I am a lifelong atheist, where do we start? As a kid religion bored me, and I despised going to church. In my twenties, I despised religion. Nowadays, I understand the need for religion in society and am extremely concerned by the secular religion other atheists seemed to have adopted.
That said, I still am an atheist, am extremely grounded, try my best to act morally, and am open to whatever discussion you want to have. I do not think you can convince me of anything, but you can try.
It's as basic as understanding the implications of your own existence. First of all, you have a mind, and it is immaterial. Consider this thought experiment (you'll see it's theoretical, yet acceptable): You're having a brain scan where the electro-chemical impulses of your brain can be captured as an image and shown on a screen. A scientist asks you to think of the number 3. You do so, and the image of your synapses firing is captured. The scientist asks you, is this what you meant by '3' ? No, you would reply. You obviously have some idea of 3 in your mind, it very well and probably looks something like "3." This idea of "3" and everything else you think of is not a material quantity. It is immaterial - the mind. Regardless of the overlap in similarity from similar symbols in our culture and world, this is a non-material effect and reality that we directly interact with.
Can we agree to this, or no? I'll carry on, though.
Considering all our senses; vision, hearing, taste, touch, thought, etc, are interpreted through our brain as electro-chemical impulses, this means that our whole experience as humans is one interpretation event that we could call the Self.
If one denies the existence of this Self, then how does one affirm the knowledge of anything? They can't. They cannot say something is known or unknowable. In fact, all materialistic versions of reality are moot.
The only position, and the one that we all take, regardless of eastern religions, or spiritist what-have-you's unjustified fiat claims of the denial of the Self, is that the Self, our minds, do exist.
The takeaway here is you can only affirm or deny anything when the Self is affirmed. There is no other way. If you deny the Self, your position is inherently ignorance. This is not a judgement, but an objective fact.
Consider a thought experiment on the concept of nothing. Can there ever be nothing? The answer is, No. If there was nothing, it could never be affirmed. Only by observation can it be affirmed, but in doing so "nothing" collapses, because the observer exists. This is true even despite an observer claiming to not have a Self. Again, when the Self is denied, in whatever form an observer should be in, it cannot affirm anything. So, nothing cannot exist. (This applies even to God. God cannot erase his own existence to create nothing. I don't want to go down a rabbit hole here about what God can and can't do, but I just wanted to point this out, that there is no state where this is possible. We could even talk about that stuff too, but first things first.)
This point about "nothing" is simply to show that there are self-constraining conditions for certain axiomatic (assumed) concepts, and that this is not a fallacy. Also, it is worth noting, the connection between the Self and the permanence of Reality are not constrained to each other. There is nothing that follows from either's condition that forces the existence of the other.
So, now we're at the affirmed Self. How did we do this, and by what power? Where did it come from and where is it going? These questions do not limit our search. (Note here, it's also a mistake to assume anything from of a state of ignorance. This means, making the assumption that you are all that exists, for example, is not warranted or justified by your observations and reasoning about your state of existence.) We figure as we go. We build our knowledge through reasoning and observation. There are modalities (let's call it commonalities) in our observations. There are other people, other Selves, all around. There are concepts and ideas and thoughts all coming from the minds and words of these other people. One of these concepts is there is a unseen God who made this whole place and ourselves. An all powerful, knowing and present, being.
From this basic condition and observation of what our human reality is, what basis do you, or does anyone, have to negate the existence of this being - God? Considering your own fiat existence is it not even more probable that, upon consideration, you would realize that it completely makes sense for this being to have existence? How could it not? Who holds this all together? The infinity of your own perceptions, are they something you made? Are they not beyond you, and all working, inside and outside of yourself?
So, there it is. Without bias, reasoning allows the peaceful acceptance of this certainty by an acceptable faith. No dogma or control. Your arm is not twisted, you are not forced to get on your face and beg. You are free to choose.
Logically, you can see it as this: there is no way to negate God. Absolutely, no way. It is not in man's domain to logically do this. This would actually be a predictable quality of our reality if God is true. To deny God is to deny the Self, because your own existence is predicated on a FAIR ASSUMPTION in order to even begin to reason. Without that fair assumption, there is no knowledge (and only those who affirm the nonmaterial self can know this.)
If and when you learn more about God, you will find more of the characteristics, and the history of our knowledge about God and his world.
As far as I'm concerned, if I can fairly assume I exist, then God is before me. And if God is before me, then God is after me.
I effectively agree with your description of Self.
I somewhat disagree with your rundown on Nothing. Yes, it is true the concept of nothing relies on another's interpretation, therefore negating nothing. But just because the conceptual nothing can't exist doesn't mean a Nothingness couldn't exist which simply wasn't observed, wasn't known.
Regarding negating god. I should be more clear - I am atheististic agnostic, which is fairly common among atheists. I make no claim that I can 'negate' a god, because, for similar reasons as you discuss, I can't prove the negation. But just because I can not prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it exists. Hence, atheistic agnosticism, I am functionally atheist while philosophically agnostic.
I don't see how 'to deny god is to deny the self'. I can fairly state I exist in some form since I can type this. Even if I am a figment of your imagination, I still operate in such a way as to currently seem to have Self. But I do not understand how that gets me to god's existence or nonexistence.
No problem. I come at this in good faith. As I said, I have been hardcore atheistic my entire life, but the past 5 years have opened my eyes to the issues of a secular world. I am a proponent of the 'god shaped hole' in many people - without religion, people are lost and simply joining secular religious movements. So where once I disliked religions, now I think they are incredibly important in keeping society ordered and just. But... I can not make the hop to believe myself. I can not explain it, but it feels like believing in god would be giving up, a declaration against my own personal responsibility and Self.
The reason I say denying God is to deny oneself is based on how your own self's-affirmation was achieved. That is, you simply have to accept your own existence without a priori justification. It is, therefore, it is. Our whole existence rests on this fiat assumption ("I think, therefore, I am").
The suggestion is that this predicate to ourselves is, in fact, the basis to actual reasoning. Not simply our perceived reasoning, but how pure reasoning works. Could we claim to even discover such a thing? Well, only when we affirm our own existence can we begin to conjecture. Therefore, if we accept what we are given and conform to the conditions then there is no Judgement that condemns us (nothing that countermands our logic). This is just saying, I can reason about purity and pure states. So, before anything progresses in some prototype human, I'm going back to that point in their existence, before they came to any other conclusion or opinion and appraise that exact situation. I want to isolate that moment, and consider what is true. (Entangled in this is our image as creatures as well, but deriving meaning from this comes later.)
So, I look at the world and the things in it that I know of. I know there are other people, and I assume this is the basis to their existence as well. I look at the animals too, and can make a distinction between the form of a human and an animal. We humans are all "I ams." In order to assert any knowledge we must assume our own existence.
Now, hard pivot into considering "I am that I am." - If I must assume my own existence then every other entity in existence has potentially equal existential import, whatever it may be, and this includes God and god(s). At this point, it is not saying whether a thing is true or not, but, again, that they have equal existential import, according to our conditions for reason. This might seem a wild assumption or baseline, but consider if it is taking anything from your logical "field-of-view." It includes leprechauns and lochness monsters, everything, but I say this is no more an absurd a thing than a flaming fireball passing overhead everyday.
I want to use the analogy of a game of Clue. You begin with all the characters as potentials, and through the process of elimination, you remove those who you deem not fitting the profile. You begin life and find yourself, perhaps, believing in Santa Clause for a while, but one day flip that character down. Why? Santa breaks too many rules of reality. But what about God? God doesn't break any rules of reality, nor according to its character.
Now, I know, this seems to be only affirming the "you can't disprove God" aspect, but there is more here. Such a being's character is distinctive against every other entity with existential import. God is allowed existential import, and yet, would necessarily be impossible to locate or pin down. It would be in God's nature to be both on the table and not on the table at the same time. Therefore, this "quantum" state of God, being it's nature, cannot be used to disqualify it. Again, this is actually distinct from saying "you can't disprove God," and it is not simply doggedly reiterating it. It is saying, specifically, God's nature is to not be proved. If God's nature is to not be proved, then I can reasonably say: God is true and cannot be proved, and NOT be in contradiction. If this is not a contradiction then not having proof of God is not a logical elimination of God. This means that saying "God cannot be proven or disproven" is moot.
Now, obviously, I am making the case for a specific entity, God, but this does have import for other gods, as it were. The point is understanding the nature of such things against pure reason.
In order to flip away all the other entities that exist you have to appraise those things according to, frankly, whatever their narratives are. Do they jive with reality, right? And do they break their own rules, or contradict themselves. The particular God I have in mind, according to what I believe are the instructions from that very God, is adamant about faith being a prerequisite. That God, in particular, concerns himself with "goodness" or "Holiness" (and many other things) for humans that were, apparently, created in His image. There is nothing that I have found or reasoned on that allows me, from what I know of this God, to flip its switch down. I say this in lieu of explaining how I have flipped every other "false god" down, and come to only one.
About nothing, the reason I say it's an impossible situation is because if I assume its existence, it automatically collapses. If I assume its non-existence, then there's something. You can say, well, you have to remove yourself from the equation, but I've already done this, in that I am conformed to the discovery of reason, and not the other way around. I assume no bias against or upon my own existence. So, I can logically say my reasoning is not based on my existence without being in contradiction, and I have already asserted above that I can reason about pure things so long as I follow the rules. This does not imply that I am pure, and it is not a requisite. However, if someone were to assert such a thing as "you must be pure to evaluate purity," (I'm not saying this is impossible) it would have to precede or undermine my reasoning about why I'm able to do it. And that reason was "if we accept what we are given and conform to the conditions then there is no Judgement that condemns us."
Understand I may disappear for some hours when I have to work and do things. I'm at my time limit nearly. I will respond. Your's is a different route, so it takes some framing that I don't have time for right now.
I am a lifelong atheist, where do we start? As a kid religion bored me, and I despised going to church. In my twenties, I despised religion. Nowadays, I understand the need for religion in society and am extremely concerned by the secular religion other atheists seemed to have adopted.
That said, I still am an atheist, am extremely grounded, try my best to act morally, and am open to whatever discussion you want to have. I do not think you can convince me of anything, but you can try.
It's as basic as understanding the implications of your own existence. First of all, you have a mind, and it is immaterial. Consider this thought experiment (you'll see it's theoretical, yet acceptable): You're having a brain scan where the electro-chemical impulses of your brain can be captured as an image and shown on a screen. A scientist asks you to think of the number 3. You do so, and the image of your synapses firing is captured. The scientist asks you, is this what you meant by '3' ? No, you would reply. You obviously have some idea of 3 in your mind, it very well and probably looks something like "3." This idea of "3" and everything else you think of is not a material quantity. It is immaterial - the mind. Regardless of the overlap in similarity from similar symbols in our culture and world, this is a non-material effect and reality that we directly interact with.
Can we agree to this, or no? I'll carry on, though.
Considering all our senses; vision, hearing, taste, touch, thought, etc, are interpreted through our brain as electro-chemical impulses, this means that our whole experience as humans is one interpretation event that we could call the Self.
If one denies the existence of this Self, then how does one affirm the knowledge of anything? They can't. They cannot say something is known or unknowable. In fact, all materialistic versions of reality are moot.
The only position, and the one that we all take, regardless of eastern religions, or spiritist what-have-you's unjustified fiat claims of the denial of the Self, is that the Self, our minds, do exist.
The takeaway here is you can only affirm or deny anything when the Self is affirmed. There is no other way. If you deny the Self, your position is inherently ignorance. This is not a judgement, but an objective fact.
Consider a thought experiment on the concept of nothing. Can there ever be nothing? The answer is, No. If there was nothing, it could never be affirmed. Only by observation can it be affirmed, but in doing so "nothing" collapses, because the observer exists. This is true even despite an observer claiming to not have a Self. Again, when the Self is denied, in whatever form an observer should be in, it cannot affirm anything. So, nothing cannot exist. (This applies even to God. God cannot erase his own existence to create nothing. I don't want to go down a rabbit hole here about what God can and can't do, but I just wanted to point this out, that there is no state where this is possible. We could even talk about that stuff too, but first things first.)
This point about "nothing" is simply to show that there are self-constraining conditions for certain axiomatic (assumed) concepts, and that this is not a fallacy. Also, it is worth noting, the connection between the Self and the permanence of Reality are not constrained to each other. There is nothing that follows from either's condition that forces the existence of the other.
So, now we're at the affirmed Self. How did we do this, and by what power? Where did it come from and where is it going? These questions do not limit our search. (Note here, it's also a mistake to assume anything from of a state of ignorance. This means, making the assumption that you are all that exists, for example, is not warranted or justified by your observations and reasoning about your state of existence.) We figure as we go. We build our knowledge through reasoning and observation. There are modalities (let's call it commonalities) in our observations. There are other people, other Selves, all around. There are concepts and ideas and thoughts all coming from the minds and words of these other people. One of these concepts is there is a unseen God who made this whole place and ourselves. An all powerful, knowing and present, being.
From this basic condition and observation of what our human reality is, what basis do you, or does anyone, have to negate the existence of this being - God? Considering your own fiat existence is it not even more probable that, upon consideration, you would realize that it completely makes sense for this being to have existence? How could it not? Who holds this all together? The infinity of your own perceptions, are they something you made? Are they not beyond you, and all working, inside and outside of yourself?
So, there it is. Without bias, reasoning allows the peaceful acceptance of this certainty by an acceptable faith. No dogma or control. Your arm is not twisted, you are not forced to get on your face and beg. You are free to choose.
Logically, you can see it as this: there is no way to negate God. Absolutely, no way. It is not in man's domain to logically do this. This would actually be a predictable quality of our reality if God is true. To deny God is to deny the Self, because your own existence is predicated on a FAIR ASSUMPTION in order to even begin to reason. Without that fair assumption, there is no knowledge (and only those who affirm the nonmaterial self can know this.)
If and when you learn more about God, you will find more of the characteristics, and the history of our knowledge about God and his world.
As far as I'm concerned, if I can fairly assume I exist, then God is before me. And if God is before me, then God is after me.
I effectively agree with your description of Self.
I somewhat disagree with your rundown on Nothing. Yes, it is true the concept of nothing relies on another's interpretation, therefore negating nothing. But just because the conceptual nothing can't exist doesn't mean a Nothingness couldn't exist which simply wasn't observed, wasn't known.
Regarding negating god. I should be more clear - I am atheististic agnostic, which is fairly common among atheists. I make no claim that I can 'negate' a god, because, for similar reasons as you discuss, I can't prove the negation. But just because I can not prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it exists. Hence, atheistic agnosticism, I am functionally atheist while philosophically agnostic.
I don't see how 'to deny god is to deny the self'. I can fairly state I exist in some form since I can type this. Even if I am a figment of your imagination, I still operate in such a way as to currently seem to have Self. But I do not understand how that gets me to god's existence or nonexistence.
You're right on all your points. I'll try to respond to all of your rebuttal, but I want to think about something a little more.
No problem. I come at this in good faith. As I said, I have been hardcore atheistic my entire life, but the past 5 years have opened my eyes to the issues of a secular world. I am a proponent of the 'god shaped hole' in many people - without religion, people are lost and simply joining secular religious movements. So where once I disliked religions, now I think they are incredibly important in keeping society ordered and just. But... I can not make the hop to believe myself. I can not explain it, but it feels like believing in god would be giving up, a declaration against my own personal responsibility and Self.
The reason I say denying God is to deny oneself is based on how your own self's-affirmation was achieved. That is, you simply have to accept your own existence without a priori justification. It is, therefore, it is. Our whole existence rests on this fiat assumption ("I think, therefore, I am").
The suggestion is that this predicate to ourselves is, in fact, the basis to actual reasoning. Not simply our perceived reasoning, but how pure reasoning works. Could we claim to even discover such a thing? Well, only when we affirm our own existence can we begin to conjecture. Therefore, if we accept what we are given and conform to the conditions then there is no Judgement that condemns us (nothing that countermands our logic). This is just saying, I can reason about purity and pure states. So, before anything progresses in some prototype human, I'm going back to that point in their existence, before they came to any other conclusion or opinion and appraise that exact situation. I want to isolate that moment, and consider what is true. (Entangled in this is our image as creatures as well, but deriving meaning from this comes later.)
So, I look at the world and the things in it that I know of. I know there are other people, and I assume this is the basis to their existence as well. I look at the animals too, and can make a distinction between the form of a human and an animal. We humans are all "I ams." In order to assert any knowledge we must assume our own existence.
Now, hard pivot into considering "I am that I am." - If I must assume my own existence then every other entity in existence has potentially equal existential import, whatever it may be, and this includes God and god(s). At this point, it is not saying whether a thing is true or not, but, again, that they have equal existential import, according to our conditions for reason. This might seem a wild assumption or baseline, but consider if it is taking anything from your logical "field-of-view." It includes leprechauns and lochness monsters, everything, but I say this is no more an absurd a thing than a flaming fireball passing overhead everyday.
I want to use the analogy of a game of Clue. You begin with all the characters as potentials, and through the process of elimination, you remove those who you deem not fitting the profile. You begin life and find yourself, perhaps, believing in Santa Clause for a while, but one day flip that character down. Why? Santa breaks too many rules of reality. But what about God? God doesn't break any rules of reality, nor according to its character.
Now, I know, this seems to be only affirming the "you can't disprove God" aspect, but there is more here. Such a being's character is distinctive against every other entity with existential import. God is allowed existential import, and yet, would necessarily be impossible to locate or pin down. It would be in God's nature to be both on the table and not on the table at the same time. Therefore, this "quantum" state of God, being it's nature, cannot be used to disqualify it. Again, this is actually distinct from saying "you can't disprove God," and it is not simply doggedly reiterating it. It is saying, specifically, God's nature is to not be proved. If God's nature is to not be proved, then I can reasonably say: God is true and cannot be proved, and NOT be in contradiction. If this is not a contradiction then not having proof of God is not a logical elimination of God. This means that saying "God cannot be proven or disproven" is moot.
Now, obviously, I am making the case for a specific entity, God, but this does have import for other gods, as it were. The point is understanding the nature of such things against pure reason.
In order to flip away all the other entities that exist you have to appraise those things according to, frankly, whatever their narratives are. Do they jive with reality, right? And do they break their own rules, or contradict themselves. The particular God I have in mind, according to what I believe are the instructions from that very God, is adamant about faith being a prerequisite. That God, in particular, concerns himself with "goodness" or "Holiness" (and many other things) for humans that were, apparently, created in His image. There is nothing that I have found or reasoned on that allows me, from what I know of this God, to flip its switch down. I say this in lieu of explaining how I have flipped every other "false god" down, and come to only one.
About nothing, the reason I say it's an impossible situation is because if I assume its existence, it automatically collapses. If I assume its non-existence, then there's something. You can say, well, you have to remove yourself from the equation, but I've already done this, in that I am conformed to the discovery of reason, and not the other way around. I assume no bias against or upon my own existence. So, I can logically say my reasoning is not based on my existence without being in contradiction, and I have already asserted above that I can reason about pure things so long as I follow the rules. This does not imply that I am pure, and it is not a requisite. However, if someone were to assert such a thing as "you must be pure to evaluate purity," (I'm not saying this is impossible) it would have to precede or undermine my reasoning about why I'm able to do it. And that reason was "if we accept what we are given and conform to the conditions then there is no Judgement that condemns us."
Understand I may disappear for some hours when I have to work and do things. I'm at my time limit nearly. I will respond. Your's is a different route, so it takes some framing that I don't have time for right now.