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.

[Overcomer]

Tcg wrote:

Atheism is one thing only, a lack of believe in god/gods.

I think that FWI and EPH.2:8 are asking you (and I hope they correct me if I am wrong) to provide a valid epistemic basis for that lack of belief because to say there is no God is as much a claim as to say there is a God and claims of any kind need to be supported. If you have no solid epistemic basis for your belief that there is no God, then why would you believe that? And if there is no rational epistemic basis for atheism, then it truly is meaningless and not worthy of anyone's adherence.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by EPH2:8]

And how would you support your claim that atheism is a lack of belief...with positive evidence of course.

I think you are confusing atheism - as a general title of position - with its sub-groups under that heading.

This is an easy enough mistake to make because more often than not, those who hold a position under atheism do not readily reveal what type of atheist they are, although one can easily identify them by their expression relative to their position

Hard/strong atheists do have beliefs. Indeed, most atheists actively involved in online forums are more likely to be of that particular atheist position.

Not understanding the shift from lacking belief in GODs to one of believing GODs do not exist essentially is the cause of your confusion, and you are being played with due to your ignorance...which some might argue is underhanded, while others might justify by arguing it is just desserts for not doing ones homework...or worse, refusing to understand these differences even when the homework is done.

Whatever. I am willing to try and politely get you up to speed so that you might abandon the confusion.

[rikuoamero]

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.

No doubt by now others will have corrected you, but let me just do it as succinctly as possible. Atheism is a lack of belief in a God or gods. So here are your statements and questions, with that put in place of the word.

So, what is the evidence for [strike]atheism[/strike] lack of belief in a God or gods having meaning or purpose?
...then at present I must accept that [strike]atheism[/strike] lack of belief in a God or gods has no significance, unless evidence can be produced to the contrary.

Do these statements make sense to you? They don't to me. It doesn't make sense to me to talk about evidence with regards to a non-belief.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Tcg]

Atheism is one thing only, a lack of believe in god/gods.

Therefore, since you claimed that atheism is a single belief...

I did nothing of the kind. In fact, I claimed the exact opposite.

So atheism does make a claim?

I made a claim, not atheism.

I am an atheist.

I am not atheism.

And how would you support your claim that atheism is a lack of belief...with positive evidence of course.

Does it make sense to ask for positive evidence to support the claim "I do not collect stamps"?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 21 by Overcomer]

to say there is no God is as much a claim as to say there is a God

Atheists generally do NOT say there is no God.

Atheists generally do NOT say there is no God.

Atheists generally do NOT say there is no God.

Please read Tcg's signature carefully ...

Then read it again.

Then kindly let us know that you've understood it.

[wiploc]

Tcg wrote:

Atheism is one thing only, a lack of believe in god/gods.

I think that FWI and EPH.2:8 are asking you (and I hope they correct me if I am wrong) to provide a valid epistemic basis for that lack of belief

I'm surprised by this. It never occurred to me that that's what they wanted.

We are born not believing either way; we are born atheist. That's all the epistemic basis you need by way of justification.

You don't need justification for not having belief. Only after you learn enough to warrant belief should you leave the no-opinion-either-way group for one of the other groups.

Otherwise--if you go around believing things for no reason--you can't reasonably criticize any belief that anyone else holds. You can't, for instance, justify a demand for epistemic justification for atheism.

It would be hypocritical to insist that others have justification for their beliefs when you have none for your own.

Therefore, the epistemic justification for weak atheism (not believing either way) is that it is wrong to form beliefs without justification. Moral people don't do that. And weak atheists don't know of any facts or arguments that justify becoming either theist (believing that gods exist) or strong atheist (believing that gods do not exist).

because to say there is no God is as much a claim as to say there is a God and claims of any kind need to be supported.

That's true. But we're talking about atheism. Atheism includes weak atheism. Weak atheism doesn't need any more justification than that you don't know better. Therefore--since atheism includes weak atheism--atheism needs no more justification than not knowing better.

By the way, my impression is that the posters you mentioned above were debating definitions, not asking for epistemic justifications. They want us--and I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong--to use their preferred definition of "atheist" rather than our preferred definition.

So I read the request for support as a request that we cite dictionaries and common usage. Which I've done. So if I'm right about what they want, then that should put the matter to bed.

If you have no solid epistemic basis for your belief that there is no God, then why would you believe that?

I'm a strong atheist. I believe there are no gods. I'd be happy to discuss that, giving my reasons. But I think that's for another thread.

As I understand this thread, it is about how "atheism" should be defined. It's about whether our definition (the one atheists tend to use) is legitimate and should be recognized.

Since atheists overwhelmingly prefer it, and since almost any dictionary that won't fit in a shirt pocket recognizes it, that shouldn't be an issue. Common usage and recognition by dictionaries is the only way I can think of to support any non-jargon definition.

And if there is no rational epistemic basis for atheism, then it truly is meaningless and not worthy of anyone's adherence.

I assume you're talking about strong atheism here (the belief that there are no gods). I can't see it as meaningless. The definition makes perfect sense. "I believe there are no gods," is clear and coherent.

But I'll happily grant you that no idea is worthy of adherence without a rational epistemic basis.

[EPH2:8]

[Replying to post 2 by Tcg]

Atheism is one thing only, a lack of believe in god/gods.

Therefore, since you claimed that atheism is a single belief...

I did nothing of the kind. In fact, I claimed the exact opposite.

So atheism does make a claim?

I made a claim, not atheism.

I am an atheist.

I am not atheism.

And how would you support your claim that atheism is a lack of belief...with positive evidence of course.

Does it make sense to ask for positive evidence to support the claim "I do not collect stamps"?

This is a category error. You are comparing a physical action verb with a mental action verb.

[EPH2:8]

Tcg wrote:

Atheism is one thing only, a lack of believe in god/gods.

I think that FWI and EPH.2:8 are asking you (and I hope they correct me if I am wrong) to provide a valid epistemic basis for that lack of belief

I'm surprised by this. It never occurred to me that that's what they wanted.

We are born not believing either way; we are born atheist. That's all the epistemic basis you need by way of justification.

Interesting claim to know whether we are born with beliefs or not. Evidence of this claim please.

[Overcomer]

StuartJ wrote:

Atheists generally do NOT say there is no God.

Atheists generally do NOT say there is no God.

Atheists generally do NOT say there is no God.

Please read Tcg's signature carefully ...

Then read it again.

Then kindly let us know that you've understood it.

Tcg's tagline is this:

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

I understand it -- I understand it as an atheist's attempt at playing word games. I understand it as a method of avoidance, of ducking out of an argument because atheists have no valid epistemic basis for atheism. They use that line to try to get out of admitting that.

To have a lack of belief is to have NO beliefs about something. But clearly atheists have beliefs about God. You and Tcg and all the other atheists here proclaim your beliefs about God daily. If you had no beliefs about him, you wouldn't have anything to say. You wouldn't be here and you wouldn't be speaking against his existence.

Here's how philosophers define atheism:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011): Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. [Atheism and Agnosticism, Online]

Encyclopedia of Unbelief (2007), p. 88: In its broadest sense atheism, from the Greek a (without) and theos (deity), standardly refers to the denial of the existence of any god or gods.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2nd ed. (2006), p.358 [in vol. 1 of 10]: According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence God exists expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God

Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New Ed. (2005), p. 65: Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, ... Agnosticism may be strictly personal and confessional"I have no firm belief about God"or it may be the more ambitious claim that no one ought to have a positive belief for or against the divine existence.

Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004), p. 530: The belief that God " especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God " does not exist.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998), entry by William Rowe: As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. the common use of atheism to mean disbelief in God is so thoroughly entrenched, we will follow it. We may use the term non-theist to characterize the position of the negative atheist.

Atheist philosopher Kai Neilson says that a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God" [Encyclopdia Britannica (2011)]

Neilson dislikes the definition of an atheist as being someone who lacks belief in God, saying, that a "lack of belief" definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don't consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an "-ism" to be a based on a lack of belief."

You can read a lengthy excerpt from his work that elaborates on the topic here:

http://www.exminister.org/Nielsens-defi ... heism.html

As I said, saying atheism is a lack of belief is something for atheists to hide behind to avoid intelligent discussion about atheism itself.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by Overcomer]

As I said, saying atheism is a lack of belief is something for atheists to hide behind to avoid intelligent discussion about atheism itself.

How is lacking a belief that God exists a means of avoiding intelligent discussion about atheism?