CindysRain]

Having come at the issue from the other end (strict, literal fundie Christian) I can say that I am as convinced in my atheism as I once was in my theism. The difference being that my conviction as a theist was shaken as I continued to test it. Since I became an atheist, I really haven't seen anything that I hadn't already heard or used to try and support my theistic beliefs. Perhaps the most compelling being that a large part of theism (especially these days, IMO) consists of finding ways around the fact that god just won't reveal himself. I went through that phase in my life, and in the end it's very insensible and unsatisfying. I felt like Yahweh's secretary, telling people "he's been in a meeting since 33AD, and he'll be out in just a minute" for some 30 years.

This. Ditto!

[Mudhammam]

That's a big chunk of comprehension you just offered for what has been described as "infinitely incomprehensible". If you wish to maintain that attribute, you're going to have to give all of that up. Let the "Infinitely incomprehensible" be, truly, incomprehensible - or drop the "infinite" bit...or perhaps, rephrase is as "currently unintelligible".

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

So, if I understand it properly, pickup, you're saying that we can call the collection of all the unknowns which, among other things, may be providing us with a common ground on which to experience reality a "god"?
I'd prefer to call them unknowns.
The term "god" carries too much baggage, rendering it improper for the concept you want to pass over.

Seen like this, I see no reason to doubt any atheism.

Let's just put it this way; if nature is all there is, and is at bottom eternal, necessary, and free from the physical, causal mechanisms that conscious beings, being bound to this experience, will inevitably run up against in terms of conditioned limitations, isn't this similar to God? Might the more honest, thoughtful theists have been on to something? I think it is worth considering from time to time, less I sink into a dogmatic tunnel of reality; and does that still make me an atheist? Or an agnostic--or deist--or both?

[ignoramus]

Pickup, pick one, it's still not going to change who you are, is it?
The only thing that might is the bit which is the most bullshit part.
Whether you believe in a tyrant god who punishes those in the afterlife.

That part was intentionally designed to be unfalsifiable, or else there's no control.
Unless of course you believe the bible is divine! Or is that the qu'ran?
I get so mixed up with all these official scriptures!

Don't let those philosophers turn you religious!

[Eel_LahjicK]

I doubt my atheism like I doubt I'll ever win the Powerball. (when I never play)

[ignoramus]

I doubt my atheism like I doubt I'll ever win the Powerball. (when I never play)

Powerball was 50m here last Thurs.
I bought $50 worth of tickets and won $11!

I am such a winner!
Anyway, it jackpotted to 70m for next Thurs!
Common God!' Be my wingman for once in your fucking life and prove that you are real! I promise to donate 95% charity and help the needy. You know, all that stuff you don't give a shit about. And I'll also turn religious! But you'll need to tell me which flavour god you are? Do we have a deal motherfucker or not!
What if I throw in Min, Boru and Whateverist for you?
(They're on the verge of turning anyway!)