Fair enough

Even if ethics is more or less there because of society (more or less what you are saying, I think) it’s still about what you should and should not do, is it not?

Fair enough, I do assume I should not have used the word ‘reliable’ twice in different contexts.

I partially agree. I will try to explain why I think we need to test things infinitely to be indefinitely flawed.
Let’s say you wanted to prove that you cannot compress a solid. I suppose you might go around with different solids and compress them (at the same force) and record if you can compress them. The first 200 times, (I doubt) any solids are going to compress, but maybe on the 201st time you will. You just couldn’t know, because it is a pattern. Of course, the more and more you get the same result, the more likely it is that the next result will be the same, however you cannot prove this until you do it.
Essentially, to prove that you will always get the same result, you have to actually carry out the test.

I agree that we do not need to prove things indefinitely but still.

By that, I assume you are suggesting I explain what I mean by ‘reliable’. If so, I will try. We cannot draw a conclusion from a flawed system, so therefore it is un reliable.

I wouldn’t say so in the slightest. Of course, I am glad God exists, but that came after my realisation. Perhaps none of us are free from the confirmation bias, but I believe I came to my belief logically

Well yes, but if you wouldn’t mind, could you suggest a better definition for ‘exist’?

I am sure that the main motive is truth, however that obviously often applies to theists as well. Other than believing that God exists/ doesn’t exist, the main defining characteristic of theists is that we want (and believe) that God exists. I wonder if this applies to atheists as well, hence my question.

I’ll give defining those words a try, but I cannot confirm that you will be satisfied with my definitions.

Atheist - Someone who does not think that God exists
God - That which atheists do not think exist
Exist - That which atheists do not think God exhibits

But seriously, I will try to give it a go.

God - A transcendent deity who created the universe and involves itself in the universe (still a very ambiguous term, sorry)
Exist - something that could have an a effect on everything else that exists
Atheist - Someone who does not believe that God exists


There’s still many many problems with these definitions, but I am intrigued to see what you do with them.

No. Not at all. My question is simply inquiring into some of the motives for atheism.

I suppose from a theistic point of view, many atheistic schools of thought would be subterfuges as well, such as Nihilism. Would you agree with this statement?

I suppose it does. The God of the Old and New Testaments, Qur’an and many others differ greatly, and yet the atheist supposedly believes in none of them. Because of this, I reckon the atheist would need to account more generally, if that makes sense.

I’ll leave the words ‘atheism, God, and exist’ open to you to decide for yourself because I want this question to receive as many viewpoints as possible.