Do you ever doubt your atheism?

[Chas]

At first thought, that may appear to be a paradoxical question; like asking, "Do you doubt your disbelief in X?" With certain propositions, however, that is not a meaningless, nor fruitless inquiry to initiate. I have grown increasingly convinced that God, as an idea in its purest form, the free, unconditionally necessary, infinite source of our existence in this particular Universe, is one of those propositions. I am reluctant to use the term Being as this seems an unfortunate presumption, but that this state of affairs--which has historically and in measured respect been the God of true religion--in fair terms, a necessary mechanism on which all rational and empirical experience depends upon, seems to have a mounting case, no longer merely the crowning achievement of philosophy, but apparently also the crown that physical science so desperately seeks: A theory of everything.

How could it be a 'necessary truth'? That is an argument from ignorance.
And it couldn't be a theory of everything - it has no actual explanatory power - not a scientific theory at all.

But ah, I digress. I could go on but the point is, in atheism, what I am willing to call God, may be a middle ground where two polar opposites can meet, fully aware that in no way does this Ideal of Reason alter any of the functions of our Universe, but instead serves as the systematic unity by which we can perceive reality for what it is, the source of which makes that unity in consciousness we understand as the Self or the Ego possible. At what point of understanding does true religion earn the respect that its name is supposed to represent?

Religions come nowhere near the ideal you propose, and it does not seem their purpose to do so.

[Whateverist]

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.

So the god of Abraham -as you were led to conceive of him- is easily dismissed. But do you imagine that every Christian holds that image of their god? Here in the US where I live, it sure seems like it. But it is good to remember that dismissing that conception of god does not invalidate every Christian's beliefs.

[Mudhammam]

How could it be a 'necessary truth'? That is an argument from ignorance.
And it couldn't be a theory of everything - it has no actual explanatory power - not a scientific theory at all.

Religions come nowhere near the ideal you propose, and it does not seem their purpose to do so.

Unless your claim is that being springs forth from non-being ex nihilo nihil fit, then it seems you have to propose a necessary being. It was most commonly debated whether or not this necessary being was the Universe or God. To the past free thinkers who held that it was the Universe, modern cosmology would seem to have delivered them a near fatal blow. That's primarily what I was saying as far as current discoveries running parallel to theistic arguments down the ages... How you misconstrued this to mean that I ever suggested God is a scientific hypothesis... well I don't know.

You're right about most religions falling short of this ideal... and many properly deserve the name "superstition" as well as the criticism they receive... but that still doesn't mean there isn't something valuable to retain from them and that an opposite extreme isn't itself victim to it's own narrow-mindedness. I'm simply putting the suggestion out there as a thought that creeps up in my mind every now and then.

[Chas]

How could it be a 'necessary truth'? That is an argument from ignorance.
And it couldn't be a theory of everything - it has no actual explanatory power - not a scientific theory at all.

Religions come nowhere near the ideal you propose, and it does not seem their purpose to do so.

Unless your claim is that being springs forth from non-being ex nihilo nihil fit, then it seems you have to propose a necessary being.

I'm not, and no I don't. The use of the word 'being' refers to an intentional entity. If you are using it in some other sense, you have not made that explicit.

It was most commonly debated whether or not this necessary being was the Universe or God. To the past free thinkers who held that it was the Universe, modern cosmology would seem to have delivered them a near fatal blow. That's primarily what I was saying as far as current discoveries running parallel to theistic arguments down the ages... How you misconstrued this to mean that I ever suggested God is a scientific hypothesis... well I don't know.

Sorry, but it's not clear to me what modern cosmology deals a fatal blow to.

You're right about most religions falling short of this ideal... and many properly deserve the name "superstition" as well as the criticism they receive... but that still doesn't mean there isn't something valuable to retain from them and that an opposite extreme isn't itself victim to it's own narrow-mindedness. I'm simply putting the suggestion out there as a thought that creeps up in my mind every now and then.

There is nothing valuable in any religion that is not available from a non-religious source. So, there's that.

[Mudhammam]

I'm not, and no I don't. The use of the word 'being' refers to an intentional entity. If you are using it in some other sense, you have not made that explicit.

I use the word "being" to simply mean, "to be," in contrast to "non-being." You'll have to clarify your definition of "intentional entity" but that's not necessarily what I had in mind.

Sorry, but it's not clear to me what modern cosmology deals a fatal blow to.

Near fatal. An eternal, spacetime, material Universe.

There is nothing valuable in any religion that is not available from a non-religious source. So, there's that.

There is a non-religious source for ideas such as the soul, free will, and hope in the continuation of life after death? I don't think so. You might not find these ideas valuable, but I would tend to agree with the vast majority of human beings presently and throughout history who do.

[Whateverist]

There is a non-religious source for ideas such as the soul, free will, and hope in the continuation of life after death? I don't think so. You might not find these ideas valuable, but I would tend to agree with the vast majority of human beings presently and throughout history who do.

I think there are indeed non-religious sources for ideas such as soul. Free will is a quagmire of questionable use. Life after death? Sure it goes on, just not the one I've taken to calling mine.

[Chas]

I'm not, and no I don't. The use of the word 'being' refers to an intentional entity. If you are using it in some other sense, you have not made that explicit.

I use the word "being" to simply mean, "to be," in contrast to "non-being." You'll have to clarify your definition of "intentional entity" but that's not necessarily what I had in mind.

A conscious being such as the gods of nearly all religions, or some such.

Sorry, but it's not clear to me what modern cosmology deals a fatal blow to.

Near fatal. An eternal, spacetime, material Universe.

Well, except that that is not what modern cosmology says. Modern cosmology posits various hypotheses, that's just one set of them.

There is nothing valuable in any religion that is not available from a non-religious source. So, there's that.

There is a non-religious source for ideas such as the soul, free will, and hope in the continuation of life after death? I don't think so. You might not find these ideas valuable, but I would tend to agree with the vast majority of human beings presently and throughout history who do.

No, free will is not a purely religious idea. However, soul (dualism) and afterlife (also dualism) are damaging concepts. They cause people to do things that damage their one chance at life for a fairy tale.

[Mudhammam]

Well, except that that is not what modern cosmology says. Modern cosmology posits various hypotheses, that's just one set of them.

That's why I refused to say it was in any sense absolutely fatal.

No, free will is not a purely religious idea. However, soul (dualism) and afterlife (also dualism) are damaging concepts. They cause people to do things that damage their one chance at life for a fairy tale.

You and I both know that your generalization as a statement of logic that extends to all who believe in these concepts is flat out false, and no more preposterous than the claim that the denial of the soul or self, or ultimate purpose in the Universe, leads to insecurity, nihilism, and all sorts of other personal crises or societal ills. Both sentiments are the essence of dogma.

---

I think there are indeed non-religious sources for ideas such as soul. Free will is a quagmire of questionable use. Life after death? Sure it goes on, just not the one I've taken to calling mine.

I suppose it depends on how we define "religious". Would you consider dualism or panpsychism necessarily "religious" in some sense? Perhaps not, but it certainly isn't materialistic as I understand it. Free will may be a "quagmire of questionable use" but it's denial is no less messy when it comes to practicality. And life indeed, whether we mean individual or cosmic, only goes on for a time. Annihilation of all material existence, including all trace of human progress, is still the forthcoming reality if the current scientific hypotheses are correct. Whether or not death of either sort need effect our view of the world on a day-to-day basis is simply a matter of perspective though I certainly sympathize with those who find them hopelessly pessimistic.

[Ryantology]

You and I both know that your generalization as a statement of logic that extends to all who believe in these concepts is flat out false, and no more preposterous than the claim that the denial of the soul or self, or ultimate purpose in the Universe, leads to insecurity, nihilism, and all sorts of other personal crises or societal ills. Both sentiments are the essence of dogma.

To be fair, Chas didn't say that all believers act this way. But, a lot do, and a lot of them don't bother denying it, and really, what is the afterlife for but to convince people to ignore their needs and wants in this one? It's not, in any practical sense, the same as theists insisting that atheism leads to a pointless, joyless, amoral existence, in which people do crazy, dangerous or hateful things purely because they disbelieve in a god that can punish them for it in the afterlife, because I would bet that literally no atheist in history has ever acted on such a bizarre thought process, unless they had some kind of severe mental problems. Chas is merely observing a rather well-established fact about what some people do when they think that death isn't the end of the road. The believer's insistence that life is empty and pointless without their specific God is nothing more than cheerleading their own dumb insecurities about what happens to them if they're wrong.

[Whateverist]

I think there are indeed non-religious sources for ideas such as soul. Free will is a quagmire of questionable use. Life after death? Sure it goes on, just not the one I've taken to calling mine.

I suppose it depends on how we define "religious". Would you consider dualism or panpsychism necessarily "religious" in some sense?

You know I'm not really clear on what counts as "religious". Is it the sacredness to you, the ritual aspect, its being one of many known institutions or must it be linked to theism in some way? So I can't really say if dualism or panpsychism are necessarily religious. Perhaps they can be -but need not - be held that way.

Perhaps not, but it certainly isn't materialistic as I understand it.

Hmm. If someone believes that subjective experience is entirely different in kind from objective experience (dualist) but also believes that all subjective experience arises from and is dependent upon necessary objective conditions .. what does that make them? I think they could be called both materialist and dualist.

Free will may be a "quagmire of questionable use" but it's denial is no less messy when it comes to practicality.

That's why I recommend ignoring it. Just keep your head under the sand until it goes away. Nothing important depends on what you think about 'free will'.

And life indeed, whether we mean individual or cosmic, only goes on for a time. Annihilation of all material existence, including all trace of human progress, is still the forthcoming reality if the current scientific hypotheses are correct. Whether or not death of either sort need effect our view of the world on a day-to-day basis is simply a matter of perspective though I certainly sympathize with those who find them hopelessly pessimistic.

It certainly affects my day to day perspective. Staying cognizant of my mortality injects many days with significance and appreciation. I'm basically a Bokonist, just happy to have my turn as sitting-up-mud gazing up at all this fine world that we are. Laying back down isn't the end of the world. Nor is it the end of sitting-up-mud. It is just the end of my turn. Taking turns is okay.