• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The word and meaning of (A)theist sounds weird to me

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I am not seeing the problem. It is fairly simple really.

Many people create or borrow god-concepts that they somehow decide that they believe in.

Atheists do not.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
First of all "Atheist" = "A theist", and is the opposite of what they say they are.
"A" means "not". They reject the claim of theists. That's all there is to it. They don't implicitly believe in God because they reject others' claims about such a thing. That argument is nonsense.

There are many varieties of atheist. We should not assume they are all the same and clump them together.

Atheists have a reasonable position. We shouldn't belittle them. If anything, we should belittle theists who insist there is a God even though you can't provide any scientific proof. (Actually, we shouldn't belittle anybody. I'm not really saying we should belittle each other.)
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
stvdv
Maybe 1 big misunderstanding. If you use vocabulary "God", it feels silly to deny God's existence.
I deny the existence of many things I have a vocabulary for and I don't feel silly for it. For instance I don't believe in Satan, Hell, Valhalla, flat earth or the seven corporeal souls... And my belief in God is a bit different from many definitions.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
It's actually very easy to understand. It's other people's use of the word God, and what they then go on to tell you it means, or what it is supposed to represent that ends up being contentious. Had no one told me what "God" supposedly is/was then why would I EVER have used the word myself? Why would I ever have made an argument against "God's" existence if I was never told that He supposedly exists?

It would be exactly the same if I told you that, within YOUR OWN RELIGION, there was a secret sect called the "Cringies", and that all monetary proceeds to the religious organization were being skimmed from and used to fund their endeavors. Their mission is the breeding of a master race.

Now... you would have never heard of this term "Cringies" before, but once I tell you, you have. Would it then seem strange for you to denounce my claim as false and argue against the existence of the "Cringies" within your religion? I mean, you have to use the word to argue against me succinctly, right? And didn't you basically say that if you use the name or a definition for something, you are in fact admitting it is real? Isn't that what you're claiming? Can you now see how strange that is?

@A Vestigial Mote: Very good point. Thank you. Suppose you believe in the "Cringies". If that's a real belief for you then it is true for you. If you are convincing enough it will be true for me also. If you only make it up to proof a point then you don't belief in it yourself. So it's not a truth for you. You won't be too convincing, so won't be a truth for me also.

Few examples I came across:
1): I was in a bus, 10year old kid says to driver "run over that cat, we get points for that". True story, this kid was still in his mind in the video games. For him it was real. Quite scary.
2): Same with brainwashed IS fighters (incl. kids). In their minds its real.
3): I talked to a minister. He was so convinced that his Baptist way was the only truth and all others goto hell. He is not stupid, 60years, photographic memory, medal of honour by Dutch King. For him it was the ultimate truth. He was not aware of being disrespectful as explained below. That's all.

Living in this world, our feeling have a kind of truth in them; at least for ourselves. So that's why it's a kind of truth (not the ultimate, universal truth)

So if you use these 2 lines you don't respect the feeling of the other (tell him his feelings are not true)
God exist = True
God exist = False

But if you use these 2 lines you do respect the feeling of the other
I believe "God exist = True"
I believe "God exist = False"

I think this sums it up, and makes it much clearer then I tried before
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
"A" means "not". They reject the claim of theists. That's all there is to it. They don't implicitly believe in God because they reject others' claims about such a thing. That argument is nonsense.

There are many varieties of atheist. We should not assume they are all the same and clump them together.

Atheists have a reasonable position. We shouldn't belittle them. If anything, we should belittle theists who insist there is a God even though you can't provide any scientific proof. (Actually, we shouldn't belittle anybody. I'm not really saying we should belittle each other.)

@jesus316: Thank you.
1): You took first line out of context [You didn't copy the rest "It's just a play of words..."].
2): Totally agree
3): I don't belittle Atheists.
@ALL: Thanks for advice. My view is more clear now. And I think I put it better in words in the previous reply above
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
First of all "Atheist" = "A theist", and is the opposite of what they say they are. Of course, that's just a play of words. But as Freud says "What's in a name". Can be coincidence or play of ....

God, exist = True
1 + 2 = 3

God, exist = False
1 + 2 = 3

This is like saying "1+2=3", BUT "1" does not exist. Seems silly?

I love, My wife = True
1 2 = 3
This makes it more clear. Just tell your wife the above AND adding: "BUT Wife does not exist"
[IF you make it out alive, please share your experience]

If someone says "God does not exist", then it seems strange to me IF he does have a definition of God {because by definition it exists}. And IF he doesn't have a proper definition of God then it doesn't make sense to make the above statements.

Like chicken/egg problem [can't deny both, can you?]
The Atheist creates God the second he denies God; strange.
The Theist talks about God without solid definition; also bit weird

Many times I get the feeling it's just 1 big misunderstanding coming from the emotionally charged word "God". Without the word "God", and with words like "respect" and "not judging the others' feeling or believe system" problems arise much less.

For me the definition of God is: ...

I read somewhere "The wise remain silent" [bookish knowledge obviously]

Any thoughts? [bit naughty though!]

[I'm new here. Try to get my Basics right. Learn a thing or two. I Love harmony, saw already many A's pull T's hairs v.v.]

Although this post sounds a bit over-thought, I happen to think that God is a very "numinous" term for anyone who uses it...as you say it carries with it more meaning than an atheist might want to raise while it indicates more meaning than a theist might be able to rationally explain.

So what is the source of this extra-ordinary burden of meaning that this term "God" carries? Is it cultural-historical? Is it psychological? Is it miraculous?
 
First of all "Atheist" = "A theist", and is the opposite of what they say they are. Of course, that's just a play of words. But as Freud says "What's in a name". Can be coincidence or play of ....

God, exist = True
1 + 2 = 3

God, exist = False
1 + 2 = 3

This is like saying "1+2=3", BUT "1" does not exist. Seems silly?

I love, My wife = True
1 2 = 3
This makes it more clear. Just tell your wife the above AND adding: "BUT Wife does not exist"
[IF you make it out alive, please share your experience]

If someone says "God does not exist", then it seems strange to me IF he does have a definition of God {because by definition it exists}. And IF he doesn't have a proper definition of God then it doesn't make sense to make the above statements.

Like chicken/egg problem [can't deny both, can you?]
The Atheist creates God the second he denies God; strange.
The Theist talks about God without solid definition; also bit weird

Many times I get the feeling it's just 1 big misunderstanding coming from the emotionally charged word "God". Without the word "God", and with words like "respect" and "not judging the others' feeling or believe system" problems arise much less.

For me the definition of God is: ...

I read somewhere "The wise remain silent" [bookish knowledge obviously]

Any thoughts? [bit naughty though!]

[I'm new here. Try to get my Basics right. Learn a thing or two. I Love harmony, saw already many A's pull T's hairs v.v.]
And no sense was made that day.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I deny the existence of many things I have a vocabulary for and I don't feel silly for it. For instance I don't believe in Satan, Hell, Valhalla, flat earth or the seven corporeal souls... And my belief in God is a bit different from many definitions.

@Jumi: Sorry that I wrote wrong words suggesting people are silly. You were so quick reacting the first time. I did at the same time you replied make a little correction as regard to this line with "silly" in it. Because it didn't feel good. And by the way, the whole point for me is, to make clear that nobody is "silly". If someone believes something that's their truth [denying someone else his truth is silly; I didn't write the person is silly]. That is what I meant, but I admit I wrote it quite clumsy.

Post #24: The same idea, but I think I finally put it much clearer and simpler what I meant
The word and meaning of (A)theist sounds weird to me
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Although this post sounds a bit over-thought, I happen to think that God is a very "numinous" term for anyone who uses it...as you say it carries with it more meaning than an atheist might want to raise while it indicates more meaning than a theist might be able to rationally explain.

So what is the source of this extra-ordinary burden of meaning that this term "God" carries? Is it cultural-historical? Is it psychological? Is it miraculous?

@sealchan: I think you're right. This post has been chewed on enough.

But I think it's an interesting idea for a new topic "What is the source of this extra-ordinary burden of meaning that this term "God" carries? Is it cultural-historical? Is it psychological? Is it miraculous?"
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If someone says "God does not exist", then it seems strange to me IF he does have a definition of God {because by definition it exists}. And IF he doesn't have a proper definition of God then it doesn't make sense to make the above statements.
It's easy to define an imaginary god, just as it's easy to imagine magic.

But you're right, there's no useful definition of a real god, one with objective existence, such that if we found one we could determine it was indeed a god, or God.

And I further agree with you, in that when that penny dropped for me, I realized I wasn't an atheist. (I'm an igtheist aka ignostic, but it's not a graceful word.)
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
@A Vestigial Mote: Very good point. Thank you. Suppose you believe in the "Cringies". If that's a real belief for you then it is true for you. If you are convincing enough it will be true for me also. If you only make it up to proof a point then you don't belief in it yourself. So it's not a truth for you. You won't be too convincing, so won't be a truth for me also.

Few examples I came across:
1): I was in a bus, 10year old kid says to driver "run over that cat, we get points for that". True story, this kid was still in his mind in the video games. For him it was real. Quite scary.
2): Same with brainwashed IS fighters (incl. kids). In their minds its real.
3): I talked to a minister. He was so convinced that his Baptist way was the only truth and all others goto hell. He is not stupid, 60years, photographic memory, medal of honour by Dutch King. For him it was the ultimate truth. He was not aware of being disrespectful as explained below. That's all.

Living in this world, our feeling have a kind of truth in them; at least for ourselves. So that's why it's a kind of truth (not the ultimate, universal truth)

So if you use these 2 lines you don't respect the feeling of the other (tell him his feelings are not true)
God exist = True
God exist = False

But if you use these 2 lines you do respect the feeling of the other
I believe "God exist = True"
I believe "God exist = False"

I think this sums it up, and makes it much clearer then I tried before
At least you seem to be admitting that just because it is real for you does not make it real for the rest of us. That would be a completely unrealistic expectation. We all come to the defense of the reality we experience.

And in my personal experience, people feel that their feelings are being disrespected regardless how you phrase your disbelief in their claims.
 
Last edited:

Cary Cook

Member
@ImmortalFlame: Yes, exactly. And making a definition of "God" is not easy (maybe impossible). I get along with atheist very well, if i talk about respect, not critisizing etc. This all humans seem to agree on. War starts when ... ah you know.

I always used the word God easy. Now I totally get it that others might get upset with the word God, because so much injustice and hypocrazy in name of God. I hope 1 day atheist and theist find common ground instead of war ground. Still a dreamer
The term God is ambiguous, even with the capital G. It can mean, among other things:
1. Supreme Being: that which created the first created thing
___who may or may not be the same as
2. Creator of this universe
___who may or may not be the same as
3. Creator of mankind
___who may or may not be the same as
4. Judge of mankind
___who may or may not be the same as
5. BibleGod - which can be subdivided into many different versions
 

Cary Cook

Member
It's actually very easy to understand. It's other people's use of the word God, and what they then go on to tell you it means, or what it is supposed to represent that ends up being contentious. Had no one told me what "God" supposedly is/was then why would I EVER have used the word myself? Why would I ever have made an argument against "God's" existence if I was never told that He supposedly exists?

It would be exactly the same if I told you that, within YOUR OWN RELIGION, there was a secret sect called the "Cringies", and that all monetary proceeds to the religious organization were being skimmed from and used to fund their endeavors. Their mission is the breeding of a master race.

Now... you would have never heard of this term "Cringies" before, but once I tell you, you have. Would it then seem strange for you to denounce my claim as false and argue against the existence of the "Cringies" within your religion? I mean, you have to use the word to argue against me succinctly, right? And didn't you basically say that if you use the name or a definition for something, you are in fact admitting it is real? Isn't that what you're claiming? Can you now see how strange that is?
Are you saying that one can't define, or speak of the attributes of, Homer Simpson without automatically admitting that Homer Simpson is real?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
At least you seem to be admitting that just because it is real for you does not make it real for the rest of us. That would be a completely unrealistic expectation. We all come to the defense of the reality we experience.

And in my personal experience, people feel that their feelings are being disrespected regardless how you phrase your disbelief in their claims.

Thanks
Not only do I admit this. That is exactly my whole point. But I also admit that when writing my first post, I didn't see it as clear as I see it now. And still tricky, needing practise.

Both "I believe God exists" + "I don't believe God exists" can be true simultaneously [both personal expression of the truth]. No conflict here.

Both "God exist" + "God doesn't exit" can not be true simultaneously [both solid facts]. Knowing this, it makes sense to me to use "I believe God exists (not)" instead of "God exists (not)"

!!! BUT if the other insists on using the "God exists (not)" phrase, I will just say "yes, yes, yes". No arguments anymore.

"We all come to the defense of the reality we experience".
I like that line (and both ways; seen from me, and from the other). So if I want the respect of my experienced reality, then it seems logical to me to grant the same respect to the other [solves also the last line of your quote].

I better express my beliefs (at least I know what I am talking about). And I better refrain from expressing my disbelief at the other (and why would I ?!!). And of course I can share common ground items.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
First of all "Atheist" = "A theist", and is the opposite of what they say they are. Of course, that's just a play of words. But as Freud says "What's in a name". Can be coincidence or play of ....

God, exist = True
1 + 2 = 3

God, exist = False
1 + 2 = 3

This is like saying "1+2=3", BUT "1" does not exist. Seems silly?

I love, My wife = True
1 2 = 3
This makes it more clear. Just tell your wife the above AND adding: "BUT Wife does not exist"
[IF you make it out alive, please share your experience]

If someone says "God does not exist", then it seems strange to me IF he does have a definition of God {because by definition it exists}. And IF he doesn't have a proper definition of God then it doesn't make sense to make the above statements.

Like chicken/egg problem [can't deny both, can you?]
The Atheist creates God the second he denies God; strange.
The Theist talks about God without solid definition; also bit weird

Many times I get the feeling it's just 1 big misunderstanding coming from the emotionally charged word "God". Without the word "God", and with words like "respect" and "not judging the others' feeling or believe system" problems arise much less.

For me the definition of God is: ...

I read somewhere "The wise remain silent" [bookish knowledge obviously]

Any thoughts? [bit naughty though!]

[I'm new here. Try to get my Basics right. Learn a thing or two. I Love harmony, saw already many A's pull T's hairs v.v.]

Rarely do atheists make the claim that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. As an atheist my position has always been that I have yet to be presented with sufficient demonstrable evidence to support a belief in any god(s). Saying that you have a lack of belief in something is NOT the same as claiming that the something does not exist. It simply means that you don't have sufficient evidence to believe that it does.

For example, let's say that I have a jar filled to the brim with jellybeans sitting on my desk. If someone came up to me and said, "I know for a fact that there are 4722 jellybeans in that jar. Do you believe me?"

My answer would be, "No, I don't believe that there are 4722 jellybeans in this jar, because I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is true."

Now, by saying that I don't believe that there are 4722 jellybeans in the jar, am I also saying that I believe that it is impossible that there are 4722 jellybeans in the jar? NO. I acknowledge that it's POSSIBLE that there are 4722 jellybeans in the jar. I'm just saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that there ARE 4722 jellybeans in the jar. The only way that I would say that I believe that there ARE 4722 jellybeans in the jar is if we actually counted them and had EVIDENCE that the number is in fact 4722.

The same holds true for any claims of a god(s) existence. I don't believe in any god(s) because I've yet to see any convincing EVIDENCE for one. That doesn't mean that I'm saying it's IMPOSSIBLE that someday someone might provide such evidence, only that thus far there has not been sufficient evidence for me to say that there IS a god(s).
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
@QuestioningMind: Thanks for the very clear explanation from an atheist point of view. Makes a lot of sense, how you described it. And although I believe in God, I can't show proof too. So I will not say "God exists". And moreover I even don't have a solid definition of God. So my "I believe in God" might sound foolish. Maybe I believe in God, because I have for myself created a definition of God which makes sense. But being scientific, this is all far from scientific.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Unicorns do not exist.
Seems a logical statement.
Are you trying to say you know unicorns dont exist, you lack belief in unicorns or just saying that babies dont believe in unicorns? Just so we are on the same page.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
First of all "Atheist" = "A theist", and is the opposite of what they say they are. Of course, that's just a play of words. But as Freud says "What's in a name". Can be coincidence or play of ....

God, exist = True
1 + 2 = 3

God, exist = False
1 + 2 = 3

This is like saying "1+2=3", BUT "1" does not exist. Seems silly?

I love, My wife = True
1 2 = 3
This makes it more clear. Just tell your wife the above AND adding: "BUT Wife does not exist"
[IF you make it out alive, please share your experience]

If someone says "God does not exist", then it seems strange to me IF he does have a definition of God {because by definition it exists}. And IF he doesn't have a proper definition of God then it doesn't make sense to make the above statements.

Like chicken/egg problem [can't deny both, can you?]
The Atheist creates God the second he denies God; strange.
The Theist talks about God without solid definition; also bit weird

Many times I get the feeling it's just 1 big misunderstanding coming from the emotionally charged word "God". Without the word "God", and with words like "respect" and "not judging the others' feeling or believe system" problems arise much less.

For me the definition of God is: ...

I read somewhere "The wise remain silent" [bookish knowledge obviously]

Any thoughts? [bit naughty though!]

[I'm new here. Try to get my Basics right. Learn a thing or two. I Love harmony, saw already many A's pull T's hairs v.v.]

So dragons exist?
And agnostic is really just A gnostic?

Your logic here doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that one can't define, or speak of the attributes of, Homer Simpson without automatically admitting that Homer Simpson is real?
No... not in the slightest. That was the premise of the starting post to this thread. That you can't use the name "God" to argue against the existence of God without admitting that God exists by invoking the name/definition. I was attempting to give a simple example of how false that idea is.
 

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
[I'm new here. Try to get my Basics right. Learn a thing or two. I Love harmony, saw already many A's pull T's hairs v.v.]

First of all, welcome to the forums. We're glad to have you here!

If someone says "God does not exist", then it seems strange to me IF he does have a definition of God {because by definition it exists}. And IF he doesn't have a proper definition of God then it doesn't make sense to make the above statements.

Please apply that logic to the statement "Unicorns do not exist.", and tell me what you conclude. Have a great day! :)
 
Top