Welcome aboard.   I'm in Canada where do you hail from and live?

Thanks, Jeffrick. I live in the northwest US.

Thank you, and thanks to the little hints at the bottom of the graphic, I actually figured the message out

 Welcome aboard. Feel free to join in on the discussions. ask questions or just participate in general. 

When you define yourself as a mystic, are you speaking in terms of like : Gnosticism ? 

Lots of smart people here. And yea if you say you don't know much, you do have a lot to catch up on. It took me 11 years to get to where I am today and I am still learning.

Just to arm you a bit. Suggested terms you SHOULD look up in case a theists uses them.

1. The problem with "infinite regress" something complex if it has a creator then that creator would have to be even more complex.

2. Circular reasoning, is anything that is self serving.

3. The Fallacy of "Pascal's wager", problem with betting on a belief

4. Ocham's Razor......"Out of many given guesses to solve a problem, the one with the least baggage is the most likely answer".

EXAMPLE:

1. A god exists

2. Or people make up gods.

Books you should read.

1. The New Atheism by Victor Stinger

2. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins

3. God is not Great, the late Christopher Hitchens

4. End of Faith, by Sam Harris

5. Infidel, Ayaan Hersi Ali

TONS more. But don't let that overwhelm you. Take your time read and don't be afraid to ask anyone here questions. Welcome.

Welcome aboard goathead.
I thought of the Rolling Stones album, goats head soup, and Dancing with Mr. D, which us atheist love to do.

I thought of that album myself when I first saw the name. But the song that I associate with that album the most is "Angie". 

I may be only in my mid-thirties, but I gotta say, The Rolling Stones are the greatest band and far superior to anything my generation ever produced. 

I know that is off topic, but I never miss a chance to say I am a diehard Stones fan. 

Well, most theists argue that since everything has to have a first cause, the universe itself has to have a first cause and that cause must be the by-product of a divine creator/deity.

Yet, you mentioned that the cause was uncaused and always existent. 

Which seems to lean towards the atheist viewpoint, since you did not state that a deity/god was the cause of the origins of the universe. 

Atheism simply means a lack of belief in god, nothing more or nothing less really. Go to the link in the left-hand bar and click on "Am I an agnostic or an atheist?" scroll down the page to the video, about halfway through and watch it. (It's very brief) Let me know which one that you identify with the most. 

Welcome aboard, any reason why the "uncaused" cause has to have a white beard and impregnate female virgin earthlings?  Why not the universe itself be the uncaused cause?  Why take that extra step and call the uncaused cause God, or Steve, or the Out-dimensional-chicken-creating-universes?

Hi Ktulu, thanks for the welcome. I think the first cause is God for various reasons, but I can't prove that it's necessary. That's why I'm here--to learn and develop ideas on those kind of things.

Yep, I pretty much agree with all of that.  I don't have any original or innovative arguments for God; I'm just trying to do the best with what little knowledge I have.  I think the "first cause" is God for the usual reasons (e.g. order in the universe).

BTW, I don't know exactly what a deist or panentheist is, so I'll have to check up on that before I can answer.

Quick definitions from wikipedia :

Deism (ⁱ/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/^[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator. According to deists, the creator never intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect&quot does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God&quot is a belief system which posits that the divine exists (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which leaves open the possibility that the divine is not a distinct being or beings but is synonymous with the universe.^[1]

In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God.^[2] Much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.^[3]

Welcome to the forums. I see you have already met Brian and he gave you some good places to research. I once was a believer, my name really is Paul John, very religious parents.

Perhaps with some study and research you too will see why the idea of a god did it is not very likely.

Have fun.

Let me look up some links and see if I can post them for you. A more reliable source than wiki might be needed.   

I am not trying to sway your opinion either way, just seeing what you might identify with and hearing your opinion on it. 

My personal journey to Atheism was not an overnight thing. (Not trying to persuade you one way or the other, different people, different journeys and different conclusions).

I was raised in a very strict Catholic home. I was very devoutly religious for most of my childhood and late teens. Certain experiences ( it would take hours to relate all of them here) lead me to question and doubt all of it. 

I left home and went through a pretty rough period of my life, and I could not shake the persistent feelings of guilt and shame that religion had instilled into me. 

I drifted for a bit, flirted with Buddhism, kinda got involved in the whole New-Ager type thing, even went through a short period of ghost hunting and stuff. 

At the bottom of all that searching, I just never found anything to really fill the void. 

Well, long story short, I have always loved to read and I heard one of my favorite fiction writers, Harlan Ellison, state that he was an Atheist. 

I had never really pondered Atheism that much. I always assumed the stereotype, that life without SOME kind of spirituality would be empty and meaningless. 

But hearing Harlan talk about it, got me to thinking. 

I soon discovered Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ( my favorite) and something clicked. 

It all began to make sense. I soon started delving into scientific books and such and was actually overjoyed. This was what I had been looking for my whole life. 

Of course, I do not have all the answers or all of the mysteries solved, but I know what I am today. 

Now, to look at me, I am a skinny, long haired, bearded biker, with tattoos all over my arms and chest and earrings.  Allot of people take a look at me and automatically dismiss me as some thug with nothing on his mind but beer bikes and babes ( which takes a huge part of it up I might add) but looks can be deceiving. But, I do ponder things, I do like learning new things. 

There are a couple of books ( I don't necessarily agree with their final conclusions) called, The God Part of the Brain by Mathew Alper, Why God Won't Go Away by Neuberg and Religion Explained by Pascal Boyar that touch upon the way that human beings seemed somewhat inclined towards some sort of, shall we say, "spirituality". However, that has alot to do with neurological processes in the brain, cultural memes and biological evolution. I could get allot more in depth here, but it would take too many pages. 

Just thought I'd share that with you. 

Understandable. Famous Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens never reported having any "bad" experiences with religion or with the religious community. 

You have people on here that have always been atheists, others that are undecided, christians and deists and everything in between. 

I was just trying to get a better idea of where you might be coming from and where the term "mystic" as your friend describes you, would apply. 

Of course, not every type of believer or theist has to fall into a set category. 

There used to be a regular poster on here named Eloise ( haven't heard from her in awhile) who described herself as a Panentheist. But her intelligence level was so high and her arguments were often so complex and beyond my grasp that I never quite grasped exactly WHAT she believed in. But I always enjoyed her posts. 

There are other long time theists on here like Teralek and Luminon that I have had enjoyable discussions with. 

It's generally the fanatical, zealous and self - righteous assholes that I show no respect to at all. But they don't usually last very long. ( Well, there are a couple of persistent pests, but I look at them as comic relief). 

Be careful there, the truth is that scientists currently are not saying either way with absolute certainty if there was something before this universe, or the universe came out of nothing.

WHAT causes infinite regress in not finite vs infinite.

What matters in either case is that a god is not required for either something before, or nothing before.

In other words, an all powerful God would be complex which would need something even more complex and that complexity would need something even more complex and so on and so on.

If one looks at the universe as an ongoing thing like a weather pattern, you know that weather patters are made up of simplistic parts, that manifest without cognition into a bigger pattern.

Incorrect.  A unicorn IS nothing.  It doesn't exist.

A drawing of a unicorn is something.  Even the ides of a unicorn is something. 

The idea of god is something. A drawing of a jesus character is something.

But god is nothing.  it doesn't exist.  But a unicorn is a good comparison.

Good analogy about the unicorn.

However, simply because science does not have the conclusive answers about the origins of the universe, I don't think that would necessarily mean that a god would be behind it. 

For if something can not come from nothing, where would god have come from ? 

Hi TonyJeffers: we cancelled our cable last summer.  Maybe that show will be on Netflicks streaming sometime.

It's my belief that there has never been nothing.  So my answer is that God didn't come from anywhere, he always has been.  Some of my objectivisit friends also believe that there was never nothing, but they don't believe in God either.  They don't speculate on what the always-has-been is, except to say that it isn't intelligent.

Agreed, nothing is a strange thing to talk about. That's why I say a unicorn is not nothing (I humbly disagree with tonyjeffers), because I don't think it makes sense to say that something is nothing, regardless if the something is real or not.

I also agree with your point that even if you grant that there was always something for argument's sake, that in itself doesn't demonstrate an intelligence (whatever "intelligence" means--squishy ideas here!).

 Hehe, this got so interesting that I had to look up the dictionary : 

Nothing : no thing, not anything, naught. no part or trace of anything. nonexistence. 

Something : A certain determined or unspecified thing 

Intelligence : capacity for learning, reasoning, grasping concepts and ideas, aptitude with facts and reason, the faculty of understanding. 

Well, I guess the dictionary did not tell me anything ( what is anything ? lol )  that I did not already know. 

So I guess we are still in abstract and subjective territory. 

A god can't fit in if there was nothing.  A god can only fit in if there was not nothing (I assume that when we say god, we are talking about a being that always was).

Lol. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.