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.

[wiploc]

Older dictionaries define atheism as a belief that there is no God. Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as there is no God betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read there are no gods. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... t-atheism/

Almost all dictionaries define it that way. This has nothing to do with whether they are older.

They also define atheism as not having a belief in gods.

Both meanings are legitimate according to the only tests of legitimacy: They are supported both by common usage and by dictionaries (by almost all dictionaries too big to fit in a shirt pocket).

[wiploc]

How do you reconcile this with your definition from the American Atheists website that states atheism is not a disbelief?

I assume American Atheists was confused by the meaning of "disbelief." It defines both as not believing and as believing not. There is no point at all in using this ambiguous word when attempting to clear up the definition of atheism.

And again, if atheism is merely a lack of belief, please explain how a rock is not considered an atheist.

An atheist is a person who doesn't have the belief that gods exist.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Who has ever claimed that "atheism" has meaning or purpose? Atheism isn't even a philosophy. It's simply the lack of belief in any theism.

Well, RedEye did in post 3, while benchwarmer and StuartJ openly supported his claim. I will agree that most atheists won't openly admit to the reality of RedEye's comments, related to the purpose or goal of atheism. But, the signs are there (in this forum and others like it) that support his assessment on a daily basis.

So, when someone claims that "atheism" is only a lack of belief in any single God and/or many lesser gods. There seems to be some disconnect from what's really going on. Hence, words can be used to misguide, but it's the actions that tell the real story.

Also, the other comments or could I say: the animosities toward the writings (in the bible) are only opinionated conjecture. So, the questions I ask you: Why do you care? And, what's your purpose for stating such animosities?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 61 by wiploc]

Both meanings are legitimate according to the only tests of legitimacy: They are supported both by common usage and by dictionaries (by almost all dictionaries too big to fit in a shirt pocket).

Quite agree.

But ... as some of us say:

It's a foolish atheist who says there is no God.

Because, people of faith will only look at the definition that suits them ...

And the foolish atheist - or Atheist - falls into the trap of letting Jesus out of the spotlight ...

Again.

That is why most/all of us here are at constant pains to point out that ...

WE LACK BELIEF IN ANY VERSION OF "GOD"

That way we can keep Jesus in the spotlight ...

And politely and civilly ask for just the smallest morsel of any sort of independently verifiable evidence at all ...

That Jesus is/was "God"

Or that Jesus is/was a god

Or that Jesus is/was a son of a god

Or that Jesus is/was THE Son of God,

It's the complete, utter and total absence of ANY sort of evidence that validates our atheistic position - OUR LACK OF BELIEF - in relation to that/those version/s of "God".

Personally, I see the "define an atheist" game as one of the many methods used to try and take that spotlight off the possibly fictional Jesus character.

I don't see a great deal of meaning in playing "define meaningless" either.

[wiploc]

brunumb wrote:

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.

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.

Not believing isn't the same as believing not. Weak atheists (people who don't believe either way) simultaneously don't believe that gods do exist and don't believe that gods do not exist.

It is NOT a lack of belief at all.

The way we use the word, the way many people use the word, and the way most dictionaries define the word, atheist is a lack of belief.

Many people and most dictionaries also define the word in the way that you prefer, but that doesn't make your way the only right way.

If you lacked belief in God, you would be a non-theist

Precisely. "Atheist" and "non-theist" are exact synonyms.

You don't have to use them that way. Other meanings are available to you. But if you're telling us our usage is wrong, then you are yourself wrong.

and you wouldn't be here trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

Weak atheists are often happy to explain what they see as the defects in the arguments of strong atheists and theists both. They are entitled to point out the defects of theist arguments; you don't have to be a strong atheist to do that.

Or maybe you're asking why strong atheists would argue the definition of atheism when we could be arguing that gods don't exist. The answer to that is that we'd be happy to discuss the merits of strong atheism if you'd just quit telling us we don't know the meaning of the word "atheist."

Any time you want to discuss why strong atheists think gods don't exist, you have only to ask that. Many of us would be delighted to discuss it. But in a thread like this, where the subject matter is set by people telling us that we are wrong about the definition of atheism, then we'll talk about that.

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

Weak straws. I don't know of any argument for the existence of gods that withstands scrutiny. Most of them wouldn't fool a sixth grader, unless she was a motivated believer.

You are welcome to say that you don't find any of them compelling

I don't find any of them compelling.

and provide rational counter-arguments.

I'm happy to discuss that elsewhere, but this thread is about theists trying to tell atheists that we don't know the meaning of atheism.

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.

"Don't believe god exists," is as ambiguous as "disbelieve." If we read it literally, it refers to all atheists, all non-theists. But if we read it as the figure of speech called litotes, then it refers only to strong atheists.

But even weak atheists can point out the flaws in theist arguments. They don't need to be strong atheists to know that Pascal's wager is stupid.

They are busy trying to prove that God didn't create the earth, that God isn't the source of moral values, etc.

I'm happy to argue those things. But that doesn't change the definition of atheism. And it's entirely possible to refute theist arguments without being persuaded that gods don't exist.

Even theists can point out the flaws in theist arguments. It happens often enough. Sometimes it happens because the theist (the one doing the refuting) thinks theists should use stronger arguments. Sometimes it is an attempt to take embarrassing stay-off-my-side quality arguments out of play.

Sometimes, it's just a concern for truth. The theist sees that a theistic argument is flawed, and so points that out.

You don't have to believe in the nonexistence of gods to refute theist arguments.

It's all about a denial of God's existence. [Emphasis added.]

Dictionaries that define atheism as denying the existence of god tend to define "deny" as something like," not being persuaded."

That definition of atheism includes explicit atheists (people who have heard of gods without being persuaded that they exist) but not implicit atheists (people who haven't even heard of the concept of gods). According to that definition, babies don't count as atheists, but almost all other non-theists do.

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.

Sorry. We're telling you what we mean by the word. Our usage is common, and it is supported by the same dictionaries that support your usage. It is every bit as legitimate as yours.

Since our usage is supported by dictionaries and by common usage, there is no way you can win this argument.

You don't have to use the word "atheist" the way we do, but your way isn't the only right way.

When I was a kid, my father drove me to Florida. As we passed near New Orleans, a disk jockey said the name of the town. I looked at dad and asked, "Can he say it that way?"

Dad said, "He can if he lives here."

The residents of the town get to decide how they pronounce it, and nobody else can reasonably tell them they're wrong. Blacks get to decide whether they want to be called blacks or negroes, and it's not up to whites to second guess them.

And we atheists get to say what we mean by the word "atheist." You could call our usage jargon if it was uncommon and unsupported by dictionaries, but that doesn't happen to be the case.

Our usage is widely accepted. It is right. It isn't the only right usage, but we are being perfectly clear about what we mean.

Which leaves you with nothing to argue. Our usage is unambiguous, and it is supported by dictionaries and common usage. There's really nothing else for you to say.

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 --

If you want to discuss why strong atheists believe that gods don't exist, just talk about that. But as long as you try to tell us that our usage of the word "atheist" is wrong, that's what we'll talk about too.

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.

I don't think of those as people.

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,

No, not at all. "Atheism" refers to the lack of belief that gods exist. Some atheists also have the positive belief that gods don't exist. Even weak atheists can have good reasons for their position. Many of them will be happy to explain that theists and strong atheists are equally idiotic.

I don't happen to be a weak atheist myself, but their position seems to me ever so much more reasonable than the theist position. You have no reason to say that they don't have good reasons.

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.

Nonsense.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 65 by wiploc]

The way we use the word, the way many people use the word, and the way most dictionaries define the word, atheist is a lack of belief.

Many people and most dictionaries also define the word in the way that you prefer, but that doesn't make your way the only right way.

In my experience, people of faith INSIST on only one definition of Atheism, to bring our lack of belief down to a lower - and common - denominator.

It's a foolish atheist who says there is no God. (IMHO)

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 17 by wiploc]

What about the people who don't believe either way?

These individuals would be unique, yet extremely rare

A: People who believe that gods do exist.
B: People who believe that gods do not exist.
C: People (everybody else) who don't believe either of those things.

I, and most atheists, name them this way:

A: Theists.
B: Strong atheists.
C: Weak atheists.

The other common usage names them this way:

A: Theists.
B: Atheists.
C: Agnostics.

The people in group C are not unique or rare.

(as long as you are not referring to the agnostics).

Whether I'm talking about agnostics depends on which set of labels you use. I call them weak atheists. I assume that you call them agnostics. By either name, they are quite common.

They would not become involved in the daily attacking of the religious and their beliefs.

You don't need to be a strong atheist to fight back when religions try to oppress the non-religious. You don't need to be a strong atheist to point out flaws in theist arguments.

I assume that what you call "attacking" is what I call self defense.

Hence, they also wouldn't need to defend themselves or their position.

But many of them are happy to defend their positions. Some of them think that theism and strong atheism are equally perverse.

They would just become irrelevant

I generally think of them as being among the good guys. I'm happy to include them as "atheists." They aren't trying to end reproductive freedom, for instance. Many of them are active in the struggle against religious oppression.

You can think of them as irrelevant if you wish, but I don't see them that way.

But, very few want to be irrelevant in the scheme of things. Thus, I have no problem with an individual, group or country claiming they don't believe in God or gods. But, when they (the atheists) feel compelled to critique the teachings, writings, the morals and just about anything else a religious person or group may believe, then this goes way beyond the claim of only, not believing in God or gods

Hey, we'll stop when you do. As long as some theists promote their beliefs using easily-refuted arguments, as long as they keep trying to capture the government so they can use it as the enforcement arm of the church, so long you can expect resistance and refutation.

So, the truth is, there is a war going on for the correct definition of what is good and what is not. This has become the fundamental struggle of our age and it's not going away, until the problem is solved.

This thread doesn't deal with your war about what is good. This thread is about whether some theists get to tell atheists that we are wrong about what we call ourselves.

[EPH2:8]

[Replying to post 51 by Tcg]

I'm not sure how effective this outreach is, but some Christians are ministering to cats.

Dozens of cats and their owners flocked to a Moscow area church as a local priest held a unique sermon, asking the heavens to protect animals and to help those left in the street to find themselves a home.


Having created these creatures, our Lord rejoiced greatly. This sermon is a reminder of that, arch-priest Pyotr Dynnikov told the congregation of people and cats who had gathered at the Ilyinsky church in the village of Lemeshovo on Sunday.

https://www.rt.com/news/436521-cats-ser ... y-animals/

This particular cat doesn't seem terribly interested. Probably an atheist cat.



Perhaps some of the other cats in attendance came to accept God by the words of this concerned arch-priest.

I see weve reached the point of the debate where fallacious strawman pictures are used as an argument.

[EPH2:8]

Meaningless Atheist rocks, bananas, cats ...

AND NOW ...



MEANINGLESS ATHEIST ICECREAM ...!

I wonder if the demons the possibly fictional Jesus character sent into those porkers true biblicists are not supposed to eat have survived and are taking over the food industry ...?

The TRUE meaning behind Atheism could be the work of SATAN himself ...!!!

Satan is another reality the godless ones refuse to acknowledge ...

As they wallow in their sin ...

And banana sundaes on the rocks.

Would this photo be an analogy/illustration? I thought you did not deal with those? You stated you only deal with real things...like Jesus; in one post you call Jesus real and here fictional.

[EPH2:8]

[Replying to post 37 by EPH2:8]

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.

If you want to characterise rocks as atheist, go ahead. It does not bother me. What purpose does it serve other than to illustrate the ridiculous trivia over which some theist minds obsess?

I believe it serves a great purpose. If atheism simply amounts to a lack of belief, atheism does not take any logic, reasoning, free thought, or science to arrive at. For a rock does none of these, and under that definition is an atheist. I would question your ability to evaluate any evidence for God if this were true. In fact though, I do not question that you lack the ability to evaluate evidence.

With the lack of belief definition used, God could exist and atheism could still be true. How absurd is that. Lack of belief tells me nothing about the existence or non existence of God, it is simply attempting to explain your mental state. It is then used as a platform in an attempt to poke holes in a theistic worldview ; all while hiding under the guise of lacking belief or not a worldview. Its the epitome of intellectual laziness.