Atheism as True

[Eodnhoj7]

Atheism is a philosophy of continual negation where the observation of Divinity effectively is negated under a continual process of argument through empirical and/or abstract truths.

This negation of God, so to speak, is also a self-negation in the respect that any Divinity is not just negated as a whole but effectively with the self considering man cannot take the form or nature of the divine itself.

However the premise of Atheism originates effectively within Christianity, that while existing prior to it, culminates in the death of God as the negation of God. We see this further reflected in the annihilation of the ego in Buddhism, Hinduism and Islamic Sufism , were a strict atheism is not just necessitated under its own weight but effectively cancels itself out under a pursuit of truth.

We see this in Christianity specifically were God effectively dies to himself.

This aspect of Athiesm as negation through nothingness, mirrors the nature of God as Omega (dually to God as Alpha) where God cancels God out through his creation with this creation as an extension of God in itself being nothing.

This nature of creation canceling itself out through itself, effectively results in nothingness canceling itself out under the nothingness of creation where the negation of creation through creation effectively is creation as continual change forming its own boundaries as generative.

In these respects the division of atheism through atheism effectively results in the generation of God through the generation of definitions of God alone. In these respects, relativistically speaking, Divinity as Atheism results Atheism generating divinity through its own contradiction.

[surreptitious57]

Atheism is not the negation of God but the non acceptance of God which is not the same
I do not say he does not exist but that there is no way of knowing whether or not he does

Non falsifiable concepts can not be proven or disproven therefore believing or not believing is not logically valid
I think that zero evidence suggests non existence but this is not a truth claim I can make with absolute certainty
But I am an apatheist and so do not care whether or not God exists as it is something entirely beyond my control

[Eodnhoj7]

Atheism is not the negation of God but the non acceptance of God which is not the same
I do not say he does not exist but that there is no way of knowing whether or not he does

Non falsifiable concepts can not be proven or disproven therefore believing or not believing is not logically valid
I think that zero evidence suggests non existence but this is not a truth claim I can make with absolute certainty
But I am an apatheist and so do not care whether or not God exists as it is something entirely beyond my control

Non acceptance requires reason as the non-acceptance of any definition requires the negation of that definition. If God exists and the atheist does not accept God, but believe God exists...is it really atheism?

[surreptitious57]

Non acceptance in this specific context is more a neutral position than a negative one
A position of skepticism rather than absolute denial since no truth claim is being made

Also you cannot be an atheist if you believe God exists regardless of whether or not he actually does

[Dontaskme]

Whatever you say has no existence, meaning it does not exist forever. Truth is that which transcends time - past, present, future. What is not truth? That which was yesterday, but is not there today, is not truth. What is today, what will not be there tomorrow, is not truth. The definition of truth is that which is not affected by time.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theism emerged from an inherent existential crisis generating very primal psychological insecurities which compelled the majority to cling to a god [sort of a father-figure].
The presence of those of the 'out-group' exposes a chink in their belief and thus a threat to their psychological security.

Such people sensed as a threat were called fools in the early stages,

• Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

This is very typical with tribalism where the 'out-group' the 'them' in "us versus them" are normally condemned where they are subliminally sensed as a threat.

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". In antiquity it had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society,[13] those who were forsaken by the gods or those who had no commitment to belief in the gods.[14]
The term [atheism] denoted a social category created by orthodox religionists into which those who did not share their religious beliefs were placed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

This sort of psychological aggressive and 'violent' move is still going on where proper critique of Islam are condemned as 'islamophobes' [wtf is that?] and racists [when Islam is not a religion].

The insecure theists just do not bother with rationality, wisdom and justice - all they want is to condemn what they viewed as a 'threat' when theists [SOME] are evidently the real threat to individuals and humanity.

The above is what fundamentally and essentially 'atheism' is.
'Atheism' is a label coined by insecure theists so that they have an 'outgroup' to condenm and feel safe.

It should be very normal for any one to critique what they deemed as negative, thus the negatives from theism must be critiqued.
Those who critiqued theism are labelled as 'atheists' and some will accept that label but this is fundamentally a category error which should be questioned.
If 'atheism' is true they are merely true critiques of the negatives of theism which is not an ideology per se.

Therefore 'atheism' is not fundamentally an ideological belief.

Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies (e.g. secular humanism),[22][23] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I am indifferent to the idea of God [illusory and impossible to be real] and would label myself appropriately as not-a-theist. I critique theism's negativity & that god is illusory and an impossibility to be real, i.e. a non-starter.

Theists must make it a point to understand their theism has a fundamental psychological fundamental of an inherent existential crisis.
Because [a critical] SOME theists has evil tendencies and are triggered by theistic evil laden elements in their holy texts to commit terrible evils and violence, theism must necessarily be critiqued rationally and wisely.

[Lacewing]

...

VA, your post rings true to me.

Theism emerged from an inherent existential crisis generating very primal psychological insecurities which compelled the majority to cling to a god [sort of a father-figure].

Makes sense. I do not think that man has always "needed" a god. Even little children do not need a god -- they just know they belong to the greater system of life. From my perspective, a god isn't realized by adults because they've gotten smarter -- but rather, it has been adopted because they have a need for working with that model.

The presence of those of the 'out-group' exposes a chink in their belief and thus a threat to their psychological security.

Yes, for some theists, accepting the 'out-group' as naturally good and wonderful people who belong, might appear to invalidate the necessity of the theist's god and platform, and/or the theist's desire to feel "uniquely right/good".

Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The mentality reflected in that verse is just shocking. Such primitive and dishonest condemnations.

The insecure theists just do not bother with rationality, wisdom and justice

Questions and challenges are not welcome, and are even seen as disrespectful and evil. How convenient and effective to be brainwashed to NOT question... and not think beyond. That strategy is used in so many areas of our lives.

theists [SOME] are evidently the real threat to individuals and humanity.

I think theism created (and perpetuates) 'evil'. I don't think it would exist otherwise -- rather, destructiveness exists. Theism does a lot of good for people, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that theism is all that's holy, and NOT what's evil. Theism manifested both elements. Nature is fine without either element.

'Atheism' is a label coined by insecure theists so that they have an 'outgroup' to condenm and feel safe... /
Those who critiqued theism are labelled as 'atheists' and some will accept that label but this is fundamentally a category error which should be questioned.

That really makes sense to me. Which is why it's completely nonsensical when some theists on this forum are insistent on what an atheist is: what they think, what they do, and what they are/aren't capable of. It's JUST a label. I typically use the term 'non-theist' because the idea of an "atheist" has taken on a whole imaginary characterization. It seems meant as an opposing "bad" symbol intended to validate theism not only as "good", but to validate theism in general through the idea of "opposites".

Theists must make it a point to understand their theism has a fundamental psychological fundamental of an inherent existential crisis.
Because [a critical] SOME theists has evil tendencies and are triggered by theistic evil laden elements in their holy texts to commit terrible evils and violence, theism must necessarily be critiqued rationally and wisely.

I agree. It is the responsible, honest, brave, and wise thing to do. It is important to acknowledge that any structure/system/group/individual which holds itself so high as to stop questioning and investigating, is a NATURAL breeding ground for what wants to be hidden.

[osgart]

Theists are mostly those who worship an us versus them god, i agree with that. Perhaps if they worshipped a truly benevolent god, and a truly just god, then they would be left alone and not find themselves in constant opposition. Also many theists delude themselves about the nature of reality. Thats the other opposition they face, because they ignore facts about reality.

And then there are theists trying to mesh their religion with reality completely.

If only religion was abandoned completely and theism would stop trying to fit square pegs in round holes, they would get along much better.

I dont see how anyone can hang on to religions of the past, and be fully rational and not face opposition. And rightly so.

[uwot]

Theists are mostly those who worship an us versus them god, i agree with that.

Theists come in all shades and flavours and for the most part are at worst harmless, and many are perfectly decent people. It's just the loudmouth conservatives who make god ugly, by insisting he sanctions their own revolting misanthropy, misogyny, racism or sexual hang ups.
The premise of this thread is faulty though. Atheism doesn't necessarily make a claim that is true or false; it is simply that when some theist claims a god exists, some people don't believe them.

[Eodnhoj7]

Non acceptance in this specific context is more a neutral position than a negative one
A position of skepticism rather than absolute denial since no truth claim is being made

Also you cannot be an atheist if you believe God exists regardless of whether or not he actually does

A neutral position contains, simultaneously positive and negative definitions.

[QuantumT]

There are no logic reasons to accept the idea of a god. Anything you can think of, can be explained! So atheism is most likely true.

[Eodnhoj7]

There are no logic reasons to accept the idea of a god. Anything you can think of, can be explained! So atheism is most likely true.

Yes, here is the logical reason. All antithesis, atheism, require a thesis in order to negate. Other wise the antithesis, or negative cancels itself out resulting in the thesis while dually the antithesis becomes subjective to a the muchausseen trillema.

The idea of God, which extends through a myriad of definitions ranging from "Everything" to "Nothing" necessitates the definition of God as fundamentally typeless and as typeless:

1) It cannot be negated completely.

2) It is without limit, and this absence of limit provides the foundation for limit as what is limited exists if and only if there is a continuum.

3) All logic necessitates the quantification of and qualification of variables into "units (1) /unity (1)" where this nature of quantification/qualification of reality necessary reflections a nature of quantifying all existence as "1" synonymous to "the all" of objective experience and the "I am" of subjective experience where this unity encapsulates all being. Under these terms a logical premise for God is given by necessity of reason.

[Reflex]

There are no logic reasons to accept the idea of a god. Anything you can think of, can be explained! So atheism is most likely true.

Explain why there is something rather than nothing without appealing to promissory materialism.

[TimeSeeker]

Explain why there is something rather than nothing without appealing to promissory materialism.

That is a silly question. And potentially a false dichotomy. is there even such a thing as 'nothing"?

Can you give me an example of 'nothing' any more than you can give me an example of 'God'?

[surreptitious57]

Explain why there is something rather than nothing without appealing to promissory materialism

Nothing cannot persist beyond an infinitesimal period of time because it will be violated by quantum fluctuations
Absolute nothing would have zero dimension or property or anything at all so it could not exist in physical reality