So it sounds like you were one of those atheists who thought you knew what a god was and that no such thing existed. Was it your experience that most atheists you knew then were like you?
Yes. Prior to about 2008, the New Atheism was essentially non-existent and atheism was almost invariably a intellect-driven affirmative belief rooted in scientific or philosophical knowledge, and almost always included a strong commitment to naturalism. When I joined the forum, atheists were typically interested in offering arguments to support their beliefs.
-Keith
Interesting. I guess I've been an atheist since around 1965. I've never read a book by the new atheists nor would it occur to me to do so. I'm not hostile toward belief in gods and I find the phenomenon to be worthy of interest if only because of how pervasive and long standing it has been. Nonetheless, to the degree I really know what the idea of a god is supposed to be, I don't find I harbor any such belief. The best I can do is imagine that 'God' is something potentially within the consciousness of every human being. It is one possible way consciousness can be wired.
Though I was not interested in and seldom contemplated God, I was very interested in having well-founded rational beliefs, but there were certain problems I could not solve. My knowledge of my own consciousness is case in point. Material objects are not aware of themselves and rearranging matter could not cause something beyond matter like consciousness to occur. "Consciousness is a conspicuous obstacle to naturalism that relies on the resources of the physical sciences"
1. Consciousness, evidence we all have, defeats the scientism of Dawkins and Harris outright - a core belief held widely by those in the popular internet atheist.
Another contradiction I compartmentalized as an atheist is the problem of existence. Science teaches us to follow casual regressions back to to their origins, leaving us with a dead end where the laws of physics break down. Science, though a wonderful and powerful tool for understanding natural order, but the findings of science include showing that simple questions about origins are beyond its reach. Science does not provide us with a complete account of the reality we see around us. The unanswered questions include simple ones such as consciousness and all questions about our origins.
To avoid allowing the encroachments of religion in public education were educated to avoid reasoning about or examining fundamental and important topics about who we are as if such questions were of no importance. But if we don't know who or what we are, where we came from, or why we are here, we don't know ourselves.
Being content with atheism requires a remarkable blunting of human curiosity and our desire to know who we are. What I see atheists expressing isn't a lack of belief of about gods, it's an apathy so entrained into our thinking that the lack of interest is mistaken to be a lack of evidence. To keep religion out of education the education systems operate as if life's most important questions, the questions religions seek to answer, have no importance and do not warrant our attention. Accepting that this is true is to accept a belief, even if is not recognized as such.
In my own sense of self I acknowledge there is more to me than is under my own control and which is, in some respects at least, wiser than I am. When I reflect on a thing I am still and will wait patiently for any insight which might be bestowed. I am appreciative and respectful of whatever this is - how can one not be? But so long as gods are understood as beings outside of ourselves without whom nothing would exist then I guess I don't have any belief in that sort of thing.
I think what you said is this. You perceive something more in yourself than what is available to your senses. It may influence you at times, but calling it god or attributing actions to it would be to exceed the available data. The idea of gods as existential beings and attributing actions such as creation is unconvincing, and if I understand such an idea is probably strikes you as lacking sufficient merit to warrant serious consideration, your are essentially neutral.
Do I seem to understand?
-Keith
1. Atheist Thomas Nagel - Mind and Cosmos p35