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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

I was just reminded of an old post of mine, you were provided an example of what would be acceptable as "demonstrable evidence" for God on Sep 28, 2017.

[Kenisaw]

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.

Nothing has any inherent significance. Significance is purely a human construct. It is a subjective value that individuals and groups place on a wide myriad of things. To say that atheism (or anything else) has an objective significance is folly in my opinion.

[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.

I'd like FWI to explain what he means exactly by applying Hitchen's Razor here.

Has anyone said the purpose of atheism is ____? Or the meaning of atheism is ____ (beyond defining it)?
This looks to me to be FWI tilting at windmills.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 410 by wiploc]

So what is the purpose, goal, "and in a way religion" of your being atheistic towards those gods?

Firstly, my statement was not atheistic. If, we take a closer look at the definition of gods (in Hebrew and Greek), it is used in a genetic way. Where, the term "God" is used to express the Supreme Being or Supreme Authority of all that exists. Hence, my purpose or goal is to bring this point out. Therefore, since there are two different belief systems, which agree on who the Supreme Being is, their position would be more viable than others. We can only have one Supreme Being or at the least: I don't accept any others.

The lesser gods and how they are defined and labeled is critical. If, the "sun-god" was labeled as a created celestial being or angel, then I would accept that premise. But, to suggest that these lesser gods are not in that category or equal to the Supreme Being is rejected.

So, my belief in God/gods or Theism is determined by how God/gods are labeled, not if they exist or they don't. Because, lesser gods do exist and were created by the Supreme God

Zeus: Is labeled as the first of the gods and referred to as the Father of Gods and men. Yet, he was the son of Cronus and Rhea. (Rejected)

Poseidon: Is labeled as the second son of Cronus and Rhea and brother of Zeus and Hades and had sisters. (Rejected)

Thor: Is labeled as the son of Odin, chief of the gods and Odin's consort Jord. He is also labeled as husband of the fertility goddess Sif, who also had children. (Rejected)

Goblins: Are not labeled as gods, just a creature similar to dwarfs. (Rejected)

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 410 by wiploc]

So what is the purpose, goal, "and in a way religion" of your being atheistic towards those gods?

Firstly, my statement was not atheistic.

You keep wanting to know the purpose of our not believing in your god. I'm not sure I know what you're trying to ask. I'm not even sure the question is coherent. So I'm asking what your purpose is in not believing in other gods.

If you answer my question, that may enable us to answer yours. Or, on the other hand, if you can't answer my question, then you can hardly fault us for failing to answer yours.

[FWI]

You keep wanting to know the purpose of our not believing in your god.

No, I don't! Where did you get such an idea? Please, supply support for this claim.

Thus, I have no problem with an individual, group or country claiming they don't believe in God or gods (post 60).

So I'm asking what your purpose is in not believing in other gods.

I have clearly stated that I do believe in other gods:

So, my belief in God/gods or Theism is determined by how God/gods are labeled, not if they exist or they don't. Because, lesser gods do exist and were created by the Supreme God (post 472).

Hence, what is the point of the requested redundancy? Are you expecting me to accept that every god that man claims exist, is truth? Well, if that's the case, it won't happen

Or, on the other hand, if you can't answer my question, then you can hardly fault us for failing to answer yours.

The problem is that you can't answer the question: "the purpose for our (atheists) not believing in your god." So, why would I care?

[wiploc]

You keep wanting to know the purpose of our not believing in your god.

No, I don't! Where did you get such an idea? Please, supply support for this claim.

No such support is forthcoming. I apologize for misrepresenting.

Thus, I have no problem with an individual, group or country claiming they don't believe in God or gods (post 60).

So I'm asking what your purpose is in not believing in other gods.

I have clearly stated that I do believe in other gods:

I'm confused enough that I'll just unsubscribe from this thread, and hope that I don't blunder back into it.

[Danmark]

I have clearly stated that I do believe in other gods:

So, my belief in God/gods or Theism is determined by how God/gods are labeled, not if they exist or they don't. Because, lesser gods do exist and were created by the Supreme God (post 472).

No. You did the opposite. You CLEARLY gave a list of rejected gods. Wiploc is right, your posts and positions are confusing and contradictory. There is no point debating with such a confusing mush of nonsense, none of which is ever backed with a reference.

[FWI]

No. You did the opposite. You CLEARLY gave a list of rejected gods. Wiploc is right, your posts and positions are confusing and contradictory. There is no point debating with such a confusing mush of nonsense, none of which is ever backed with a reference.

Hence, what is the point of the requested redundancy? Are you expecting me to accept that every god that man claims exist, is truth? Well, if that's the case, it won't happen (post 474)

For anyone to suggest that if you believe in One God (and other gods) requires, that person, to believe in all claimed gods is utter nonsenseThis would be contrary to all religious positions, related to gods. As far as, references are concerned, they are just the opinions of others. So, in many cases, they serve no real purpose.

However, I'm pleased that you won't be trying to debate me any longer. My day has been fulfilled with such a revelation