What does "atheist" really mean ?

[NielsBohr]

Hi,

I would like to know what atheist really means...
literally, "without God".

But if God is this entity omnipresent, how could atheists be "without" him, I don't understand...

I understand that we could be very skeptical about the possibility of God, or again that we consider his promise truth as inaccessible during the life as for agnostics,

but the only way I can conceive - possibly - the atheists themselves, consists in a rebellion in mind.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It means nothing. It's a stupid, out-dated term. Why should there be a special label for people just because they don't believe in nonsense? Is there a word for those who don't believe in Santa Claus, or fairies?

[NielsBohr]

Do you think the world has last forever ?

[uwot]

Hi,

Wotcher!

I would like to know what atheist really means...

Well, there's what hard of thinking theists think it means:

There is proof of no god. (Which there isn't.)

And what any sane human being believes:

There is no proof of god. (Which there isn't.)

The second position is entirely compatible with belief in god; it is what honest theists affirm. It avoids all the nonsense about intelligent design and the irreducible complexity of eyes and bacterial flagella. (If anyone can provide a compelling reason why an almighty god, wishing to prove his existence, would leave his calling card on the twirly bits of a bacterium's bum, you will have performed a miracle and I will convert instantly.)

[NielsBohr]

Wotcher!

Thank you for your answers Uwot; if it means "What's up?", well... I'm pretty fine, thank you.

I would like to know what atheist really means...

Well, there's what hard of thinking theists think it means:

There is proof of no god. (Which there isn't.)

And what any sane human being believes:

There is no proof of god. (Which there isn't.)

The second position is entirely compatible with belief in god; it is what honest theists affirm. It avoids all the nonsense about intelligent design and the irreducible complexity of eyes and bacterial flagella. (If anyone can provide a compelling reason why an almighty god, wishing to prove his existence, would leave his calling card on the twirly bits of a bacterium's bum, you will have performed a miracle and I will convert instantly.)

All considered, you approach rather the definition of theists...

but if it helps you, I'll try a sketch, a beginning of answer to your last question:

Effectively, the belief has nothing to do with a "proof" (of which kind? carthesian, or others ?).

A philosopher friend made the excellent reasoning. In his way, which I approve, God does not want at all to prove his existence. The might reason is: The phenomenon of literally proving himself, would not only be of different kind than the belief, but even be contrary of the belief.

To give you a schematic thought: To see him could cause a big fear, making people go away as some atheists themselves...


-So to go back on the topic, I personally think that atheist cannot have no belief as they pretend... because they have faith on many other subjects, or simply on people they meet. The reason beyond being that they cannot prove more why they have sometime faith in others than God, as they cannot prove all in general.

But the only atheists I met to these days refused to develop their own ideas... (as you maybe can see above)

-The deeper principle should be:
"If I don't see, I don't believe".

But for the ones who are familiar with logic of propositions, the above one - in a way of counterpart (negative and opposite) - is equivalent to:
If I believe, then I see.

-So I shown here above, that atheism cannot be "no belief", so my next question is: Which kind of belief ?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








......................................................








.

[uwot]

Effectively, the belief has nothing to do with a "proof" (of which kind? carthesian, or others ?)

Which is what I said here:

There is no proof of god. (Which there isn't.)

The second position is entirely compatible with belief in god; it is what honest theists affirm.

A philosopher friend made the excellent reasoning. In his way, which I approve, God does not want at all to prove his existence. The might reason is: The phenomenon of literally proving himself, would not only be of different kind than the belief, but even be contrary of the belief.

Well yes, there is a school of thought amongst some believers that it is faith that god wishes rather than knowledge. It usually gets tied in with free will; the reasoning being that if we knew god exists, we would automatically behave according to his will (it didn't work for Lucifer).

To give you a schematic thought: To see him could cause a big fear, making people go away as some atheists themselves...

Let me get this right: proof of god would cause some people to stop believing in him?

-So to go back on the topic, I personally think that atheist cannot have no belief as they pretend...

From my point of view, as an atheist, you, as a theist, are someone who has a record of believing in things you cannot see. It suspect it would be a waste of time trying to persuade you that I am not pretending that I lack something neither of us can see.

because they have faith on many other subjects, or simply on people they meet.

Two questions:
1. What do you think I have faith on?
2. What has that to do with faith in god?

The reason beyond being that they cannot prove more why they have sometime faith in others than God, as they cannot prove all in general.

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

But the only atheists I met to these days refused to develop their own ideas... (as you maybe can see above)

I can't speak for all the atheists you have met so far, but I would like to believe that you have now met one who has developed their own ideas (with a bit of help from two and a half thousand years worth of philosophers).

-The deeper principle should be:
"If I don't see, I don't believe".

Well, yes that's a core principle of empiricism and although it was not my idea, I think it's a very good one.

But for the ones who are familiar with logic of propositions, the above one - in a way of counterpart (negative and opposite) - is equivalent to:
If I believe, then I see.

Well logic isn't my thing, but what you are claiming is that: Not A, therefore Not B is equivalent to A therefore B. That is denying the antecedent, I believe, which is a logical fallacy.

-So I shown here above, that atheism cannot be "no belief", so my next question is: Which kind of belief ?

It's very simple: it's the belief that none of the evidence for the existence for god is compelling.

[NielsBohr]

Well, I see that Bill Wiltrack has the answer to everything !

-Uwot,

First of all, I begin with one of your last answer:
When I wrote Negative AND Opposite, this is because I don't have the terme of the equivalent proposition in english. In french, it is said: contraposée.
To schematize it for you, here it is:
Original Proposition P0: A⇒B.

As you very well told, obviously, this is not equivalent to "(Non-A)⇒(Non-B)", which would only be the negation of original proposition. To say this would effectively be fallacious, because it would be as saying: "True=False", that's clear.

(Symbolically, "Non-" is written so: ¬ .)

-What I meant, is:
The equivalent proposition to P0 - let me call it P1 - is:
¬B⇒¬A .

And that's all !

This is often a forgotten equivalence, and I think it is good to recall it.
------------------------------------------------------------
But as I am corresponding with you, and you don't think "If not see, then not belief",
I cannot infer upon it in "If belief, then see".

-Okay, let me answer now the other points:

Well yes, there is a school of thought amongst some believers that it is faith that god wishes rather than knowledge. It usually gets tied in with free will; the reasoning being that if we knew god exists, we would automatically behave according to his will (it didn't work for Lucifer).

NielsBohr wrote:
To give you a schematic thought: To see him could cause a big fear, making people go away as some atheists themselves...


Let me get this right: proof of god would cause some people to stop believing in him?

-I do not want to make a generality, but as you can see for the devil you evoke, the proof won't necessarily make people follow God.

From my point of view, as an atheist, you, as a theist, are someone who has a record of believing in things you cannot see.

-Thank you to have the honesty to declare to be atheist - this was actually not obvious for me to see atheism in you.

As I read you, it nevertheless appears to me as clear, that you did not thought "Not see ⇒ Not believe", so I deduce that our have a higher level of abstraction than other atheists, and I thank you for this.

Two questions:
1. What do you think I have faith on?
2. What has that to do with faith in god?

I will answer the second point later, if you let me so, but at the moment, I admit that there are two kind of believes, knowing "to believe simple "facts"" (to be schematic), and to believe in God.

Okay, I will take this point later.

For the first, to be honest, I am not a genius: I cannot guess what is in your mental ! This would be rather to you to tell me what is your notion of faith (if you have ever one)...

NielsBohr wrote:
The reason beyond being that they cannot prove more why they have sometime faith in others than God, as they cannot prove all in general.

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

Okay,

as you bound your reasoning about "God proving himself" (to be brief - one of the first of your points) to "free will", what is not necessary,
let me explain myself:

Most of time, a philosophical atheism is bounded to materialist determinism. So, as you cannot know all the previous causes, you are forced - I think - to invoke some faith... Or do I make a mistake ?

-Finally, I am not sure to understand a point:

It's very simple: it's the belief that none of the evidence for the existence for god is compelling.

If compelling is a synonym for constraint, it would say that if there was an evidence of God, your atheism would then consist in the deny of His law ?

[Melchior]

It means someone who does not believe in the existence of gods.

[NielsBohr]

Uwot,

I promised you an explanation of the two believes.

...But I have already done in my previous post: the belief of a fact, is almost not a belief,

as the belief in God, invokes faith.

The problematic, is - according the alterity of God thank to Karl Barth - I also think we cannot be faithful in an entity we do not (totally) know.
I think for the point, that the faith comes not from God, but goes from the heart, as a friend excellently answered me:
"I think that want to believe is not incompatible with to believe." - and this was the day when I became protestant.

-I become very interested in your last answer; I think to have understood, now. Actually, you was answering that atheism was the belief that "no proof of God is pertinent".

Okay, but this is not sufficient, because I think exactly as you, although I am a believer.

Moreover, your reasoning thinks trough the lack of a thing (knowing: a notion of possible "proof" for God), and not with the heart.

This is why I am about to think that atheism is not a belief, unless you let yourself having faith in some people - I guess.

Making the sum, I am about to think this is a weak belief, because atheists have faith in people for the most probably only reason they live with.

[Blaggard]

.








......................................................

Well that was worthless.

I do like how religionists minds work though, ie not at all. We don't have magic as the answer to anything we must not appreciate life. It's like so easy to not be that irrelevant.

a) atheists don't come to doors preaching their message because they have respect usually for the right of people to believe what they want no matter how ludicrous

b) the vast majority don't care about religion, and have found much more in life without it than you will ever know, despite not knowing what that is.

c) atheists in history how much damage have they cause to the human race as opposed to religious people

d) dya think for once in your life, you might just say, everyone has the right to believe what they want without posting shit at them because they were able to not accept the things told at face value without analysing them critically, wherever they happened to live?

e) well do you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28

Ode to a flower.

[Ginkgo]

Hi,

I would like to know what atheist really means...
literally, "without God".

But if God is this entity omnipresent, how could atheists be "without" him, I don't understand...

I understand that we could be very skeptical about the possibility of God, or again that we consider his promise truth as inaccessible during the life as for agnostics,

but the only way I can conceive - possibly - the atheists themselves, consists in a rebellion in mind.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

The answer would be yes to that question.

Atheists only think they are without God and therefore must be mistaken in their beliefs. All of this naturally depends on two things:

(a) God exists.

(b) God is omnipresent.

[NielsBohr]

c) atheists in history how much damage have they cause to the human race as opposed to religious people

-Yeah, Hitler was pope, it is well known.

At the age of crusades, there was no right to deny the Creator's authority. The inner believes were the same as today, you are not an exception.

d) dya think for once in your life, you might just say, everyone has the right to believe what they want without posting shit at them because they were able to not accept the things told at face value without analysing them critically, wherever they happened to live?

This is me, or you do not know to read:

• we are in philosophy of religion,
• you see there that a pure atheist would "challenge" us. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12970&p=175979#p175979

[NielsBohr]

NielsBohr wrote:
but the only way I can conceive - possibly - the atheists themselves, consists in a rebellion in mind.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?


The answer would be yes to that question.

Atheists only think they are without God and therefore must be mistaken in their beliefs. All of this naturally depends on two things:

(a) God exists.

(b) God is omnipresent.

Hi Ginko!

I don't understand, you say yes, there are other ways than being in rebellion, and then... ah, ok, they were mistaking. Ok, well.

To tell you all, the omnipresence of God was already a question, even in the inner of the Church...

But to say that they are "without God", would mean that God is non necessarily omnipresent, and can absolutely be somewhere away, or if no, "without "God"", would be a non-sense !

[vegetariantaxidermy]

c) atheists in history how much damage have they cause to the human race as opposed to religious people

-Yeah, Hitler was pope, it is well known.

At the age of crusades, there was no right to deny the Creator's authority. The inner believes were the same as today, you are not an exception.

d) dya think for once in your life, you might just say, everyone has the right to believe what they want without posting shit at them because they were able to not accept the things told at face value without analysing them critically, wherever they happened to live?

This is me, or you do not know to read:

• we are in philosophy of religion,
• you see there that a pure atheist would "challenge" us. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12970&p=175979#p175979

Hitler was also a psychopathic , mass-murdering dictator. I think that fact rather takes precedence over whether or not he had superstitions. Same goes for Stalin. Those kind of people worship themselves. I also question your use of 'pope' as some sort of 'standard for goodness'. That's laughable.
Btw, you are an atheist. I assume you don't believe in Thor, or Zeus.