How can anyone be an atheist?

[SomeRandom]

I skipped the video. Atheism is so simple that I cannot
imagine how a video would shed any light upon it.
I was born not believing in or even knowing of gods.
When I was first told of God, I found the idea ridiculous.
Being an atheist came as naturally as breathing.

Well I think it’s perfectly natural to be skeptical of a god claim. It seems fantastical.
I accept it due to my conditioning and it being presented as more of an energy source than a divine being. I recognise that many religious claims are outrageous. But having been conditioned to accept certain traditions as birth rites, how can I refuse? Especially when taking into consideration the “colonial hangover” and all the resentment and vengeance that naturally entails.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I think it’s perfectly natural to be skeptical of a god claim. It seems fantastical.
I accept it due to my conditioning and it being presented as more of an energy source than a divine being. I recognise that many religious claims are outrageous. But having been conditioned to accept certain traditions as birth rites, how can I refuse? Especially when taking into consideration the “colonial hangover” and all the resentment and vengeance that naturally entails.

I know many who grew up Catholic, but then had the
atheist epiphany. Conditioning can be overcome. I say...
Whatever works for ya.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Nimos

Hi. I am religious, so keep that in mind, when you read my answer. I am in effect totally apathetic where a person is an atheist or not. An atheist is a person, which lacks a positive belief in deities. That is all, it tells me nothing else about that person. Nothing at all. So in practice I can't use the fact that a person is an atheist for anything. In a sense it works like a tautology. Nothing else follows from that other than the person is an atheist.
The same goes for a religious person. A religious person believes in effect in some beyond the observable visible universe. So in a weird sense I am also apathetic if someone tells me that he/she is religious.

So in effect I find no use in the distinction between non-religious and religious, when we are dealing with 2 or more humans including. It doesn't matter if I am religious or not in regards to you. What always matters to you is how I in effect treat you and other humans. We can enlarge that to how I treat other life forms and how I treat nature as such.
But the fact that I am religious tell you nothing about that. And if you are an atheist, then the following applies from my point of view: "Okay, I accept that. Now what is next?".

And now I am going to jump without giving the reasoning for how I get from the above to this below:
It is in the end in part always about truth, proof, evidence, rationality, logic, objectivity and being right. At least in the Western cultural tradition. That has nothing to do with religion and is philosophy, And it always end in what matters not just for you, but how you treat other humans and how they treat you. That is not particular to you. That applies to most humans including me.

Now it is not that everything/reality/the world/the universe is nothing but philosophy and ethics. It is that the moment you try to justify your beliefs about the "good" life, we have left in practice science and any one particular religion. Neither in practice applies for this everyday world, because everybody can without limit in effect believe as they please with it comes to ethics. Now whether they can away with it, is something else.

So I don't care whether you are an atheist or not. It is your ethical system that matters. That is the same for me and everybody else capable of that.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The real problem here is that he grew up in a religion that touted belief in a conceptual religious icon, instead of faith in a great and inexplicable mystery. So he thinks he is an atheist, now, because he rejected belief in the religious conceptual icon he was taught to call "God", when in reality he has never had nor developed a realistic, functional, concept of God. Nor has he ever placed his faith in that concept to discover how faith in the reality of God, helps people.

I think you are making an awfull lot of assumptions here, seemingly for the sole reason that you don't agree with his beliefs and try to excuse it away.

If we asked this "atheist" if love is real, and if trusting in love helps people live better lives, he would certainly agree that it is and it would.

Is the the point where you are going to pretend as if something like "love", which is an emotion and/or behavioral, is the same as a "god"?

And yet this man obviously has made no connection between God, and love. Or God and beauty. Or God and justice. Or God and individual purpose. And why hasn't he?

Because he sees no reason to.

Because the idiotic religion he was raised in only taught him that God is a religious icon, and a religious story, in a religious book.

So I guess you are calling christianity an idiotic religion then?
Also, I'ld say he would seriously disagree with your assumptions.

So for him, God was never made real. And the moment he tested that God, it became apparent to him that it wasn't real. And now he thinks he's an atheist.

"he thinks he's an atheis". What an odd thing to say. As if it was some kind of illusion.

He factually is an atheist, because he has no positive beliefs in any gods.
He doesn't just "think" he doesn't believe in some god. He knows he doesn't believe in some god.

When all he is, is just ignorant of the reality of God, thanks to a religious experience that taught him to "believe in" a religious fictional story of God as if it were the reality of God.

Be that as it may (which I doubt), there nevertheless still isn't a god that he believes in.
Meaning he is an atheist.

You are more then welcome to call his show and explain to him the "Real God (tm)" that you happen to believe in and how the "idiotic religions" have it all wrong.

And this s the case with the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists these days. The truth is they never had any idea how God can be real to us, because religions are so woefully inept at teaching people how to recognize the reality of God in their lives. They're too busy, instead, trying to make people "believe in" the trappings and icons and dogmas of the religion.

Cool.

But we can't have positive beliefs in things we do not know about.

You are more then welcome to try and educate us with this special truth about god you claim to have which somehow all others have missed.

 

[Nimos]

So I don't care whether you are an atheist or not. It is your ethical system that matters. That is the same for me and everybody else capable of that.

But an ethical system can be influences by a religious view right? Which means that does a religious person go through each statement of there scriptures to evaluate them separately?

Let's take the bible as example, most Christians think that "Do unto others as you want them to do to you" or how it goes, is a good thing. But God allowing slavery might be a bad thing?

So was God wrong when he allowed slavery? or was slavery good at that point and suddenly not good now, remember Jesus weren't against slavery either? So what caused that "sudden" change to happen?

If God is the final authority, then how do we know that God do not still think that slavery is fine, and we are just not following his guidelines?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But an ethical system can be influences by a religious view right? Which means that does a religious person go through each statement of there scriptures to evaluate them separately?

Let's take the bible as example, most Christians think that "Do unto others as you want them to do to you" or how it goes, is a good thing. But God allowing slavery might be a bad thing?

So was God wrong when he allowed slavery? or was slavery good at that point and suddenly not good now, remember Jesus weren't against slavery either? So what caused that "sudden" change to happen?

If God is the final authority, then how do we know that God do not still think that slavery is fine, and we are just not following his guidelines?

Could you please stop treating all religious people as of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition?

I am as a religious person as much as anybody a natural product of nature and nurture. So for me it means that I am limited cognitive, moral, cultural and subjective relativist. I don't believe in any version of objective ethics and that includes religion but not just religion.
I am so post-modern that to some people I make no sense including some non-religious humans. They can't believe that I can believe the way I do. Just as some religious can't believe that atheism makes sense, so people including some non-religious can't believe how I can believe like I do.

I am modern because my belief-system is of the salad bar version. I pick and chose the parts of science, philosophy and religion that makes sense to me and make my own belief-system.
I don't believe in the Enlightenment idea of rationality and evidence. That is to me as old school as say communism or the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

So now something about you. So far you are a one trick "pony", when it comes to religion. As your post above shows. You have to learn to cast up with the current time period and learn that your method is limited, when it comes to religious humans. Some of us are post-modern or worse.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

If we asked this "atheist" if love is real, and if trusting in love helps people live better lives, he would certainly agree that it is and it would. And yet this man obviously has made no connection between God, and love.

OK, so what *is* the connection between the emotion of love and whatever your conception of 'God' happens to be?

Because I don't see how 'trusting love' has anything at all to do with 'faith in some great, inexplicable mystery'.

Could you elaborate?

Or God and beauty. Or God and justice. Or God and individual purpose. And why hasn't he?

Maybe because there is no reason to think there is a connection?

What, precisely, is the link between 'God' and beauty? Or 'God' and individual purpose? Or 'God' and justice?

Because, frankly, I see no connection at all between those abstract concepts and 'a great inexplicable mystery'.

The truth is they never had any idea how God can be real to us, because religions are so woefully inept at teaching people how to recognize the reality of God in their lives.

Maybe they simply see those positives as being different than 'God', whatever that is.

 

[Nimos]

Could you please stop treating all religious people as of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition?

I am as a religious person as much as anybody a natural product of nature and nurture. So for me it means that I am limited cognitive, moral, cultural and subjective relativist. I don't believe in any version of objective ethics and that includes religion but not just religion.
I am so post-modern that to some people I make no sense including some non-religious humans. They can't believe that I can believe the way I do. Just as some religious can't believe that atheism makes sense, so people including some non-religious can't believe how I can believe like I do.

I am modern because my belief-system is of the salad bar version. I pick and chose the parts of science, philosophy and religion that makes sense to me and make my own belief-system.
I don't believe in the Enlightenment idea of rationality and evidence. That is to me as old school as say communism or the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

So now something about you. So far you are a one trick "pony", when it comes to religion. As your post above shows. You have to learn to cast up with the current time period and learn that your method is limited, when it comes to religious humans. Some of us are post-modern or worse.

Regards
Mikkel

Wow that was an hostile responds

In my post, did I indicate anything about you personally? or that you were a Christian or anything of that nature?

When I wrote this: "Let's take the bible as example".. shouldn't that tell you, that I don't assume you are of a particular religion, but rather that im using the bible as an example, because there are some stuff written in it, that most people are aware of... such as the saying "Do unto others....." and stuff about slavery.. which makes it a lot easier for me to ask you a question in regards to ethics and the major religions, that you would have also heard of, rather than me, using an example from a religion that hardly no one have heard about.

If the example of the bible doesn't apply to what you believe, you are still able to evaluate my argument from your point of view.

If a Muslim asked me a question about what I think a specific verse in the bible means, I don't instantly assume and accuse him of thinking that he must therefore also think im a Christian and have a go at him.

I can perfectly answer his question, while at the same time, tell him in a not accusive matter, that it is just my opinion, but that I am in fact an atheist, if he should be in doubt.

That you have a personal religion is fine, lots of people do. Which is why it is far easier to use the more established religions as examples, rather than constantly having to try to guess what personal beliefs a person have.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And yet this man obviously has made no connection between God, and love. Or God and beauty. Or God and justice. Or God and individual purpose.

Does there necessarily exist such a connection? Meaning - can you have "love", admire "beauty", realize "justice" or deem yourself to have an "individual purpose" WITHOUT God? Is such possible, do you think?

All I really saw you do is list a lot of fundamentally idealistic things and state that there is a connection between them and "God," but there doesn't have to be. Not in the slightest. If you want to call those things "God" or say they are from your God - that's fine for you. You can believe whatever weird, unnecessary things you want to. Just don't go telling me that I have somehow failed to "See the connection" when it is YOU failing to evidence the connection. Again - you simply state it. Take it for granted. You do nothing except say that "God works for some people." Who cares? Let them have it then - and KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES. Either that, or when you share it, don't tell the person you are sharing it with that they are remiss if they don't believe as you do. You have no way to demonstrate that that is the case. None. And if you don't like the pushback, and don't like being told your ideas are wacky, then DON'T SHARE THEM. Simple as that. It really is. If they "work for you" fine! That's great. FOR YOU.

They're too busy, instead, trying to make people "believe in" the trappings and icons and dogmas of the religion.

But don't you see? If God doesn't exist that those things are LITERALLY ALL THEY CAN TEACH!?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wow that was an hostile responds

In my post, did I indicate anything about you personally? or that you were a Christian or anything of that nature?

When I wrote this: "Let's take the bible as example".. shouldn't that tell you, that I don't assume you are of a particular religion, but rather that im using the bible as an example, because there are some stuff written in it, that most people are aware of... such as the saying "Do unto others....." and stuff about slavery.. which makes it a lot easier for me to ask you a question in regards to ethics and the major religions, that you would have also heard of, rather than me, using an example from a religion that hardly no one have heard about.

If the example of the bible doesn't apply to what you believe, you are still able to evaluate my argument from your point of view.

If a Muslim asked me a question about what I think a specific verse in the bible means, I don't instantly assume and accuse him of thinking that he must therefore also think im a Christian and have a go at him.

I can perfectly answer his question, while at the same time, tell him in a not accusive matter, that it is just my opinion, but that I am in fact an atheist, if he should be in doubt.

That you have a personal religion is fine, lots of people do. Which is why it is far easier to use the more established religions as examples, rather than constantly having to try to guess what personal beliefs a person have.

Not all religions are revealed.
Now lets us leave religion behind and lets do morality without it. I can do that without claiming anything supernatural.
I refuse to play on your part of the playing ground.
So ask me how I do morality and ethics and I will answer. That take more time and if you don't like that, that is your problem. We have been here before - you take normalcy for granted and don't like the weird cases. So if you don't want to do the weird, then stop.
Here are 100 humans. If you only do it based on the 99, you might miss something. So if you really only want to play with the 98 others, then don't play with me.

So stop treating me as normal. I have already told you, that I am not that. So if you put me on ignore, I fully accept that. I even get it, but if you want to continue, stop treat all humans as an average normal population. It will never work.

 

[Nimos]

Now lets us leave religion behind and lets do morality without it. I can do that without claiming anything supernatural.

Im an atheist

So ask me how I do morality and ethics and I will answer.

Ok, So how do you do morality and ethics?

So stop treating me as normal. I have already told you, that I am not that.

So how should I treat you?

So if you put me on ignore, I fully accept that.

Don't worry, im not easily offended

I even get it, but if you want to continue, stop treat all humans as an average normal population. It will never work.

Look I don't want to sound rude, so don't misunderstand what im saying as that.

In our last discussion, it got pretty heated as well, let's be honest. The impression I get, is that the moment someone ask you a question, you are instantly out with the war drums, like this person (me) is out to get you or something.

You mentioned several times in the last discussion that you were a sceptic and that you have studied these things for 20 years. And the first thing you do here when I ask you a question, is to misunderstand, what an example is.

I asked:
But an ethical system can be influences by a religious view right? Which means that does a religious person go through each statement of there scriptures to evaluate them separately?

It doesn't mention anything about a specific religion. Then I add this next...:

"Let's take the bible as example, most Christians think that....."

This is simply to clarify my original question and give an example of what I mean.

Let's take another example:

What do you consider horrible?

For example, do you think child molestation is horrible...

Does that mean, that im accusing you of being a child molestor or simply trying to give you an example of something that I consider horrible.

Im not out to try to get you or anything, I simply asked you a question in regards to what you wrote, because I found it interesting and wanted clarification.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Im an atheist


Ok, So how do you do morality and ethics?


So how should I treat you?


Don't worry, im not easily offended


Look I don't want to sound rude, so don't misunderstand what im saying as that.

In our last discussion, it got pretty heated as well, let's be honest. The impression I get, is that the moment someone ask you a question, you are instantly out with the war drums, like this person (me) is out to get you or something.

You mentioned several times in the last discussion that you were a sceptic and that you have studied these things for 20 years. And the first thing you do here when I ask you a question, is to misunderstand, what an example is.

I asked:
But an ethical system can be influences by a religious view right? Which means that does a religious person go through each statement of there scriptures to evaluate them separately?

And there it breaks down, because not all religions are based on scripture.

It doesn't mention anything about a specific religion. Then I add this next...:

Yes, it mentions the specific subset of religions based on scripture. See, that is the skeptic in me.

"Let's take the bible as example, most Christians think that....."

This is simply to clarify my original question and give an example of what I mean.

Let's take another example:

What do you consider horrible?

For example, do you think child molestation is horrible...

And then you use an appeal to emotion as a rhetorical tool.

Does that mean, that im accusing you of being a child molestor or simply trying to give you an example of something that I consider horrible.

No, it means that you try to control the discourse by framing religion in a certain way. That is what I take offense to.

Im not out to try to get you or anything, I simply asked you a question in regards to what you wrote, because I found it interesting and wanted clarification.

No, you are trying to "win", because you are using a narrow version of examples and frame them, so you can score a "win".
You are doing in effect a rhetorical method.

Here are my moral and ethical views/beliefs:
All humans have intrinsic positive worth, value and dignity. What that mean in practice, is another problem, because it is not possible to make a perfect system, because humans, technology, culture, politics and so on vary.
But always start with that all humans have intrinsic positive worth, value and dignity. And I mean ALL. How that translates into treating them as individuals is in the end never fully objective, universal or possible with a rigid systematic approach.

So I can give you a lots of examples, but they never add up. If you think you have figured it out and you don't have to reflect and question yourself ever again, you can end up harming yourself and/or others.
BTW that is not even my personal view. That is how e.g. social workers are trained in the ideal sense. It is hammered into them never to forgot the uniqueness of the other human in front of them and never take everything for granted. That is the science of that there are no absolute truths, when it comes to humans.

Now do I live by that? No, not all the times. But I get the ideal and I get practice is something else. And yes, I sometimes suck at the practice. But that is "okay" - my society gave me a "free - out of jail card". I don't have to do that all the times, as I am crazy.
So sorry for going off on you. But stop using your rhetorical tricks on me.

Let us take an example. What is your view on slavery? If you don't want to do that, ask me.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Nimos]

No, you are trying to "win", because you are using a narrow version of examples and frame them, so you can score a "win".
You are doing in effect a rhetorical method.

Ok fair enough, I would honestly think that you would be bored having to read several pages of examples, I know I would and I would even be bored of writing them. But nevermind

And there it breaks down, because not all religions are based on scripture.

But the one I used as example is, right?

What religion is not based on some form of scripture or "divine" teaching, telling people how to behave? (Im not accusing you, I just want an example, so I know what you are talking about)

Yes, it mentions the specific subset of religions based on scripture. See, that is the skeptic in me.

So whether or not you get your instruction from scriptures or you make them up yourself, because you believe that a God or divine being told you. Does that change anything in regards to my original question?

But an ethical system can be influences by a religious view right?

And then you use an appeal to emotion as a rhetorical tool.

So how do you suggest that I should have made the example, so it wouldn't have been an rhetorical tool and still having gotten the same point across?

Here are my moral and ethical views/beliefs:..... BTW that is not even my personal view. That is how e.g. social workers are trained in the ideal sense.

But the question you wanted me to ask you were: "So ask me how I do morality and ethics and I will answer." so if this is not your personal view, then you didn't really answer the question, you just explained how some other people do it.

So how do you do morality and ethics?

Let us take an example. What is your view on slavery? If you don't want to do that, ask me.

Why would I have any issues with that? I find it wrong.

Do you have another view on it?

 

[Goddess Kit]

I am the only deity there need be. Since I believe all other deities are false, might as well call me a reasonable atheist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well apparently not everyone think that is the case, so to me it's interesting and useful to know how they view it.

I did watch it, and she came up with typical responses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok fair enough, I would honestly think that you would be bored having to read several pages of examples, I know I would and I would even be bored of writing them. But nevermind


But the one I used as example is, right?

What religion is not based on some form of scripture or "divine" teaching, telling people how to behave? (Im not accusing you, I just want an example, so I know what you are talking about)


So whether or not you get your instruction from scriptures or you make them up yourself, because you believe that a God or divine being told you. Does that change anything in regards to my original question?

You don't know what non-revealed is, do you?

But an ethical system can be influences by a religious view right?

Yes, and so what?

So how do you suggest that I should have made the example, so it wouldn't have been an rhetorical tool and still having gotten the same point across?

What is child abuse? Are there different kinds of child abuse? What are the factors behind it?

But the question you wanted me to ask you were: "So ask me how I do morality and ethics and I will answer." so if this is not your personal view, then you didn't really answer the question, you just explained how some other people do it.

So how do you do morality and ethics?

It is my personal view, because I agree with it. In short I do morality based on the power relationship involved and what is at play. That is several books of sociology, ethics and psychology. It is something you can learn if you want to as a sub-culture. In a sense it is no different than Religious books. You have to believe in it, because it only make subjective sense. There is no strong hard/natural science, which can give evidence.

Why would I have any issues with that? I find it wrong.

Do you have another view on it?

That is too simple a view of slavery. In some cases being a slave was better than being a free man.

 

[PureX]

I think you are making an awfull lot of assumptions here, seemingly for the sole reason that you don't agree with his beliefs and try to excuse it away.

I'm responding to the video as requested. And I heard nothing that would indicate to me that this guy had any idea of God beyond the shallow religious depiction he was being taught.

Is the the point where you are going to pretend as if something like "love", which is an emotion and/or behavioral, is the same as a "god"?

This is the point where I say that love in not an emotion, nor an activity. It's an idea. In much the same way as God is an idea. Both of which are quite capable of generating emotions of all kinds in people.

Because he sees no reason to.

He was given no reason to, and he looked for no reason to, so he saw no reason to. See how ignorance works?

So I guess you are calling christianity an idiotic religion then?

When religion become human institutions, they become egocentric and self-protective. At which point they mostly becmes useless, or even worse, counter-productive to their own proclaimed cause.

Also, I'ld say he would seriously disagree with your assumptions.

That wouldn't make them wrong, however.

"he thinks he's an atheis". What an odd thing to say. As if it was some kind of illusion.

He factually is an atheist, because he has no positive beliefs in any gods.
He doesn't just "think" he doesn't believe in some god. He knows he doesn't believe in some god.

What he or anyone else "believes" (or "dis-believes") does not define atheism. Nor does it make one an atheist.

But we can't have positive beliefs in things we do not know about. Nor can you have negative belief in things you don't know about. All you can have, is unknowing.
believes") does not define atheism. Nor does it make one an atheist.

You are more then welcome to try and educate us with this special truth about god you claim to have which somehow all others have missed.

If I have to "try", it means you aren't listening.

 

[Nimos]

You don't know what non-revealed is, do you?

Something which haven't been shown or told to someone else.

Yes, and so what?

Well that was the question, so what do you mean ".. and so what?"

What is child abuse?

But that is not the same type of question. You are asking either for a definition of child abuse or what it is. Im asking about your opinion regarding something.

What do you consider horrible?

What is child abuse?
Are there different kinds of child abuse?

That is too simple a view of slavery. In some cases being a slave was better than being a free man.

So in which cases are being robbed of your freedom and treated as the property of someone else, better than to not be?

 

[PureX]

OK, so what *is* the connection between the emotion of love and whatever your conception of 'God' happens to be?

Love is not an emotion, it's an idea that may generate emotion, or not. God is also an idea that may generate emotion, or not. So are beauty, and compassion, and kindness and generosity. These are all ideas generated within the human mind from, and about, our experience of being human. What we might feel in relation to these ideas, varies.

Because I don't see how 'trusting love' has anything at all to do with 'faith in some great, inexplicable mystery'.

Within that mystery is the source, sustenance, and purpose of our ideological experience of love. As it is the source of everything experience.

Could you elaborate?

What, precisely, is the link between 'God' and beauty?

Wonder. Awe. The awareness of order. It is the great mystery of being that enables us to experience these 'emotions' when we witness and contemplate 'beauty'.

Or 'God' and individual purpose? Or 'God' and justice?

Even though the purpose of existence is not known to us, we can see that everything within it plays it's part, and therefore has it's purpose within the whole. From this we can then surmise that we must also be playing our part, and therefor have our purpose within the whole, too.

Because, frankly, I see no connection at all between those abstract concepts and 'a great inexplicable mystery'.

Stop fighting it. It's hard to see anything with your eyes clamped tightly shut!

Maybe they simply see those positives as being different than 'God', whatever that is.

"God" is just the word we humans use to refer to that great mystery from which everything springs, takes shape, and finds it's purpose. Rejecting the word because religion has besmirched it for you doesn't change anything. God still is what it is. And we still are who and what and where we are within that great mystery called "God". Atheism becomes just pointless semantics in the face of that great existential mystery.

 

[Polymath257]

Love is not an emotion, it's an idea that may generate emotion, or not.

OK, I disagree with that, but I see that you have transfered the word to a slightly different concept.

God is also an idea that may generate emotion, or not.

OK, there are a LOT of things that are strange about this statement.

1. Usually, God is defined as being, say, the 'creator of the universe', or 'the necessarily existing being', or 'the giver of morality', or any number of other things which simply don't fit into this characterization.

2. In particular, 'God' is usually envisioned as something much more than 'an idea'. He/she/it is envisioned as something that *exists* independently of human thoughts, ideas, or emotions.

In particular, when I say I do not believe in a God, I mean that I do not believe in the God characterized by 1 and 2.

So are beauty, and compassion, and kindness and generosity. These are all ideas generated within the human mind from, and about, our experience of being human. What we might feel in relation to these ideas, varies.

Yes, they are ideas in human minds. Not independently existing entities.

Within that mystery is the source, sustenance, and purpose of our ideological experience of love. As it is the source of everything experience.
Wonder. Awe. The awareness of order. It is the great mystery of being that enables us to experience these 'emotions' when we witness and contemplate 'beauty'.

OK, so it seems you use a highly non-standard definition of the word 'God' that is compatible with what is usually understood to be atheism.

Even though the purpose of existence is not known to us, we can see that everything within it plays it's part, and therefore has it's purpose within the whole. From this we can then surmise that we must also be playing our part, and therefor have our purpose within the whole, too.
Stop fighting it. It's hard to see anything with your eyes clamped tightly shut!

I just don't see that your idiosyncratic definition of 'God' is talking about anything similar to what everyone else means when they use the word.

"God" is just the word we humans use to refer to that great mystery from which everything springs, takes shape, and finds it's purpose. Rejecting the word because religion has besmirched it for you doesn't change anything. God still is what it is. And we still are who and what and where we are within that great mystery called "God". Atheism becomes just pointless semantics in the face of that great existential mystery.

No, 'God' is used to denote a being the created the universe, or that is necessarily existing, or that gives morality, that is omnibenevolent, omniscience, omnipresent.

At least, that is the standard use of that word. You can use it how you want, but if you want to communicate with others, it is good to be aware of what others mean by the term and how it differs from how you use the term.

When I use the term 'God', I do NOT mean some idea in human minds.