Do you ever doubt your atheism?

[Diablo]

In reply to the OP, no. Or NO. Or non, nein, niet etc etc.

[ComradeMeow]

I have not doubted my Atheism although I doubt my lack of religion which is why I interested myself in non-theistic religions like Buddhism but it all ended up short.
I am just a happy atheist although I can be slightly religious you could say

---

To be a true atheist is to doubt, continually questioning.

And eat babies, you forgot about that part

[Natachan]

No. Why? You have some evidence or some reason I could be wrong?

Sometimes I wish I was. I wish there was some force looking out for me, making sure I would be ok. But my wishing doesn't make it so. The universe is not subject to my desires.

[psychoslice]

I have not doubted my Atheism although I doubt my lack of religion which is why I interested myself in non-theistic religions like Buddhism but it all ended up short.
I am just a happy atheist although I can be slightly religious you could say

---

To be a true atheist is to doubt, continually questioning.

And eat babies, you forgot about that part

Yea I wouldn't mind nibbling on their cute little toes, with a little soya sauce, mmmmm.

[Whateverist]

No, I find my atheism holding up just fine. No worries on that score.

[BlackMason]

Pickup, am I right in assuming that you have changed the definition of god? I'm gonna proceed on this assumption.

I think the way one defines atheism is intrinsically contingent on how god is defined. It appears that in your OP you are applying a different definition of god while not calibrating your definition of atheism. This leads to you asking the question of doubting atheism. You have changed the creature but not the tool.

It is also not surprising that you should have doubts because you are evaluating something totally different. The mechanisms that make atheism viable can fall away as soon as you change "god".

[onebluethinker]

No. I may be very insecure about being loved by my family and being accepted by the world, and I may often wish I was still religious, but once I acknowledged I was an atheist I knew there was no going back and convincing myself.

[Mudhammam]

Pickup, am I right in assuming that you have changed the definition of god? I'm gonna proceed on this assumption.

I think the way one defines atheism is intrinsically contingent on how god is defined. It appears that in your OP you are applying a different definition of god while not calibrating your definition of atheism. This leads to you asking the question of doubting atheism. You have changed the creature but not the tool.

It is also not surprising that you should have doubts because you are evaluating something totally different. The mechanisms that make atheism viable can fall away as soon as you change "god".

The only meaningful idea of God, the one that I intended to convey, and the only one that deserves thoughtful consideration IMHO, is the deistic god; the free, necessary, infinite--but otherwise as of yet misunderstood--being from which all spacetime, matter, and energy have their origin.

[Whateverist]

Pickup, am I right in assuming that you have changed the definition of god?

The only meaningful idea of God, the one that I intended to convey, and the only one that deserves thoughtful consideration IMHO, is the deistic god; the free, necessary, infinite--but otherwise as of yet misunderstood--being from which all spacetime, matter, and energy have their origin.

I'm surprised you'd describe such a god as "necessary". What is it that we understand so well as to be able to say what is or isn't necessary to account for reality as we find it?

The other thing I'd like to know is how you can be sure that a single god was accountable for space, time and energy/matter. How does anyone know that gods do not work from a basic substrate which includes all of these? But if you insist that deist gods created everything from an absolute, unqualitfied nothing .. what created them?

[Mudhammam]

The only meaningful idea of God, the one that I intended to convey, and the only one that deserves thoughtful consideration IMHO, is the deistic god; the free, necessary, infinite--but otherwise as of yet misunderstood--being from which all spacetime, matter, and energy have their origin.

I'm surprised you'd describe such a god as "necessary". What is it that we understand so well as to be able to say what is or isn't necessary to account for reality as we find it?

The other thing I'd like to know is how you can be sure that a single god was accountable for space, time and energy/matter. How does anyone know that gods do not work from a basic substrate which includes all of these? But if you insist that deist gods created everything from an absolute, unqualitfied nothing .. what created them?

I postulate necessary because of the infinite regress problem. The three logical possibilities as I understand them are 1. Caused, 2. Uncaused, and 3. Self-caused. 3. is a contradiction if terms and 1. only gets us where we began, so 2. would seem to be the only logical solution.

A multiplicity of necessary beings is a logical possibility, but these would also be finite beings, and it still seems to me that we could reduce their utility to a fundamental oneness in which we might say that together they comprise the supreme being.

I use the term "being" not in any sense of individuality, but in contrast from non-being, or non-existence. For all we know it could amount to a simple law of hyper-physicality.