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 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.

To be honest, I think we are really saying the same thing. When someone says they "believe" something, then that could be taken to mean that they "think" it is true, but make no claim that it "is" true, which is what you are saying

But the distinction between believing something and claiming something is pretty damn thin. If you define an atheist as someone who believes that Gods do not exist, then it would be fair enough to take that to mean that atheists state or claim that gods do not exist, and then they have an onus to prove it. To be honest, I think it would be pretty gutless for someone in a debate setting to say they believe something to be true, and then when challenged for evidence, hide behind the excuse that they never claimed it to be true.

Especially in a debate setting, it is important to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, and to that end I suggest that my definition of an atheist is well thought out and sensible. We are not losing anything by making it perfectly clear that atheists do not claim with 100% certainty that gods do not exist.

As I said, I think we are in agreement, really.

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

As a matter of taste, some may prefer a simpler wording as below, but this does not reflect the reality that atheism exists in shades from "soft" to "hard". It's always simpler to see the world in black and white terms, but it rarely is.

Atheists lack belief in the existence of Gods. They also believe that the existence of Gods is exceedingly unlikely.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 337 by ytrewq]

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?

That's taking thing a bit too far. Theists cannot (or at least never have) proved the existence of their God, but they are still theists who passionately believe that their God exists.

[wiploc]

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.

We were doing okay when we didn't talk to each other. You call me a liar, and I think you're one, so why don't we go back to not talking to each other.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 337 by ytrewq]

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?

That's taking thing a bit too far. Theists cannot (or at least never have) proved the existence of their God, but they are still theists who passionately believe that their God exists.

I think you misunderstood. I have not said that they need to prove anything, just to be able to declare that they believe in gods. If someone can't do that, then surely they cannot be considered a theist. I consider all non-theists to be atheists. This grey area of being neither doesn't sit well with me.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 337 by ytrewq]

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?

That's taking thing a bit too far. Theists cannot (or at least never have) proved the existence of their God, but they are still theists who passionately believe that their God exists.

I think you misunderstood. I have not said that they need to prove anything, just to be able to declare that they believe in gods. If someone can't do that, then surely they cannot be considered a theist. I consider all non-theists to be atheists. This grey area of being neither doesn't sit well with me.

Sorry about that. I would have thought that by definition, Theists universally believed in the existence of their Gods. If not then I agree they are not a Theist.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 335 by wiploc]

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?

Sorry for the delay in addressing your point.

If a theist claims that his God exists, then he bears the burden of evidence to back up that claim. Note however, that this is not an unreasonable burden. If his god really does exist, then there are many ways that it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it it exists.

But curiously, the situation is not symmetric when it is claimed that something does NOT exist. If you are foolish enough to claim that Gods do NOT exist, then not only do your arguably bear the burden of showing that to be true, but a bit of thought shows that you cannot possibly prove that all Gods, potentially existing anywhere in the universe, do not exist. Thus we have an asymmetry. It is possible to prove that something exists, but not in general possible to prove that something does NOT exist, and this asymmetry has nothing to do with religion or a bias against anyone foolish enough to claim that Gods do not exist. For an atheist, this means that it is wise not to claim absolutely that Gods do not exist, as such a claim is inherently unsupportable.

And I stand by my previous comment that this is one good reason why atheism is generally defined as a lack of belief in Gods, rather than claiming that Gods do not exist. To avoid directly claiming that Gods do not exist, another common atheist statement is along the lines of "I cannot prove that Gods do not exist, but nor do I see any reason to believe that they do."

[FWI]

[Replying to post 328 by wiploc]

You aren't demonstrating common sense. Your claim that I define atheism to boost the number of atheists, that is pointlessly rude. If you don't think I'm talking in good faith, you shouldn't be talking to me at all.

You are incorrect in stating that I am claiming "you" define atheism to boost the number of atheists. You are not the first one to make such a claim! My point was related to the "general idea" of such a thought process, your point of view just seems to agree. That's on you, not me. Hence, I was not being rude to you or anyone elseFacts are, what they are! The idea that babies are born atheists is beyond what is commonly accepted. So, I can only judge a person's "good faith" (related to their postings) by their written words. Thus, it is debatable, relating to "who is or who isn't" demonstrating common sense.

Again, that's nuts. Some people in the third category don't have a foundation. Some are confused. Some are ignorant. Maybe some are, as I sometimes hear claimed, just afraid to make a decision.

The problem with this comment is that you are trying to fit the statement (by Alexander James, an atheist) into your listed categories, which he did not include or address. Yet, a sensible person (for the most part) would not be confused or ignorant, related to his point. So, they (confused and ignorant) were not even considered or included in the writings.

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?

This is a moot point or concept. Babies are born with a complete dependency on a higher authority, to them their parents are godsThis concept continues for many years and only begins to readjust later in life. The reality of who the parents are (religious/atheist) is irrelevant. So, the concept of God/gods is ingrained in a new born and only can be changed, when freewill begins to take over.

Also, the Hebrew and Greek terms for gods, which atheists use to define atheism is used incorrectly. Where, even humans can be referred to as a godSo, using the term gods in the "now" suggested definition of atheism and not including humans is a false understanding.

Individual religions may have associated philosophies. But religion itself doesn't. What philosophy would encompass Satanism, Christianity, atheistic Buddhism, and then many other religions. The answer is none. And atheism is no more a single philosophy than theism is.

There are two types of philosophies, which are addressed in the term philosophy. One is related to academic studies and the other is "one's philosophy of life." The one we are addressing is the philosophy of life and is related to existentialism or atheistic existentialism, where it holds that there is one level of reality or existence. In this view, each person constructs his own unique and temporary essence. These unique positions are what forms the essence of atheism or the indispensable or intrinsic properties that are the most important part of the concept. Where, religious existentialism is similar, but accepts two levels of existence. Hence, this dual concept would apply to: Theism, Atheism, Satanism, Buddhism and any other "isms" or religions.

Also, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. Hence, God is unnecessary in Buddhism, as this is a religion and philosophy that emphasizes practical results over faith in beliefs or deities. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic rather than atheistic. Thus, "for those who" claim that Buddhism is atheistic, they are lacking in what Buddhism actually is

No, that's wrong. 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.

No, it is correct! The belief is yours, not someone else's. If, you don't believe that you have coins in your pocket, this is your belief. There are no others in the equation. So, why are you trying to add others to it?

Wait, you want me to distrust dictionaries, including the "current" definitions in the OED, but you offer the consideration by many as a counter-authority?

Well, that's for you to decide! Dictionaries are useful for informational purposes and are not considered 100% accurate. Since, words can have many different definitions, their usage in context and translations must be evaluated. Therefore, words taken out of context do give us a misguided understanding of their definition.

Those are people?

Are you claiming that chimps wouldn't be in this classification, thus refuting the theory of evolution? If so, where did people come from? The idea that anything that doesn't believe in God is atheistic is not my idea, it seems to be that of the atheists

[William]

[Replying to post 347 by FWI]

So, the concept of God/gods is ingrained in a new born and only can be changed, when freewill begins to take over.

That is bogus. There is no logical reason to think that new-born humans belong to either an atheist or a theist position. Until knowledge of ideas of GODs become understood the individual remains in a neutral position and the positions of atheist, agnostic and theist are not neutral positions when compared with ignorant babies.

Even the idea of "freewill" is dependent upon some kind of knowing.

[dio9]

[Replying to dio9]

Even Christians were accused of and were indeed atheistic toward pagan gods. SO as far as atheism goes it is disbelief in the current ideas of the gods. Not whether a fuller idea of God exists. The best we humans can do is have an idea of God. Inferior ideas can and should be rejected. But again these are only our ideas. Where God exists seems to be beyond our ability to define. Atheism is not meaningless rather a growth process toward fuller understanding of ultimate reality .

[William]

[Replying to post 345 by ytrewq]

"I cannot prove that Gods do not exist, but nor do I see any reason to believe that they do."

That is the position of an agnostic. Atheists claim that agnostics are really 'weak' atheists, in relation to 'strong' atheists (the ones making the claim) on the assumption that ' both so-called 'strong' and 'weak' atheists share a familiar bond in that they lack belief in GODs.

As dio9 wrote in post 349;

Even Christians were accused of and were indeed atheistic toward pagan gods.

...which is to say theists 'lack belief in certain ides of GODs' so under the same faulty logic, can also said to be 'atheists' alongside agnostics.

If a theist claims that his God exists, then he bears the burden of evidence to back up that claim.

Shouldn't one first establish the definition of the theists idea of GOD that he claims to believe exists, before making the leap to demand so called 'evidence'?

Note however, that this is not an unreasonable burden. If his god really does exist, then there are many ways that it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it it exists.

In all my years of asking those who make this argument, to provide examples of this supposed 'demonstrable evidence' that should exist, I have yet to see ANY example of what it is they are demanding should be produced.

Since you claim "If his god really does exist, then there are many ways that it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it it exists." perhaps you are the one who can finally provide these examples. If not then you are simply just another individual making claims (and demands) which cannot be supported.

But curiously, the situation is not symmetric when it is claimed that something does NOT exist. If you are foolish enough to claim that Gods do NOT exist, then not only do your arguably bear the burden of showing that to be true, but a bit of thought shows that you cannot possibly prove that all Gods, potentially existing anywhere in the universe, do not exist.

All atheists claim that GODs do not exist. They refer to themselves as 'strong atheists'. The label is deceptive.

But your argument above seems to allow for the true observation that it is not possible to prove that 'all GODs do not exist' yet from the other side of ones face, one is saying that it should be possible and thus expected that all theists should be able to prove that their GODs exist.
Obviously your statement implies that all GODs should be able to be seen. Yet most theist ideas of GODs are that they are not physical.

As was recently tabled in the thread;

Talking About Aliens ... About Jesus Returning...

The idea that anything claiming to be our creator GOD, returning in form (such as is the generic belief of Christians) might be that kind of evidence one speaks of and demands, but even so - it would hardly stand as 'evidence for the existence of GOD' to those who can simply understand it as 'evidence for a highly advanced species performing the role of a GOD over humanity' which is a different thing again.

This is to say that even if physical evidence was able to be provided for the existence of GOD (as you claimed "there are many ways that it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it exists. ") then there would be equally many ways in which the evidence can be explained away as 'other than GOD', as in 'not beyond reasonable doubt'.