Definition of Atheist

by ZeusRocks 116 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  Bohm, it great to have a personal definition of soemthing, but the actual word/term means NOT believing in God/Gods.

  You can sugar coat it any way you like, but it means NOT believing in "theis" ie: God or Gods.

  If you harbour a belief that there is SOME POSSIBILITY of their being a "god", then you really can't be an atheist in the true sense of the word.

  Granted I would think that the vast majority of Atheist would fall into the category of "the jury is not back yet" or " I need more convincing to believe but I am keeping an open mind".
• 

  bohm

  PS: So you dont think Dawkins is an atheist either?
• 

  bohm

  PS: An atheist you describe would be fundamentally unscientific. Its a very narrow definition, and one i have never seen anyone try to defend.
• 

  bohm

  PS: I believe in conservation of momentum very strongly. I do that because all experiments ever carried out by man has conserved momentum. But i aknowledge there is some possiblity i am wrong.

  Is it possible to be a catholic and believe there is some, however remote, possibility everything the pope says from his chair is not inspired?
• 

  PSacramento

  I think Richard is an athiest and that he is also a very shrewed talker :)

  I think Richard is smart enough to know that just because right now, he doesn't believe in God, it doesn't mean, like so many others before him, that he won't change his mind and is leaving the door open to that possibility, like any inteligent person that knows they don't know everythign, would do.

  Richard has debated some of the best minds in Theology, guys that go toe-to-toe with him in terms of their knowldge of sciecne, he KNOWS they are intelligent people and he even "sees" their points, hence he understands that if many of his "peers" are believers and have logical reason for such, that it truly is a matter of belief in the "facts" and right now, liek many others, in Richards case, there just isn't enough, FOR HIM, to convince him.
• 

  bohm

  PS: Im confused. You agree that Dawkins think there is some possibility he is wrong and Yahweh exist, right? And he is still an atheist?

  (updated, misread you)
• 

  PSacramento

  I think that the majority of atheists are NOT true atheist in the truest sense of the word but people that don't believe becuase there is not enough evidence for them, BUT they do leave open the possibility.
• 

  bohm

  PS: Can you give me an example of one person who is an atheist in the truest sence of the word, and where he describe how he arrive at that conclusion? None of the "big" atheists are atheist in that sence, and i am certainly not.

  Like i said, it is a fundamentally unscientific belief. My guess is that person would be a crackpot, crazy or stupid.
• 

  bohm

  PS: Lets drop the "truest sence of the word" part and just use the word atheist, especially when the "truest sence" imply being unscientific and/or dishonest; the language makes it sound like you can either be a dishonest atheist, or a rather unscientific yoke.

  Atheists is a common label people take upon them, so we should be able to arrive at a definition that does not need qualifiers like "truest sence".

  (side question: what is a christian in the "truest sence"?)
• 

  PSacramento

  Hmmm, that would ba person that does NOT believe in God or even the possibility of there being a God.

  I know a few people like that, at least on the surface, if that is their true feelings, 100%, I don't know for sure.