Why I’m Atheist, Part I

Actually, there really is no why. There is no “deconversion story”, as positiveatheism likes to talk about, for me.

I call myself atheist, but really, it’s misleading. Do I assert that there there is no God? Well, sorta. Do I assert that it is impossible for Big G to exist? No, I do not. While Atheist Under Ur Bed might point me to an entry or two, I think it’s completely possible for there to be a God. I’m talking about in general, independent of Judeo-Christian definitions. Bashing Christianity is no way to base your beliefs, that was Anton LeVey’s mistake.

So, I still call myself atheist. Well, I tend to work on a philosophy of doubt. Blame Decarte. *laughs* No, I don’t have any reason to believe the universe beyond “me” exists. However, for the sake of being able to function in the day-to-day “world”, I merely assume that the world as I know it exists, in functional terms. If it’s all the same to me, who cares if it isn’t “real”? I won’t even get into the question of what “real” is.

So, I have a world. I merely assume all the objects I come in contact with are real. I also assume objects I can not directly perceive are real. I assume that mathematical and logical induction work. (As opposed to working simply be deduction.) If you don’t know what induction is, well, I’m not a math or philosophy professor. Anyway. Induction. I assume that past events will continue to occur. Things like the sun coming up every morning. Friends living their lives and not becoming other people. Consistency in the universe.

Maybe I do think in concrete terms. I’m comfortable saying, “Maybe George Washington didn’t exist.” How do I know the George Washington, as a historical figure, actually lived? Maybe I could see his body in his tomb. But, how do I know that body IS George Washington? Oh, historical papers. What if they got his face all wrong? What if that wasn’t even his “real name”? Heh, sorry, I’m babbling. Making you think, eh?

So. Big G. First, I tend to believe the logic that whatever processes created one object can be used to make a similar object. What do I mean by that? If there’s one, you can create more. Maybe not completely exact. That’s too strict. Take a painting, for example. If someone really wanted to, I believe it’s possible to create a replica of the Mona Lisa. Why? Because someone made the first one. So it’s possible for another one to be created. Humanly possible? As in, can it be done within a reasonable amount of time? I somehow doubt that.

With that in mind, if it is possible for “gods” to exist, there exists the possibility for more than one to exist. Why not? Again, I’m not looking at this from a Christian perspective. I just noticed that I haven’t defined “God” at all. As best I can put it, I suppose a God is any “creature” that can violate the laws of physics through telekinesis. *pauses* That sounds right. Because, for a God to do any, he has to be able to manipulate matter in ways we can’t even fathom. How are the laws of physics broken? Well, that doesn’t really matter because that’s the nature of deities.

I should get more general. Break away from the concept of “god” fed to me by society. What do I know? Okay, so we have the world. It exists. This is our world. Are there any other worlds? Well, I see no reason to see otherwise. Parallel dimensions and alternative universes are just two of many concepts. Is there life outside of Earth? Maybe, maybe not. We have no way of proving the negation unless we prove all matter outside of Earth is free of matter that has Earth-living-like qualities. Who knows, maybe our definitions of living are wrong. However, I believe that whatever processes that created us, deity, randomness in nature, or Bob Dole, those processes can produce life elsewhere.

I heard a retort once, “Whatever you believe in is your God.” I believe in me. I am my God. I am a God. Therefore, God exists. Of course, that completely degrades the definition of God to a Timmy, but nevermind that.

I’m so babbling.