What does "atheist" really mean ?

[NielsBohr]

Niels Bohr

When I ask for a layperson view of your belief in our inability to prove The Big Bang Theory... I wasn't expecting you to encourage me to become at one with my GoogleFu and answer it myself. For the sake of humour, I believe that THIS is what you are referring to.

-Sappho de Miranda,

(There is no space in my pseudo.)

Actually, I was not referring to anything else than a famous phenomenon, and therefore did not see your link. It is not about one experiment, but a general phenomenon. I actually was inferring on the confessions of physicists themselves.

Well, I can do science me too...

-My conclusion about this is not from this experiment, and therefore is not science. At most a mathematical reasoning as a metaphysical one.

Please, avoid to infer to much about my intention (already explained before, moreover).

Well, I can do science me too... like also... And it seems to me that Science is less interested in absolutes and greatly interested in the in-between. Science has no interest then in proving that something came from nothing, nor that everything is possible for that matter. Science is interested in seeking out the best explanations given the observations possible. The synchrotrons are quite useful then as scientific tools of experimentation. So why the nay-saying which serves no purpose?

Let us make this clear: scientists, not Science. Science is a discipline, and approach to problem solving, a method, a human endeavour encompassing many fields of study in which millions of people participate over thousands of years, each adding their little bit of theory, observation, experimentation, explanation, and yet more questions. Science is not a conscious entity: it doesn't say anything, do anything or want anything. People do.

Also, what was the purpose of the Frankenstein example?

-Do not pretend, as being innocent, that I didn't answer this question.

This is after all a discussion on Atheism/ Theism and 'Creator' has a very specific meaning in that regard, so important to stipulate quite clearly the qualities of Creator and created if you wish to clearly tease that polarity.

-Sappho,

Of course, as soon as we pose a word - as Creator - this pose a frame, even in a question - we give an orientation.

This told to you, a Creator can only be conceived as referring to a creature.

You could write that a "force creating" being God, and God being also in the universe (in the understood of Holy Spirit), this would be astonishing that the force creating was not in the world.

The world being without - as any other entity - the ability to create itself, I lead you to the Trinity: the force shall refer to the Father; the presence of God in our universe being the Holy Spirit.
-------
N.B.:
Please, if you want to infer from now on, take your inferences on your account - not on mine. Avoid in "assuming" for me.

If you have any doubt, explain them clearly.

[Mike Strand]

The answer to your topic title would depend on how you define "God". What is the meaning of, or what are the attributes or characteristics of that which you are without (or don't believe in)?

This reminds me of a scene in Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest:

Crew member: Show us what is on that piece of cloth there.
............
Another crew member: It's a key.
Jack Sparrow: No. Much more better. It is a drawing of a key. (Shows the drawing). Gentlemen, what do keys do?
Crew member: Keys ... unlock things ...
Gibbs: And whatever this key unlocks, inside there's something valuable. So we're setting out to find whatever this key unlocks.
Jack: No. If we don't have the key, we can't open whatever we don't have that it unlocks. So what purpose would be served in finding whatever need be unlocked, which we don't have, without first having found the key what unlocks it?

For purposes of your topic, in a sense the key is the definition of God, and hence of atheism.

[thedoc]

Let God define himself, (or herself?), then I don't need to, and I can call myself whatever I choose, and no-one can prove me wrong.

An Atheist is whatever each particular atheist believes himself, (or herself) to be. Trying to come to a consensus in a group with varied beliefs, would be like trying to catch water (liquid) in a sieve.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, thedoc! I agree coming to a consensus on such topics is a pipe dream. I refer you to the concept of ignosticism, or igtheism.

As for freedom of self-characterization, it can serve to start discussion or argument (as with this interesting topic of yours), if that's what you want, or to avoid controversy, if that's your preference. It can vary according to circumstances. In a room full of Baptists, I might want to say I'm an atheist just to get an interesting discussion rolling. At the Spanish Inquisition, I may have been well-advised to say I was a "true Catholic".

If you want to answer a child's question, "Is there a God?", you might just say, "Love exists between some people, and many folks say that God is Love". Or you might say, "It doesn't matter. What matters is how you treat yourself and other people."

Have a good 2015.

[attofishpi]

What does "atheist" really mean ?

In panentheism it means AT_HEIST be very very carefool because you are being watched far beyond the eye of man.

http://www.androcies.com/brd_justice2.html