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.
Is atheism meaningless?
Moderator: Moderators
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #41
From Post 32:
Fetch on up to a rock, a cat, a bowl of ice cream, and a banana and tell it all about God, then see if it sets to a-prayin' and a-worshippin'.
Please present your findings for further analysis.
...
From Post 37:
Considering atheism is a response to a theistic claim, you can test this yourself...EPH2:8 wrote::
Using this definition of atheism (lack of belief), would this not then include rocks, cats, a bowl of ice cream, and a banana as atheists ; as they all lack belief in God / gods as well.
Fetch on up to a rock, a cat, a bowl of ice cream, and a banana and tell it all about God, then see if it sets to a-prayin' and a-worshippin'.
Please present your findings for further analysis.
...
From Post 37:
If only for me, that rocks don't fetch about trying to restrict the rights of others on account of who they googlie eye, or refuse to bake a cake about 'em, and all such as that, I propose evidence then indicates rocks are either atheists, or they lack the ability to have them an opinion on a matter - much like so many gods who can't be shown to have 'em them one of 'em either.EPH2:8 wrote: Again, using this definition please explain why a rock would not be considered an atheist as a rock lacks belief in God; it does not hold a belief either way.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #42
[Replying to post 39 by EPH2:8]
Both definitions are saying EXACTLY the same thing.
I will pay you the courtesy of understanding that you genuinely did not understand.
Please keep your rocks to yourself ...
I don't do analogies ...
I often find that analogies are deliberate distractions.
I only talk about Jesus ...
And Yahweh ...
And the Holy Ghost ...
And the "Word" of Jesus and Yahweh and the Holy Ghost directly.
Please don't offer me analogies ...
I only want the real thing/s.
Please read what you posted very carefully ...Thus, according to this dictionary (and many others) a person who has no belief in gods is an atheist. You don't have to believe that gods do not exist; you only have to not believe that they do exist.
How do you reconcile this with your definition from the American Atheists website that states atheism is not a disbelief? And again, if atheism is merely a lack of belief, please explain how a rock is not considered an atheist.
Both definitions are saying EXACTLY the same thing.
I will pay you the courtesy of understanding that you genuinely did not understand.
Please keep your rocks to yourself ...
I don't do analogies ...
I often find that analogies are deliberate distractions.
I only talk about Jesus ...
And Yahweh ...
And the Holy Ghost ...
And the "Word" of Jesus and Yahweh and the Holy Ghost directly.
Please don't offer me analogies ...
I only want the real thing/s.
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #43
brunumb wrote:
Theists have provided evidence for the existence of God in a myriad of ways. There are cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, axiological arguments, historical arguments, ontological arguments -- Peter Kreeft offers 20 of them here:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... ence.htm#1
You are welcome to say that you don't find any of them compelling and provide rational counter-arguments. The very fact that atheists attempt to develop counter-arguments shows that they don't believe God exists and they're trying to prove it. They are busy trying to prove that God didn't create the earth, that God isn't the source of moral values, etc. It's all about a denial of God's existence. So, once again, they are demonstrating that atheism is not simply a "lack of belief", but the belief that God doesn't exist and is not responsible for such things-- and such a belief should be supported by evidence.
The real issue here is NOT that theists have the burden of proof as you say. I agree that Christians must defend what we believe and there are many of us doing just that. The real issue is that atheists try to shirk the fact that they have to account for their beliefs just as much as the theist does by hiding behind the "lack of belief" statement -- a statement which does not accurately describe any atheist that I have ever known, including those on this site, and which is, ultimately, a meaningless statement as EPH 2:8 has shown you by pointing out that a rock is an atheist by that definition. So is a housefly, a toadstool and a chimpanzee. If you want to stick to the "it's only a lack of belief" statement, then basically you're saying you have no good reason to be an atheist, that atheism isn't grounded in fact or knowledge or reason, but is just your opinion and, therefore, the OP is correct in saying atheism is meaningless.
So you are saying that you do not believe God exists. That is exactly how philosophers have always defined atheism -- as the belief that God does not exist. It is NOT a lack of belief at all. If you lacked belief in God, you would be a non-theist and you wouldn't be here trying to prove that God doesn't exist.For any number of reasons, a theist has a belief that there is a God or that there are gods. I don't give any credibility to those reasons and consequently do not have that belief. There is no need for any more than that lack of belief to be an atheist. I think the real issue is that theists have consistently failed to meet the burden of proof for their claim that gods exist and desperately want to shift it by whatever means possible.
Theists have provided evidence for the existence of God in a myriad of ways. There are cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, axiological arguments, historical arguments, ontological arguments -- Peter Kreeft offers 20 of them here:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... ence.htm#1
You are welcome to say that you don't find any of them compelling and provide rational counter-arguments. The very fact that atheists attempt to develop counter-arguments shows that they don't believe God exists and they're trying to prove it. They are busy trying to prove that God didn't create the earth, that God isn't the source of moral values, etc. It's all about a denial of God's existence. So, once again, they are demonstrating that atheism is not simply a "lack of belief", but the belief that God doesn't exist and is not responsible for such things-- and such a belief should be supported by evidence.
The real issue here is NOT that theists have the burden of proof as you say. I agree that Christians must defend what we believe and there are many of us doing just that. The real issue is that atheists try to shirk the fact that they have to account for their beliefs just as much as the theist does by hiding behind the "lack of belief" statement -- a statement which does not accurately describe any atheist that I have ever known, including those on this site, and which is, ultimately, a meaningless statement as EPH 2:8 has shown you by pointing out that a rock is an atheist by that definition. So is a housefly, a toadstool and a chimpanzee. If you want to stick to the "it's only a lack of belief" statement, then basically you're saying you have no good reason to be an atheist, that atheism isn't grounded in fact or knowledge or reason, but is just your opinion and, therefore, the OP is correct in saying atheism is meaningless.
Post #44
It's easy to hand wave and dismiss evaluating an analogy. If it is a poor analogy, simply deconstruct it.StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 39 by EPH2:8]
Please read what you posted very carefully ...Thus, according to this dictionary (and many others) a person who has no belief in gods is an atheist. You don't have to believe that gods do not exist; you only have to not believe that they do exist.
How do you reconcile this with your definition from the American Atheists website that states atheism is not a disbelief? And again, if atheism is merely a lack of belief, please explain how a rock is not considered an atheist.
Both definitions are saying EXACTLY the same thing.
I will pay you the courtesy of understanding that you genuinely did not understand.
Please keep your rocks to yourself ...
I don't do analogies ...
I often find that analogies are deliberate distractions.
I only talk about Jesus ...
And Yahweh ...
And the Holy Ghost ...
And the "Word" of Jesus and Yahweh and the Holy Ghost directly.
Please don't offer me analogies ...
I only want the real thing/s.
You say you only talk about Jesus, Yahweh, the Holy Ghost and the Word of Jesus directly. You say you only want real things. Are you affirming your above list to be real things?
-
StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #45
[Replying to post 41 by JoeyKnothead]
The findings will be precisely the same as those for the existence of Yahweh and Jesus and the Holy Ghost and Noah's Ark and Solomon's Temple and the Garden of Eden and the Beast of Revelation and the Star of Bethlehem ...
One of the meanings that Atheism has for this particular Atheists is that it means I have escaped the embarrassment of having to try and justify accepting make-believe as reality.
I shall don my Hat of Prophecy right here:Please present your findings for further analysis.
The findings will be precisely the same as those for the existence of Yahweh and Jesus and the Holy Ghost and Noah's Ark and Solomon's Temple and the Garden of Eden and the Beast of Revelation and the Star of Bethlehem ...
One of the meanings that Atheism has for this particular Atheists is that it means I have escaped the embarrassment of having to try and justify accepting make-believe as reality.
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8739
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2279 times
- Been thanked: 2408 times
Post #46
Jesus has a good recipe for getting rocks to worship. Apparently you've got to be real quiet:JoeyKnothead wrote:
Considering atheism is a response to a theistic claim, you can test this yourself...
Fetch on up to a rock, and tell it all about God, then see if it sets to a-prayin' and a-worshippin'.
Please present your findings for further analysis.
He doesn't state if this method is effective for cats, bowls of ice cream, or bananas.Luke 19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, Teacher, rebuke Your disciples. 40 But Jesus answered, I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!
-
StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #47
[Replying to post 43 by Overcomer]
Jews and Christians presume to call the perhaps-not-Jewish deity Yahweh "God".
No one has EVER provided the tiniest SCRAP of evidence for the existence of Yahweh.
If Yahweh is "God", the myriad ways of evidence should provide evidence for the existence of Yahweh.
My Hat of Prophecy tells me that this is NOT going to happen right here ...
And my meaningful lack of belief in the existence of the Yahweh version of "God" is justified.
But if indeed there IS evidence for the existence of Yahweh as "God" ...
And you present it right here ...
You will shut this, and other, Atheists down immediately.
I understand there may be rewards for such an achievement. ....
No one has EVER provided the tiniest SCRAP of evidence for the existence of ANY version of "God".Theists have provided evidence for the existence of God in a myriad of ways.
Jews and Christians presume to call the perhaps-not-Jewish deity Yahweh "God".
No one has EVER provided the tiniest SCRAP of evidence for the existence of Yahweh.
If Yahweh is "God", the myriad ways of evidence should provide evidence for the existence of Yahweh.
My Hat of Prophecy tells me that this is NOT going to happen right here ...
And my meaningful lack of belief in the existence of the Yahweh version of "God" is justified.
But if indeed there IS evidence for the existence of Yahweh as "God" ...
And you present it right here ...
You will shut this, and other, Atheists down immediately.
I understand there may be rewards for such an achievement. ....
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.
Post #48
Are metaphors a valid means of communication? All as this does is attempt to poke fun at claims and not actually refute them. It still fails to differentiate between a rock and an atheist when atheism is defined as a lack of belief, and still does not respond to post 19.Tcg wrote:Jesus has a good recipe for getting rocks to worship. Apparently you've got to be real quiet:JoeyKnothead wrote:
Considering atheism is a response to a theistic claim, you can test this yourself...
Fetch on up to a rock, and tell it all about God, then see if it sets to a-prayin' and a-worshippin'.
Please present your findings for further analysis.
He doesn't state if this method is effective for cats, bowls of ice cream, or bananas.Luke 19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, Teacher, rebuke Your disciples. 40 But Jesus answered, I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8739
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2279 times
- Been thanked: 2408 times
Post #49
I wasn't responding to post 19.EPH2:8 wrote:Are metaphors a valid means of communication? All as this does is attempt to poke fun at claims and not actually refute them. It still fails to differentiate between a rock and an atheist when atheism is defined as a lack of belief, and still does not respond to post 19.Tcg wrote:Jesus has a good recipe for getting rocks to worship. Apparently you've got to be real quiet:JoeyKnothead wrote:
Considering atheism is a response to a theistic claim, you can test this yourself...
Fetch on up to a rock, and tell it all about God, then see if it sets to a-prayin' and a-worshippin'.
Please present your findings for further analysis.
He doesn't state if this method is effective for cats, bowls of ice cream, or bananas.Luke 19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, Teacher, rebuke Your disciples. 40 But Jesus answered, I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!
I responded to JoeyKnothead.
Post #50
Very good pointTcg wrote:I wasn't responding to post 19.EPH2:8 wrote:Are metaphors a valid means of communication? All as this does is attempt to poke fun at claims and not actually refute them. It still fails to differentiate between a rock and an atheist when atheism is defined as a lack of belief, and still does not respond to post 19.Tcg wrote:Jesus has a good recipe for getting rocks to worship. Apparently you've got to be real quiet:JoeyKnothead wrote:
Considering atheism is a response to a theistic claim, you can test this yourself...
Fetch on up to a rock, and tell it all about God, then see if it sets to a-prayin' and a-worshippin'.
Please present your findings for further analysis.
He doesn't state if this method is effective for cats, bowls of ice cream, or bananas.Luke 19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, Teacher, rebuke Your disciples. 40 But Jesus answered, I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!
I responded to JoeyKnothead.
