Philosophy Now Forum

NielsBohr wrote:Hi,

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

General dictionary meaning of Theism wrote:belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

When we prefix a word with 'a' such as 'amoral' as apposed to 'moral', then that identifies that which is without in regards the word that follows according to that word's meaning (in this case 'moral'). So I find it odd that the exception should be with 'atheism' Surely, given the general meaning of the 'theism', atheism should translate to... 'without a belief in the existence of a god or gods... and... here is the real defining element... 'specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe'.

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

Not all theistic belief systems define their god or gods as necessitating omnipresence.

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,

Atheism is about more than merely disbelieving Abraham's Theism... it is about being without belief for all Theism, 'specifically, of a creator who intervenes in the universe' So that means... that atheist are without a belief in the Titans or Olympians for that matter as well as Abraham's God.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

Buddhism perhaps?

uwot wrote:

NielsBohr wrote: So how can you understand demonstration, and don't accord any truth in premisses?

On a general point about demonstrations and premises, I think it is generally true that in order to follow a logical or mathematical demonstration, you need to understand the premises. The same is not true of science, as, for example, Newton pointed out ( http://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hypotheses_Non_Fingo ) it doesn't matter what you think causes gravity, you can study and measure the effect and attribute it to whatever you like without it making the slightest difference to what actually happens.

Hi,

I re-find the real Uwot ! Excuse-me for the last answer - it was a translation of a despising french expression - due to your judgement about believers, although you do not know (what is in their brain).

But how can you understand, for the example, a basic premise ?!? Think about the postulates in geometry.

To understand, you need, I think, to make some decomposition of the concept. But for a such "postulate", you cannot make any decomposition - so you cannot understand.

Okay for Newton and thank you for the link. But here is not a question of understanding - only measurements, which must be repeated, and we accord the law only in the way of the validity of the repetition, what is not "understand" at all.

-Moreover, my intuition was right when I was 15 years old - euclidian geometry is valid only in a limited way, as for 2 dimensions.

Sappho de Miranda wrote:

NielsBohr wrote:Hi,

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

General dictionary meaning of Theism wrote:belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

When we prefix a word with 'a' such as 'amoral' as apposed to 'moral', then that identifies that which is without in regards the word that follows according to that word's meaning (in this case 'moral'). So I find it odd that the exception should be with 'atheism' Surely, given the general meaning of the 'theism', atheism should translate to... 'without a belief in the existence of a god or gods... and... here is the real defining element... 'specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe'.

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

Not all theistic belief systems define their god or gods as necessitating omnipresence.

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,

Atheism is about more than merely disbelieving Abraham's Theism... it is about being without belief for all Theism, 'specifically, of a creator who intervenes in the universe' So that means... that atheist are without a belief in the Titans or Olympians for that matter as well as Abraham's God.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

Buddhism perhaps?

Thank you Miranda,

I already wrote, that the "Omnipresence" was in question in the church itself... so you are right.

I understand your joke about Buddhism, if it is one.

But you know what I mean:
As the atheist Vegetariantaxidermist wrote me, even if no faith in a "personified" God, as he believe or think that the Universe was not eternal in the past, this thought lead to think about the born or "Big-Bang" of Universe.

It should be said that "A Force" created the world, in place of a "personified" God, but this is already a God.

Moreover, maybe this God is the Nature itself, but you'll see what I mean... transitively, his gods are the physicists.

And I will tell you because they are not mine - because due to the exponential energies which are to be engaged to go to the instant Zero in the synchrotrons, they'll never be able to do this.

NielsBohr wrote:Hi,

I re-find the real Uwot ! Excuse-me for the last answer - it was a translation of a despising french expression - due to your judgement about believers, although you do not know (what is in their brain).

To be honest, I'm not sure what's in yours. I can't decide whether I would buy you a drink, or punch you on the nose.

NielsBohr wrote:But how can you understand, for the example, a basic premise ?!? Think about the postulates in geometry.
To understand, you need, I think, to make some decomposition of the concept. But for a such "postulate", you cannot make any decomposition - so you cannot understand.

I disagree. The foundation of Euclid is a series of 5 (I think) axioms, 4 of which are fairly self evident although the fifth is a bit dodgy. There is nothing to reduce them to. I happen to think he was taking his cue from Parmenides, who tried to build a logical cosmology on the self evidently true premise that 'something' exists. It's the same plan Descartes used to establish Je pens, donc je suis.

-I like a lot your humour for the first answer...

-You shouldn't open me the gate of geometry, because I'll destroy you...

Mind about your expression:

• fairly;
• self evident

The first point induce a modality, a moderation, a partial admitting of something as being "true". And I blame you because of this: you apparently does not have understood, as I guessed.
The second point is irrelevant - due to the idea something cannot assert itself, except maybe the mind, if it is not only a formalism.

I despited Descartes for a long time before nowadays, for the reason I had only the french version (so not his own): "Je pense, donc je suis." absolutely equivalent to "If I think, so I am", what would be totally a nonsense, because to pose "I think", you shall pose "I", which itself is equivalent to "I am", what would be the inference.

The original quotation is: Cogito ergo sum. Unfortunately, I have not studied ancient languages, but if I guess well, this expression has no common measure (with the previous), in being definitively better.

Effectively, I guess that ergo means I, Cogito means think, and sum means to be.

And here, it takes all its sense, and would rather be translated in: "en pensant je suis", or:

Thinking, I am.

-But let's go back to geometry (let me know if my translation is not good) - I will take only the first postulate:

1. Trough 2 points goes one straight line.

-I disagree with this:
I obviously could consider that there are in a counterpart, an infinity of straight (totally merged) lines, which go through the 2 points, what could be, with a third dimension, the projections of an infinity of curves, going trough them.

About atheism I would recommend In Defence of Atheism by French philosopher Michel Onfray. Onfray has written dozens of books and that one sums up his ideas about religions and how, according to him, atheism should be like: not just a nihilism like for most of people today (not believing in God without being able to argue why), but something more substantial; religions being considered by him as a plague that our modern and humanist societies should cure and fight against. The book proposes a good analysis of religions in their historical, political and philosophical background and intents to show that they are purely human constructions.

Onfray also wrote a Contre histoire de la philosophie, which is a "History of philosophy" concerned with philosophers usually ignored in traditional and academic Histories of philosophy. He argues that traditional and academic Histories of philosophy are only concerned with Christians philosophers, or systems on which Christianity has built its dogma/metaphysics. He also argues that our European tradition and its moral and political ideas could have been completely different if Christianity hadn't occupied the whole scene since Constantine, and to do so, he exploits books and documents (or just testimonies, when those were burnt or lost) left by philosophers whose ideas and names are nearly forgotten today. Shame that everything's not translated into English...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Onfray

-Merci Azerty

azerty wrote:About atheism I would recommend In Defence of Atheism by French philosopher Michel Onfray. Onfray has written dozens of books and that one sums up his ideas about religions and how, according to him, atheism should be like: not just a nihilism like for most of people today (not believing in God without being able to argue why), but something more substantial; religions being considered by him as a plague that our modern and humanist societies should cure and fight against. The book proposes a good analysis of religions in their historical, political and philosophical background and intents to show that they are purely human constructions.

-You know what we think in our family about traditions ? -If you loose them, you open the door to muslims who won't consider their own as bad. This is not a question of "who has the truth". This a question of common sense, basic identity, if we won't open the door to retrogradation - economically, or philosophically.

As you tell yourself, Onfray is not a philosopher. He chose his own roadmap in history and politics, calling it "a background", and you are able to believe him blindly. I am not proud of you.

azerty wrote: Onfray also wrote a Contre histoire de la philosophie, which is a "History of philosophy" concerned with philosophers usually ignored in traditional and academic Histories of philosophy. He argues that traditional and academic Histories of philosophy are only concerned with Christians philosophers, or systems on which Christianity has built its dogma/metaphysics. He also argues that our European tradition and its moral and political ideas could have been completely different if Christianity hadn't occupied the whole scene since Constantine, and to do so, he exploits books and documents (or just testimonies, when those were burnt or lost) left by philosophers whose ideas and names are nearly forgotten today. Shame that everything's not translated into English...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Onfray

Yeah, I could also argue in a similar way:

• Not only philosophy, then, but also physics, with the Big-Bang theory;
• Yeah, our traditions could be completely different if History were not the same. It is only a common sense.
• Oriental philosophers are even better: They did not separate the diverse knowledges, from theology to experimental sciences. What led them not to evolute as Europe, ...until corpuscular physics re-discovered some oriental wisdoms.

Maybe would Onfray better be in a stagnant muslim society ? -So easy to go in quest of a greener grass, elsewhere... Not satisfied to give you his bias of a lonely view, he renegade our heritage trough the History itself.

History is History, I think it is clear. If the things follow an evolution, this is not for nothing.

Your Onfray is only in quest of financial benefits.

---
Thank you anyway for your opinion.

Thank you NielsBohr for your very deep, enlightening and balanced opinion about an author that you have not read.

As I already told,

I have not read Nietsche for a question of mental sanity. I acquired not without difficulty my protestantism, it is not as if I had a brain wash in my former youth.

Knowing this, I am not on the way to read an historian enhancing his history with some philosophies...

To be a complete philosopher, he should consider both of ways:

• With God,
• Without God.

And for so, trying to remake ALL the History. What others certainly have being trying moreover than Onfray.

The brain wash is not for now (my hypothetical reading of Onfray).

azerty wrote:Thank you NielsBohr for your very deep, enlightening and balanced opinion about an author that you have not read.

I advise you to read Fritjof Capra as you have time. And it is in your interest to give me a complete feed-back.

azerty wrote:About atheism I would recommend In Defence of Atheism by French philosopher Michel Onfray.

Thank you for that, azerty. I'm off on holiday, I'll take the opportunity to catch up with a bit of contemporary French philosophy.

-And me ?

NielsBohr wrote: -You shouldn't open me the gate of geometry, because I'll destroy you...

Mind about your expression:

• fairly;
• self evident

The first point induce a modality, a moderation, a partial admitting of something as being "true". And I blame you because of this: you apparently does not have understood, as I guessed.
The second point is irrelevant - due to the idea something cannot assert itself, except maybe the mind, if it is not only a formalism.

I despited Descartes for a long time before nowadays, for the reason I had only the french version (so not his own): "Je pense, donc je suis." absolutely equivalent to "If I think, so I am", what would be totally a nonsense, because to pose "I think", you shall pose "I", which itself is equivalent to "I am", what would be the inference.

The original quotation is: Cogito ergo sum. Unfortunately, I have not studied ancient languages, but if I guess well, this expression has no common measure (with the previous), in being definitively better.

Effectively, I guess that ergo means I, Cogito means think, and sum means to be.

And here, it takes all its sense, and would rather be translated in: "en pensant je suis", or:

Thinking, I am.

-But let's go back to geometry (let me know if my translation is not good) - I will take only the first postulate:

1. Trough 2 points goes one straight line.

-I disagree with this:
I obviously could consider that there are in a counterpart, an infinity of straight (totally merged) lines, which go through the 2 points, what could be, with a third dimension, the projections of an infinity of curves, going trough them.

-I omitted the conclusion.

The geometry you accorded as true, is not - or in a very limited way.

NielsBohr wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Are you using Google Translate? Are you referring to Infinite Universe theory? I think it's clear OUR Universe has not lasted 'forever'.

-Oh no, Google translate has become better for a pretty while ago, I mean... better than me!

-Excuse-me VT,

I should use the term eternal. But the context about the past was very clear, I think.

-I am not aware about Infinite Universe theory, but some questions went to me, knowing:
If we can conceive mentally a universe which is born, and maybe lasting forever,
why does it seem to be so difficult to imagine a universe eternal in the past, and then ending ?

Nevertheless, this above was not my question, and I am happy about your answer considering that our universe has not last eternally - I makes me an easier work...

My next question is:
Do you think about Big Bang theory, understanding here that our universe had a born ?

Okay VT; for you:

Our universe is born or not ?

NielsBohr wrote:Do you think the world has last forever ?

I don't know which English grammar site you were looking at but 'last' should be 'lastED'.

Oh,

I was sure that it was "last" - so the simple past of "to last" is effectively lasted.

But I had to re-find my second question:

NielsBohr wrote: My next question is:
Do you think about Big Bang theory, understanding here that our universe had a born ?

VT,

(As you answered me that the world was not eternal in the past)

I make the question simple; what is your opinion:

The world was born, or not ?