What does "atheist" really mean ?

[Ginkgo]

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 !

Being "in rebellion" within one's mind in this case seems to me to be saying that this particular atheist is in a state of denial. In other words, he know there is a God, but is choosing to ignore this fact.

This is only one type of atheist and perhaps we could argue that he is not really an atheist at all. Nonetheless, there would be other types of atheists who have no such mental dispositions and are not in any state of rebellion or denial.

I think the above is a reasonable proposition.

[uwot]

Oh I see, "Negative AND Opposite".

"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.

It still doesn't follow.

------------------------------------------------------------

But as I am corresponding with you, and you don't think "If not see, then not belief",

No indeed. Not 'belief' in any circumstances.

I cannot infer upon it in "If belief, then see".

I know enough about logic to admit that if I accept the premises of a valid argument, I would be compelled to accept the conclusions. Your premises aren't sound. Your logic isn't valid. Therefore, your conclusions are meaningless.

-Okay, let me answer now the other points:
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.

No, but they would be more inclined to believe in it. You are conflating two issues here; there is bound to be some confusion that is attributable to English being your (at least) second language, but more and more I suspect that the reason what you are saying appears to be incomprehensible is because it is incomprehensible in any language. You seem to believe that atheism is disobedience; it isn't, it is the lack of belief in any god, one that makes the rules or otherwise.

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

There is no need to thank me, it's not something I feel any shame about.

For the first, to be honest, I am not a genius: I cannot guess what is in your mental !

There are many things in my mental, none of which I believe to be articles of faith. You think some of them are; what sort of thing do you have in mind?

This would be rather to you to tell me what is your notion of faith (if you have ever one)...

I don't, but what I suppose faith to be is a willingness to maintain a belief with little or no evidence.

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 ?

Not just one. It doesn't follow from any connection between atheism and material determinism that you presume, that I am a materialist or determinist. To save time: I am an empiricist. I think the best way to understand the world is to look at it. I am aware that there is more to the world than can, even theoretically, be seen. It is, for instance, currently impossible to conceive of a way to determine what fundamental particles, hence the visible universe, are made of. It is possible, as Berkeley pointed out, that everything is ideas in the mind of god; in fact any metaphysical hypothesis that is not contradicted by physical evidence might be true. To be really rigorous, since it is possible that everything that exists could be ideas in the mind of a deceitful god, it could be that the evidence contradicts the facts.
It doesn't bother me that I don't know about things that make no difference to what actually happens. Like most people, I have my own ideas and like all atheists, they are not based on a middle eastern creation myth. I am therefore not forced to invoke some faith, because nothing is impossible. I remain an atheist, because, while logically possible, the idea that it was all the work of god lacks any credible evidence.

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 ?

Compelling in this context is evidence you are constrained to believe. If you were to provide compelling evidence for a god, I would accept it and not be an atheist. Whether I then chose to abide by that god's laws is a hypothetical issue. It may be that I would tell god to kiss my arse. If they were of a mind to torment me forever because of that, I would still think hell a better place than at the side of a lunatic who treats any sentient being so. If that is the way the world is, so be it, believers can watch me smugly from heaven for eternity, while I will be below, on fire, actually feeling something.

[NielsBohr]

Uwot,

I already post an answer. I have not read all, but I announce to you that I forget totally the logical premise, as it was not yours.

Anyway, I post there a sketch, a beginning of demonstration for you instruction:
viewtopic.php?f=26&p=175993#p175993

And if I was thanking you, it was not because of any shame hypothetically bounded to an atheism... but for the only reason things were more clear for me.

[NielsBohr]

-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.

(The next is not an answer to the first quote - two themes that I would talk about.

It doesn't follow from any connection between atheism and material determinism that you presume, that I am a materialist or determinist. To save time: I am an empiricist. I think the best way to understand the world is to look at it. I am aware that there is more to the world than can, even theoretically, be seen. It is, for instance, currently impossible to conceive of a way to determine what fundamental particles, hence the visible universe, are made of. It is possible, as Berkeley pointed out, that everything is ideas in the mind of god; in fact any metaphysical hypothesis that is not contradicted by physical evidence might be true. To be really rigorous, since it is possible that everything that exists could be ideas in the mind of a deceitful god, it could be that the evidence contradicts the facts.
It doesn't bother me that I don't know about things that make no difference to what actually happens. Like most people, I have my own ideas and like all atheists, they are not based on a middle eastern creation myth. I am therefore not forced to invoke some faith, because nothing is impossible. I remain an atheist, because, while logically possible, the idea that it was all the work of god lacks any credible evidence.

Thank you a lot, Uwot, for the philosophy from Berkley, I thought the same without daring to tell so.

First of all about that, you cannot "contradict a fact", even with an evidence, for the simple reason that a fact is static, a fact has no meaning in itself.

I see you did not understood my idea.
The purpose was: there is two very different ways:

• to know a fact,
• to believe in (someone).

And maybe other variations between them.

Nearer to the first, even a proof can have a limited validation, as in a tribunal, about a particular event in a more or less longer interval of time, somewhere.

That does not content any meaning for life.

For the evidence, I think as you, knowing: There is no one proof of God or of His absence, so I do not want to take this way in this topics (nor another).

-Finally, let me ask you a question:
Don't you have even faith in people you live with, as parents or a friend ?

[NielsBohr]

This is only one type of atheist and perhaps we could argue that he is not really an atheist at all. Nonetheless, there would be other types of atheists who have no such mental dispositions and are not in any state of rebellion or denial.

I think the above is a reasonable proposition.

Thank you Ginko,

Yes, the above proposition seems to be reasonable, but reasonable has only a common sense, an accepted convention, what is not sufficient for philosophy.

You know, I am wondering about the real meaning, from the etymology to the nowadays acceptation.

The best answer which was made to me, was from Vegetariantaxidermist, but he did not continue the discussion.

And you guess my thought: I am wondering if there is only one atheists on Earth.

The only behavior of considering History - as Nietsche himself did about Christ - is already, I deeply think, a disapprobation of having "no belief".

[NielsBohr]

I also question your use of 'pope' as some sort of 'standard for goodness'. That's laughable.

VT,

I really like a lot your interventions, precisely because they are incisive. I like a lot them.

But I accept to answer you, if you answer me - I asked you if you thought that the world had last forever in the past - your incisives interventions are pertinent only if you continue...

otherwise would it be too easy.

-Anyway I answer you:
Yes, the quoted purpose is really "laughable", moreover for both the following reasons:

1. I am protestant
   • more because of the Sky, than of a stones church (I did not benefit a traditional baptism).
2. I have no consideration for the concept of good that you invoke. In the a human referential, "good" means nothing, for the reason it is the bad in the referential of others.

[Arising_uk]

Hi,

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

Don't know about other atheists but to this one it just means 'God' does not figure as a cause in ones thoughts about things.

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

Try imagining there is no 'God' and then you could understand how we can be without 'It'.

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.

This may apply to those atheists who are ex-theists but to the atheist who has always been an atheist there is no rebellion in mind.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

Hope this helps in your thoughts.
p.s.
Try it this way, do you believe in the others 'Gods' that have been? If not then you are a type of atheist in this respect, now apply that 'belief' to your 'God'.

[NielsBohr]

Thank you a lot, Arising_UK for your opinion about yourself. It helps me to have a larger vision.

But if you want not consider a "God" as you write, you are - maybe not skeptic - but you are only indifferent.

[Arising_uk]

Thank you a lot, Arising_UK for your opinion about yourself. It helps me to have a larger vision.

My pleasure.

But if you want not consider a "God" as you write, you are - maybe not skeptic - but you are only indifferent.

No, I considered when first given 'God' as an explanation of things and after much thought decided it not an answer to the things I thought about. Since then 'It' is not a consideration.

[NielsBohr]

Okay Arising_UK, I was about to understand in an attempt to edit my post, when you wrote.

I like a lot this quotation:

'God' does not figure as a cause in ones thoughts about things.

This seems to me be only agnosticism.

It prefigures that in an attempt to explain some "original cause of the World", or again the origin of thoughts, you may be about to invoke some "Superior Force", I guess, what is the same a God, under a different name.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I also question your use of 'pope' as some sort of 'standard for goodness'. That's laughable.

VT,

I really like a lot your interventions, precisely because they are incisive. I like a lot them.

But I accept to answer you, if you answer me - I asked you if you thought that the world had last forever in the past - your incisives interventions are pertinent only if you continue...

otherwise would it be too easy.

-Anyway I answer you:
Yes, the quoted purpose is really "laughable", moreover for both the following reasons:

1. I am protestant
   • more because of the Sky, than of a stones church (I did not benefit a traditional baptism).
2. I have no consideration for the concept of good that you invoke. In the a human referential, "good" means nothing, for the reason it is the bad in the referential of others.

The reason I didn't answer your 'world forever' question is because I wasn't sure what you meant. We could never know if something lasted 'forever'.

[NielsBohr]

I meant forever in the past. Isn't it clear ? -There is no catch, in the case your are afraid. It is only for some metaphysical understanding.

-Try to think otherwise than as things "we know". Here again, not to invite you to believe, if you won't. This idea about "exact" sciences themselves (physics).

I quote you my grandmother, philosopher when she had time, and we took a lot of time in discussing together when she lived:

To each answer, scientists find 10 questions.

This was most probably told by scientists themselves, on the more or less farer times ago, when they were modest.

Anyway even not told by a known scientist, this is a reality.

I personally read Oppenheimer (on my avatar), who made a concession: Physics are not all.

I think we can be faithful in these personalities who made our modern science.

The phenomenon, above, induct that our knowledge relatively decrease much more than it increase absolutely.

I think we can distill a teaching from this, one of them if you let me, could be this:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13594

Scientists realized that they were joining with - not only philosophy as they were doing since the ancient Greecs times - but realized also that they were joining religions. At least oriental spiritualities. (Frijof Capra quotes Bohr and Oppenheimer about this).

It was on these times where the most brilliant scientists were also the most modest. Obviously, on our epoch, the laicity of our teaching institutions imply necessarily their atheism. No logical implication, and here is the problem, it is only an empirical one.

[henry quirk]

Does god (omnipotent, omniscient, universe creator) exist?

I don't know (agnostic).


Do I believe god exists?

No (atheistic).


Do I care that god may, or may not, exist?

No (apatheistic).


If god (any god) exists and give enough of a shit to inform me of his or her or its presence, then I'll take note...till then: I got more important things to occupy my head with.

[NielsBohr]

Does god (omnipotent, omniscient, universe creator) exist?

I don't know (agnostic).

-Hi Henry,

Maybe do you make an error. In a sense, the agnostic do not know an "absolute" truth in itself, but he can nevertheless consider in mind that this truth exists, even inaccessible.

So he would know its existence, although not itself.

This way, I think you give rather the definition of skeptic.

Do I believe god exists?

No (atheistic).


Do I care that god may, or may not, exist?

No (apatheistic).


If god (any god) exists and give enough of a shit to inform me of his or her or its presence, then I'll take note...till then: I got more important things to occupy my head with.

-Are you sure ?
To notice it, it should be by opening your mind (what I won't force you to do, of course).

[henry quirk]

NB,

Again, if god gives a damn about my opinion (on him/her/it), it seems he/she/it would openly, blatantly, proclaim 'I AM HERE'.

George Burns, knocking on my door, would work.

Anything less ain't gonna work (for me).