The subject of God (Or "God(s)" to be politically correct, which I couldn't care less about being) is, without a doubt, one of the most idiotically profound subjects out there. Not because the subject itself is stupid. Nay, it is one of great philosophical importance. What I mean by saying that is merely that only idiots of two extremes seem to populate such discussions: Die hard-wannabe-atheists and fundamental, dogmatic believers. While it may surprise people who know of my atheism to hear this, neither party is getting anywhere. For they are both stuck in a cesspool of absolutes, unable to see the naivety of their actions, and the impossibility of the subject they confront. Perhaps it is because of such people that I feel the need to make my views clear in this writing. Or perhaps I am just a self-centered jerk who thinks his opinions matter (They do, afterall). Either which way, I intend to lay bear my basis for my atheism as well as the issues many atheists and theists confront on the topic. Starting first with a quick note on the topic.
This note in question comes in the form of a sitrep of sorts; that is, a update on the current status of god's existence (Again, I am aware polytheism is even more common within history than monotheism, however I don't feel like being politically correct; so deal with it). Hitherto in the history of philosophy, the primary problem with proving god's existence has been that one cannot, in any known rationalistic or empirical way, support god's existence in the slightest. Many have tried, as we see from Descartes "Ontological argument for god" and the teleological argument of god's existence used by Sir Thomas Aquinas. Nevertheless, all have but fallen flat on their asses for the simple reason that the subject of god seems even too abstract for philosophy. Even science fails to be able to tackle this monstrous topic, as it is unverifiable and not at all observable or inferable and thus all but outside of sciences grasps. So, with this holding true, do we not come to the conclusion that--having all major means of truth taken out of the equation--the topic of god's existence is an unsolvable one? To be blunt, yes it does. And it is this point that I wish to drive home before beginning: There is no absolute proof for, or against, the existence of god(s) on any front. So with this made clear, why should atheism be viewed as valid? Doesn't this not only disprove it, but lend support to agnosticism? Honestly, what does this even have to do with my views?
To put it simply, atheism--or rather, true atheism--remains untouched by this fact. This is not to say that we should completely ignore the above paragraph. Not only is it terrific filler, but it is great food for thought. All it means, however, it that the basis of atheism is independent of the above paragraph. This basis being the fact that there is no justification--or indeed need--for a god's existence. To elaborate on this, there is no proof of god(s). No reason to assume that a god of any shape or form exists. For even the words of prophets are strikingly close to the words of madmen, and in the end, when (Ontologically speaking) reality itself is just an inductive assumption, who are we to assume god's own existence? Please, don't get me wrong, I don't intend to continue on the "ontological skeptic" argument, I am merely making the point that the only reason to assume a god(s) exist is because you want one to. No more, no less.
This alone would not be enough to condemn god's existence though. We need two more factors--two more nails in the coffin--to do that. And these are as follows: The statistical unlikelihood of god's existence and the illogicality of a defined theistic god. For when we take into consideration that, not only is god an extremely unlikely figure to exist, but that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god's existence is contradictory, we begin to see theism as what it really is. Philosophy's problemed child.
Without spelling out these issues of a theistic god, allow me to simply say that the above should be obvious enough. So it is often a wonder why atheists do not see it. And a miracle that believers can deny it. But...how can they? Hell, isn't something as common sense as the above almost axiomatic? What in the hell could keep both most atheists and most theists from seeing it?
To answer this, we need to first look at the common perception of atheism. Think about it: What is atheism? What is it to most people who hear the term? Put simply, to them, it is an anti-religious religion which fails to believe in god. And it is this perception that a lot of atheists adopt as well, save the view of atheism as a religion. Given this, allow me to applaud those atheists for their stupidity! Truly, it takes guts to feed into a stereotype like that! Now, with that out of the way, allow me to set the record straight and tell you what atheism really is.
At its heart, atheism is simply the rejection of the belief in any form of god, gods, or deities, in any shape or form. Given this, we see the first signs of how some atheists miss the "obvious facts" above: because they see atheism as being concerned with religion. Which it isn't. Put bluntly, atheism is only concerned with religion insofar as that particular religions god(s) is concerned. Furthermore, given that the notion of a god does not even have to be religious, we start to see the first grave error of most atheists. The second being summed up by the fact that--thinking the first error to be true--they focus their efforts of disproving a theistic god in hopes of completely disproving all notions of "god". All the meanwhile failing to see that they can't.
This is not to say theists are any better, for you see, theists rely on something as blind as faith as evidence or justification. This effectively keeping them form seeing the "Obvious fact" in discussion. That is to say, when they are confronted with these facts, they assert that faith is all that matters. Or that they have felt god. Or that their infallible text says it is so. Idiocy being the main thread in all of these assertions. To prove this, allow me to look at the three statements above one at a time.
The notion that "faith is all that matters" is a hypocritical one. Only when touching on matters pertaining to god or religion will they exhibit this amount of "faith mongering". Meanwhile they demand proof from science, politicians, and everyday life. Moreover, faith itself is the belief without evidence. Ergo why any faith can be seen as essentially blind faith.
Moving on, the second notion that "they (Or someone) has 'felt' god" is a equally disappointing one. Mainly because very little separates those people from madmen. Take the Yorkshire Ripper for example. Saying that Jesus told him to murder and rape woman, the Yorkshire Ripper left a trail of bodies behind him. But how does he differ from the Pope or Jesus himself? All claimed to hear the voice of god. All claimed to feel his presence. Yet one is considered insane, the other two saints or holy men, merely because some cannot stomach the first's actions.
Finally, we come to the notion of an infallible text. To this, all I have to say is that any religious text is chopped full of historical inaccuracies, factual discrepancies, and contradictions. Why? Because these texts are the work of purely men. As such, they are subject to the errors the plague any human work--divinely inspired or not. Though honestly, we can also bring up the point that if I where to say that a pink pony created the universe and provide some historic text that asserted the same, most believers would still be hypocritically inclined towards their own religion's scriptures. Not because one is more valid than the other. But merely because one is more familiar.
So with these things taken into consideration, one can see how blind faith and sheer ignorance can keep a theist from seeing how unlikely a god's existence is. Whether they are now convinced of their personal bias or not, I could care less. Either way, you have the views I promised to give at the start of this writing. So with that said, I leave you to be. I have a cup of tea to brew and quite honestly, a debate about god seems the least appealing thing right now.
