Is atheism meaningless?

[FWI]

Christopher Hitchens, an atheist (in his book: God is Not Great pg. 50), stated: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." This seems like a reasonable statement and I agree. So, what is the evidence for atheism having meaning or purpose?

Therefore, if I use Christopher Hitchens' statement as a guide, then at present I must accept that atheism has no significance, unless evidence can be produced to the contrary.

[otseng]

Well, the obvious reason for this, is that you are not looking for such evidenceThis just shows that your belief system is locked-in and that any type of evidence is automatically rejected.

Moderator Comment

It's best not to assume if another is not looking for evidence.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[PinSeeker]

Atheism just isn't one of them.

Yeah, like I said, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[PinSeeker]

Are we the " non religious religion" only because of our rejection of Christianities claims ?

No, but rather (broadly speaking) because adherents claim to be non-religious.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 461 by PinSeeker]



So you subscribe to the sentiments expressed in the following link?
https://www.allaboutreligion.org/defini ... on-faq.htm

I suppose that you also affirm the belief that Christianity isn't a religion but rather a relationship with God? Also that atheism and agnosticism doesn't care about ethics?

[otseng]

Yeah, like I said, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Moderator Comment

Please do not post frivolous one-liners.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[PinSeeker]

So you subscribe to the sentiments expressed in the following link?
https://www.allaboutreligion.org/defini ... on-faq.htm

Meh. Maybe to some extent.

...Also that atheism and agnosticism doesn't care about ethics?

Oh, I wouldn't agree with that, no.

I like this definition of 'religious': scrupulously and conscientiously faithful, fervent, zealous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

We are all "scrupulously faithful" and even "fervent and zealous" about at least something in our lives, and possibly a lot of things.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 454 by Artie]

Then you must have proof that the total amount of energy in the universe is not zero and that we do not live in a zero-energy universe. Please share this proof with us.

It is a fact that scientists conclude that from nothing (or zero), nothing (or zero) comes. Hence, the attempt to suggest otherwise is futile and has no real value. This reality has plagued the atheistic scientists, since ancient times.

So, if our universe started with zero energy and zero matter and its total energy and total matter always remain zero and there isn't any extra energy, nor any extra matter, which is added to or subtracted from the initial zero value of them. Then, from nothing, nothing has actually come!

But, if there is neither any negative space nor any negative time in our universe to counterbalance the positive space and the positive time respectively, then there is a real problem here. This, is because, it is suggested that nothing has given rise to something really positive (all physical objects and life). Therefore, the zero-energy universe concept is just conjecture. Therefore, from nothing (or zero), nothing (or zero) comes

Also, there are four scientific meanings of "nothing," the following is one of them.

Whatever you're left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it.

At last, you can conceive of removing everything, including space, time and the rules that govern any sort of particles or quanta of energy. This creates a type of "nothing" that physicists have no definition for. This goes beyond "nothing" as it exists in the Universe, instead realizing some sort of philosophical, absolute nothingness. But in the context of physics, we cannot make sense of this sort of nothingness. We'd have to assume that there is such a thing as a state outside of space and time, where you can have the emergence of space and time from this hypothesized state of true nothingness.
But is that possible? How does space and time emerge at a particular location, when there's no such thing as space? How can you create the beginning of time if there's no concept of something like "before" without time already existing? And where, then, would the rules governing particles and their interactions arise from? Does this final definition of "nothing" even mean anything at all, or is it just a logical construct with no physical meaning of its own?

This response to your question is only general in scope and considered a courtesy. There is much more to the fact that a zero-energy universe is only conjecture. Yet, I prefer not to continue a back and forth discussion on this topic, within this thread. So, I won't

[Danmark]

It is a fact that scientists conclude that from nothing (or zero), nothing (or zero) comes. Hence, the attempt to suggest otherwise is futile and has no real value. This reality has plagued the atheistic scientists, since ancient times.

So, if our universe started with zero energy and zero matter and its total energy and total matter always remain zero and there isn't any extra energy, nor any extra matter....

Scientists do not claim the universe came from absolutely nothing or 'zero.' Lawrence Krauss in A Universe from Nothing makes it clear that the 'nothing' in his misleading title is not an absolute nothingness or 'zero' in the philosophical sense. If memory serves, he speaks of 'potential particles,' and of time itself not existing. I admit it gets a bit much for me to wrap my head around.

There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing.
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 466 by Danmark]

In think that's semantics, there was "something" or a lack of something....usually refered to as "nothing"

If that which was not nothing, (a nothing that wasnt exactly nothing) it, for all intents and purposes is something. And if that (not nothing but nearly nothing aka "something") was infinite it becomes an uncaused cause. Call it the "Easter bunny" , or pulsating singularity or potential something... that's just a smoke screen to the dichotomy of the choice.


JW

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 34 by Overcomer]

And yet, if atheism was simply a lack of belief in God, the atheist who describes himself that way would only be making a comment about his state of mind which means he really has no right to attack theism since it's only a matter of opinion -- which brings us right back to the OP. How meaningful could atheism be if it simply describes a person's state of mind but isn't based in anything concrete? And if the atheist thinks it IS based on something concrete, then he needs to defend it as such, not merely dismiss it as a "lack of belief" in God.

I'm an atheist but I don't "attack theism", which is not a requirement to be an atheist. I don't care in the least if someone believes in a particular god or gods, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me. I have many friends and relatives (nearly all of them) who believe in the Christian god. We get along just fine. I don't attack their views on religion and they don't attack mine. We are all equally moral and good citizens, as being moral and a good citizen does not come from religion.

As for my particular reason for being an atheist (ie. not believing in the existence of any kind of god being) it is simply that no such beings have ever been demonstrated to exist, either in form or in function. There is nothing in nature that requires the existence of gods for explanation. The supernatural has never been shown to exist, whether it be gods or some other entity, spirit, force, etc. So my reason for not believing that gods exist is exactly the same reason I don't believe that unicorns or leprechauns exist, or the supernatural in general. These things simply have no basis for belief until there is some kind of evidence for their existence. It is that simple. If one of these creatures made itself visible, or known in some way by its actions, I would be happy to change my mind. But without some kind of evidence I will continue to believe that the most likely and most reasonable position to take is to be a good and moral atheist.