Atheism, like theism is just a collection of beliefs and opinions. If gods don't exist (or something we'd call a god) then you could never prove that without knowledge spanning the whole of the universe. If gods (or something we'd call a god) do exist, but we can't prove it, then maybe instead of being an either/or proposition it's simply what god(s) is/are is other than as conventionally thought of.
I don't believe in the classical religious ideas of gods, where a god is a being similar to us. Alive, discrete, sentient, etc. But the universe exists. And despite a decidely hostile to life nature in the universe, life exists nonetheless. Maybe instead of inventing ideas of god where the god is like us, we need to widen our frame of reference and consider the possibility than the whole of the universe is "God." Or better still, the whole universe is merely a single organism. And our limited perspective is akin to a single blood cell, if it could think, not being aware it was merely part of a single animal.
Right. And if you'll recall, you're spouting the very same gibberish that I annihilated on another thread. It's quite simple really. One need not get all tangled up in the web of your "Say what?”.
First you allege, albeit, unwittingly, that humans must necessarily have all knowledge—you know, sort of like an eternally self-subsistent, transcendently non-contingent and omniscient Mind, which the construct
God unambiguously denotes, in spite of your convoluted prattle to the contrary—in order to access the axiomatic alternatives of ontological origination, which is all that objectively matters with regard to the base of knowledge. See post #336 in the above. The rest is a matter of revelation that would have to come from the God a nature Himself.
Proof is not the province of finite minds. Your point, such as it is, is moot.
Hence, that rash of nonsense is obviously false, unless you're going to contradictorily assert something else. Oh wait! You do that in the very next paragraph.
"I don't believe in the classical religious ideas of gods, where a god is a being similar to us. Alive, discrete, sentient, etc."
Oh?
First of all, pantheism is merely one of the thee axiomatically apparent potentialities, sort of: (1) God exists as an indivisibly transcendent Being self-subsistently independent of the material realm of being; (2) God doesn't exist as all of existence is material; and (3) god exists as the totality of everything that exists in the universe.
Precisely what the difference is between two and three for all practical purposes is rather mysterious, given the fact that the pantheistic god is not alive, personal, discrete or sentient in any sense, but in the sense that it is alive, personal, discrete and sentient in us, even if we be just parts of the whole.
Atheism is irrational as it flat out denies the existence of something whose potentiality atheism necessary acknowledges to be something whose existence cannot be rationally denied flat out.
Pantheism is an inherently contradictory notion that makes a distinction that makes no practically discernible difference.