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.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 309 by Bust Nak]

The TRUTH is, the definition of atheist is;

Atheist is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who forms beliefs regarding that knowledge. They lack belief in the existence of GODs and they form beliefs in the non-existence of GOD. They have formed the belief that GODs do not exist, in regard to the knowledge.

That's one of the better definitions IMO, but can be improved. Any atheist that says that Gods do not exist is foolish for two reasons. Firstly, the statement is unsupportable. No one can possibly know with 100% certainty that no God exists. And secondly, theists will quite rightly ask such a foolish theist for evidence to support his claim that no Gods exist, and the atheist will be unable to do so.

AFAIK, that is one of the main reasons that atheists generally define atheism as a lack of belief in Gods, rather than believing that Gods do not exist.

That being said, I agree with William and others that in practice almost all atheists have views on whether Gods exist, over and above simply having no belief in their existence. This conundrum is easily fixed with the following definition :-

Atheists lack belief in the existence of Gods. They also generally believe that the existence of Gods lies between unlikely and exceedingly unlikely.

Job done. Personally I don't find it necessary to point out that atheists have some knowledge of Gods, as this goes without saying for them to have reached a conclusion about the likelihood of Gods existing. Personally I sit at the end of the scale that says the existence of Gods is exceedingly unlikely, but I am not fool enough to say that with 100% certainty they do not exist. Where do other atheists sit on the scale?

As for babies, quite clearly they have no knowledge of Gods at all, nor belief as to whether they exist, and are clearly neither atheist, agnostic or theist. Beyond that the term you apply to them is unimportant - something like "Religiously ignorant and neutral" may be appropriate. I do find it totally wrong that some Christians will proclaim their baby or very young child to be Catholic or whatever when the poor child has no say in the matter and is too young to make a decision.

[Bust Nak]

There is no inconsistency in my argument that EITHER WAY, the argument that newborn humans are atheist or theist, is erroneous. I am not arguing in favor of one over the other. I am specifically arguing that neither positions are correct on that one.

That wasn't what you were asked, I asked about the inconsistency in rejecting a definition because it is used in the argument that newborn humans are atheists, while accepting another definition that is used in the argument that newborn humans are theists. Both arguments are erroneous according to you.

Well my assertion makes for a very good argument.

"Very good" by what criteria? Your own subjective judgement it seems.

Argument or assertion, are you going to address it or are you going to ignore it?

Does asserting the very opposite counts as addressing it or ignoring it?

From the 3 positions, only agnostics remain lacking in the forming of beliefs re knowledge of ideas of GOD. That is really what is going on.

Is it really what is going on? That's yet another assertion.

Agnostics do not form beliefs around the knowledge of ideas of GOD.

Which makes them atheists, but that's kinda moot since there aren't much disagreement on the definition of agnostism.

When they do, they then shift from being agnostic to being atheist or theist.

How can they "shift" to being an atheist when they are already atheists?

Simple, they can't. The truth of this is simple enough for most individuals to comprehend. The truth of this allows for any confusion to be sorted. Identify the erroneous and deal with the confusion created by it.

Have you shown that my definitions are untruthful?

You tell me, I have shown that your definitions are prone to being use in erroneous argument. That was your criteria for rejecting definitions as less than truthful, wasn't it?

Have you shown that my definitions add to/cause confusion?

Yes. It rised the question of how an agnostic could "shift" to being an atheist when they are already atheists. It rises the question of what babies are, if they are not agnostic, atheists nor theists.

Have you shown that my definitions can be used to create fallacious arguments?

Yes. They can be used to create the fallacious argument that newborn humans are theists.

Because it is the truth of the matter and because you appear not to understand that at present, so I continue to insist the truth of the matter. The truth is a good thing, is it not?

The turth is indeed a good thing, the question is why you keep calling your thesis the truth? You conviction does make a good argument.

Because it is there already. I am adding no thing.

So you say, but it's demonstrable false: The prerequisites to holding the recognized position of atheism are a) being a person and b) lacking beliefs in GOD. See? No mention of knowledge what so ever.

As I have already explained more than once, those three positions are dependent upon the knowledge of GODs in order to become the positions they are/represent.

But that's not a fact thought, it's just your opinion.

Even to say "I lack belief in GODs" is to implicitly state that one has the knowledge of ideas of GODs...

Right, but that's moot since one does not have to say "I lack belief in GODs" to be an atheist.

The point of my argument is that it prevails against rather than creates confusion, which the definitions you believe in have always, do now and will continue to create unnecessary confusion and superfluous debate.

And the point of my counter-argument is that mine prevails against rather than creates confusion, which the definitions you believe in have always, do now and will continue to create unnecessary confusion and superfluous debate. Babies are atheists, see? Very simple.

I have clearly shown that all three positions require knowledge of ideas of GOD.

If your attempts counts as showing that all three positions require knowledge of ideas of GOD, then I have clearly shown that only the theist position require knowledge of ideas of GOD.

I said that to argue against your own assertions.

Which is why it's so ironic when you have nothing but assertions, where as mine are mere copies of yours. You are only arguing against yourself.

[Goose]

Defining atheist so broadly as merely lacking belief in gods also allows atheism to capture cats, dogs, chimps, and trees since they likewise lack belief in gods.

Since when are cats, dogs, trees, puppies, kittens, and saplings. captured by anything with the -ist suffix?

Many species are considered to be an opportunist.

Some think cats are opportunists.

Some think dogs and puppies are too.

By the way I could likewise ask since when are human babies captured by anything with the "ist suffix?

As for chimps, sure, I can certainly entertain the idea that they are people.

Theres no reason to stop at chimps.

• 1. Some humans think cats are people.
  
  2. This expert has found evidence which suggest dogs are people, too.
  
  3. Some experts have argued dolphins are also people.
  
  4. Gary Francione has written a book Animals as Persons.
  
  5. A biologist has argued trees communicate and that humans can learn the language of trees. If trees can communicate, maybe they should be people too.

If we use the broad definition lacking belief to define atheist, there are many more atheists than theists. Virtually every living creature and item on the planet would qualify as an atheist under such a broad definition.

You seemed to have excluded inanimated objects from the list.

Thought that was covered with, Virtually every...item on the planet...

Seems kind of odd that you understood the -ist suffix implies personhood, yet included cats and dogs, why?

Why is it odd to include cats and dogs given the fact Ive provided evidence they might be people? Why are you rejecting cats and dogs yet allowing chimps?

These are not the same. Lack of belief is not the same as disbelief.

Sure, they are not the same, but what's stopping them from both being atheists?

Nothing is stopping them from both laying claim to be atheists. Whether they both are or not is another matter.

The point is you said, the definition of atheist is... You then cited two different definitions for atheist. The first definition would rule out you including babies as atheists since babies do not disbelieve in gods. Disbelief implies rejecting a belief for various reasons. In order to disbelieve a proposition an agent must have the capacity to properly hold a belief given sufficient reason to warrant belief. Babies clearly do not have this capacity in regards to gods. Ive noticed around here atheists rarely, if ever, use the first definition (disbelief). Perhaps they feel it is false. Or perhaps, in debate, atheists arbitrarily choose the second (lacking belief) because it allows atheists to capture babies as atheists and insulate themselves from having to defend the belief that God does not exist.

It would, however, along with capturing human babies, also capture chimps.

I am fine with that.

But you dont seem fine with the definition capturing cats, dogs, and trees even though there is evidence they might be people too.

But if atheists wish to argue they hold the same position as babies and chimps Im fine with that.

This definition would also arguably capture labor organizations...

Surely that's "legal person."

Irrelevant. You argued from a definition of atheist as a person. Full stop. The definition of person I provided just says person. You added the legal bit. Surely person in the definition of atheist is mentally competent human person. See how I added the mentally competent human qualifier to person like you added the legal qualifier? So either you drop human babies along with labor organisations from the group of atheists or you keep them both.

[Bust Nak]

Many species are considered to be an opportunist.

Alright, you got me there. But the dictionary definition still limit it to people.

By the way I could likewise ask since when are human babies captured by anything with the "ist suffix?

Since they are accepted as people.

Theres no reason to stop at chimps.

Then let them argue their case, if and when they qualify as people, they qualify as atheists.

Thought that was covered with, Virtually every...item on the planet...

Sorry, missed that. So would you go as far as to grant personhood to inanimate items?

Why is it odd to include cats and dogs given the fact Ive provided evidence they might be people? Why are you rejecting cats and dogs yet allowing chimps?

Because I don't think they are people.

Nothing is stopping them from both laying claim to be atheists. Whether they both are or not is another matter.

The point is you said, the definition of atheist is... You then cited two different definitions for atheist. The first definition would rule out you including babies as atheists since babies do not disbelieve in gods. Disbelief implies rejecting a belief for various reasons.

So use another dictionary.

Or perhaps, in debate, atheists arbitrarily choose the second (lacking belief) because it allows atheists to capture babies as atheists and insulate themselves from having to defend the belief that God does not exist.

Why would you suggest such a thing when we don't have to defend the belief that God does not exist either way?

But you dont seem fine with the definition capturing cats, dogs, and trees even though there is evidence they might be people too.

Correct.

But if atheists wish to argue they hold the same position as babies and chimps Im fine with that.

That's neither here or there, as you don't seem to be fine with accepting our argument that we hold the same position as babies and chimps.

Irrelevant. You argued from a definition of atheist as a person. Full stop. The definition of person I provided just says person. You added the legal bit. Surely person in the definition of atheist is mentally competent human person. See how I added the mentally competent human qualifier to person like you added the legal qualifier? So either you drop human babies along with labor organisations from the group of atheists or you keep them both.

Why can't I just point out labor organisations are not people people?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 309 by Bust Nak]

The TRUTH is, the definition of atheist is;

Atheist is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who forms beliefs regarding that knowledge. They lack belief in the existence of GODs and they form beliefs in the non-existence of GOD. They have formed the belief that GODs do not exist, in regard to the knowledge.

That's one of the better definitions IMO, but can be improved. Any atheist that says that Gods do not exist is foolish for two reasons. Firstly, the statement is unsupportable. No one can possibly know with 100% certainty that no God exists.

Do theists have to be 100% sure that gods exist in order to believe they exist? If not, why would you try to saddle atheists with that requirement?

And secondly, theists will quite rightly ask such a foolish theist for evidence to support his claim that no Gods exist, and the atheist will be unable to do so.

You are unable to support that claim.

AFAIK, that is one of the main reasons that atheists generally define atheism as a lack of belief in Gods, rather than believing that Gods do not exist.

You made that up too. Strong atheists (those who believe gods do not exist) are usually happy to tell you why.

That being said, I agree with William and others that in practice almost all atheists have views on whether Gods exist, over and above simply having no belief in their existence. This conundrum is easily fixed with the following definition :-

Atheists lack belief in the existence of Gods. They also generally believe that the existence of Gods lies between unlikely and exceedingly unlikely.

You want to include what some of us do in the definition of all of us? That's like including, "Many of them live in cities," in the definition of "American."

Job done. Personally I don't find it necessary to point out that atheists have some knowledge of Gods, as this goes without saying for them to have reached a conclusion about the likelihood of Gods existing. Personally I sit at the end of the scale that says the existence of Gods is exceedingly unlikely, but I am not fool enough to say that with 100% certainty they do not exist. Where do other atheists sit on the scale?

I believe gods do not exist.

If I was going to talk about percentages, do a statistical analysis, I'd need to know what portion of possible universes like ours have gods.

As for babies, quite clearly they have no knowledge of Gods at all, nor belief as to whether they exist, and are clearly neither atheist, agnostic or theist. ...

They aren't theists? Then they are non-theists, right?

And therefore, for those of us who use "atheist" as an exact synonym for "nontheist," they are atheists.

This may not be your preferred usage, but you can't say we're wrong.

[William]

[Replying to post 328 by wiploc]

but two things occur to me. First, that lack of belief is a conclusion,

That makes no sense.

Some people believe that gods do exist.
Some people believe that gods do not exist.
Some people (everybody else) don't believe either way.

Some people believe that gods do exist. = Theists

Some people believe that gods do not exist. = Atheists

Some people (excluding babies and any who have no knowledge of ideas of GODs) don't believe either way. = Agnostics.

Simple. To the point. Invites no confusion. Allows for the right of the free-thinking individual to make their informed choice in regard to knowledge of ideas of GODs.

The third category is a catchall. Anyone who doesn't fit in the first two categories goes in the third.

You don't have to reach a conclusion. You can, like babies and children raised by wolves, never have thought about it at all.

Incorrect assumption.

That itself, is a different category unrelated to the other three. That is a belief concocted by atheists which is false. In relation to theism, atheism and agnosticism, a conclusion has to be reached in order for the individual to then choose their preferred position on the matter of having knowledge of the idea of GODs. Babies and children raised by wolves, never have thought about it at all and thus do no belong in any of those groups.

]And secondly, I'm with Jean-Paul Sartre when he said, "If I do not choose, that is still a choice."

Not always the case, is it? Or do you insist that babies have chosen (based on their "foundation," doubtless) to be ignorant of the whole concept of gods?

Exactly. You unintentionally hit the nail on the head in regard to the alternate argument being tabled.

Babies have NOT chosen to be ignorant of anything INCLUDING ideas of GODs. They simply are not in a position that theists, atheists and agnostics are in relation to choice through knowledge of ideas of GODs.

Thus, the argument that babies are agnostics, theists or atheists is - at the very least - a misinformed opinion, and - if held fast to and propagated - a purposeful lie against truth.

And secondly, I'm with Jean-Paul Sartre when he said, "If I do not choose, that is still a choice."

Not always the case, is it? Or do you insist that babies have chosen (based on their "foundation," doubtless) to be ignorant of the whole concept of gods?

Not at all. Unlike theists, agnostics and atheists, babies are ignorant of all ideas of GODs. They are not born theist, agnostic or atheist. Those positions require knowledge of ideas of GODs.

You don't believe I have an odd number of coins in my pocket, and you also don't believe that the number is even. You (like the people in the third group, above) have no opinion either way. You don't have to believe not-X in order not to believe X.

In order for one to have any kind of belief or non belief re that, one first has to have knowledge of pockets and of coins and then choices can be made. In relation to the the knowledge of ideas of GODs, agnostics can have opinions either way, but they do not form beliefs. Beliefs are what they lack in relation to the knowledge of ideas of GODs.

Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist.

Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist, based upon the knowledge of ideas of GODs.

So, atheism is much more than a lack of belief or disbelief,

Not according to the definition preferred by most who identify as atheists.

Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist, based upon the knowledge of ideas of GODs. Any other definition preferred by most who identify as atheists which is contrary to that, is bogus. No group gets to self identify using untruthful confusing definitions and demand others tow the line on that.

Do you want to bet me that my preferred definition isn't hundreds of years old?

Ii doesn't matter how old a preferred definition is, if the definition is untruthful, it requires redefining to correct that misinformation. Those who prefer misinformation are questionable.

Do the many not have weak and strong considerations?

The confused many may do, but that is because atheists have complicated the definition of "atheist" in efforts to gather everyone unto the bosom of atheism, that even human babies might suckle thereon.

"weak" and "strong" atheism is the shipwreck of that misinformation, struck on the rocks of unnecessary complication, causing confusion.

True. If you define "atheist" as a person who isn't a theist, then babies count.

Yes. Reasons for the misleading definitions are seen therein.

Stick to the true definitions. These being;

Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist, based upon the knowledge of ideas of GODs.

Theism is the belief that gods do exist, based upon the knowledge of ideas of GODs.

Now define an atheist as "someone who isn't a theist" and *bingo* no need to involve babies in the definition and the truth sets one free from the confusion of that which is not truthful.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 335 by wiploc]

I stand by everything I said. And I don't make things up, either. Perhaps I have seen more religious debates than you, and I have certainly seen theists (quite reasonably) asking atheists to support their claim that there are no Gods, and the said foolish atheists were unable to do so.

As an atheist, you personally believe gods do not exist. Surely that is very close to my view, which is that the existence of gods is extremely unlikely, so I have no idea why you seem so vehemently opposed to every sentence I wrote.

Whether you like it or not, your claim that Gods definitely do not exist is technically unsupportable. How on earth could you know, with 100% certainty, that there are no Gods? You fundamentally cannot, and you do indeed leave yourself vulnerable to theists taking advantage of your lack of attention to detail. I can amply support my claim that the existence of Gods is very unlikely, but I absolutely and fundamentally cannot prove with 100% certainty that they do not exist. Think about it.

Although not relevant to a definition for atheists, it is possible in principle for theists to show that their God exists, it's just that no one ever has!

As for babies, quite clearly they have no knowledge of Gods at all, nor belief as to whether they exist, and are clearly neither atheist, agnostic or theist. ...

They aren't theists? Then they are non-theists, right?

No, that is not right. You are wrongly assuming that there are only two possibilities for a baby, either theist or non-theist, so if not theist then must be non-theist AKA atheist. That would be true if these were the only two categories. But your reasoning fails, because there is a third category that babies fall into, which is where the baby has no knowledge of Gods at all, and is therefore unable to make a decision about, or even have any conception of, whether Gods exist or not. What name you give to this third category is not important, I suggested "Religiously ignorant and neutral".

[dio9]

I am a Christian but also a big fan of Buddha. Here is a bit of tension. Buddha (perhaps the most famous atheist) when asked about gods said , basically , who knows? Why bother asking.
Of course he was talking about the Hindu gods which were many .Abraham too rejected the gods of his idol making father.
what I take from this is the false gods don't exist.
I'm thinking the gods atheists imagine don't exist actually don't exist.
My thesis is ; The only god that can possibly exist is the one beyond imagination.
So atheism is not meaningless , rather a false god detergent.
from my readings I have gathered Niche (being Jewish ) made his declaration based on his observation that Christians didn't behave as if there was a God.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 337 by ytrewq]

Whether you like it or not, your claim that Gods definitely do not exist is technically unsupportable. How on earth could you know, with 100% certainty, that there are no Gods?

There is a difference between knowing and believing. Any theist claiming to know that their god exists is still only expressing their belief. An atheist who says that they believe that gods do not exist is not necessarily claiming that they know that gods do not exist.

You fundamentally cannot, and you do indeed leave yourself vulnerable to theists taking advantage of your lack of attention to detail. I can amply support my claim that the existence of Gods is very unlikely, but I absolutely and fundamentally cannot prove with 100% certainty that they do not exist. Think about it.

It's not about proof either. If my intent was to convince someone else that gods do not exist, then I would have to offer some support for that claim. On the other hand, if I am personally convinced that gods do not exist I see no problem in being able to say that to anyone.

The way I see it, anyone who has the capacity to say that they believe gods exist but cannot affirm that belief is not a theist. That makes them an atheist as far a I am concerned. But, do these labels really matter all that much?

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 336 by William]

Stick to the true definitions. These being;

Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist, based upon the knowledge of ideas of GODs.

Theism is the belief that gods do exist, based upon the knowledge of ideas of GODs.

Um, don't you think you are being a tad presumptuous, labelling your particular preferred definition of an atheist as the one, true definition? Sounds terribly like those that would label their God as the one true God.

This is your personally preferred definition, no more and no less, and whether it turns out to be a good definition will ultimately be decided by the consensus of others, not by you.

I have pointed out a problem with your definition as it stands, and suggested a slight re-wording to avoid that problem. At this stage I feel that my modified definition is slightly better, but let's see how well it stands scrutiny. I am certainly not going to make the bold claim that my definition is the one, true definition.