How does atheism supply meaning?

[Wootah]

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Obviously, people do hold this view, less the meaningless part that was added to poison the well.
For those that are uncomfortable with said view, there are religious options available to fulfill the need to have purpose supplied to them.

What I can't understand is how it is a struggle for some to find purpose in this life and then seem to project that on to others that don't suffer from such a thing. I personally treat this life as something special and have plenty of purpose, because for all I know, it is the only one we will get. The idea of this life being a test for some other life actually would make this life less meaningful as the next would become the true goal. Therefore, could it be argued that atheism supplies more meaning/value for this life than religions in general? Those that struggle to find purpose without religion would obviously not be able to see this and would then be susceptible making claims like we see above.

"No one can truly hold that view" would therefore simply be a projection.

How does atheism supply meaning?

[brunumb]

How does atheism supply meaning?

Atheism is a position on the existence of gods. Why should it supply any meaning? You might as well ask how not collecting stamps supplies meaning.

[theophile]

I think this misses the point of the central quote in the OP. Once you 'make your own meaning' you are squarely in the realm of creation, and you are ultimately playing the same game as a theist.

How? The question was how atheism supplies meaning. Isn't the point to be on the same level as a theist is, and have a belief that provides meaning?

I was anchoring around this quote (not sure who said it) from the OP: "We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other."

This person (and I would more or less agree) draws a dividing line between atheism and creation that places your answer of how atheism supplies meaning squarely on the side of creation. Which means -- if you accept this dividing line of course -- that your answer is not an answer to the OPQ.

(By drawing the line where it does, this quote makes it irrelevant whether the meaning came from a supermarket of options or a store that only sells one thing, or whether it is new and individual to you and of your own making or if it is shared by billions of others and has been handed down over generations. Irrespective of how or where the meaning came from, each of these modalities involves the same step of accepting and applying that meaning to the world and using it to shape your life and the lives of those around you. i.e., it is to enter into an act of creation.)

Sure, that meaning was not derived from the bible, or ingrained since birth, but that's just semantics. (And you're creating a false opposition here when you caricature theists as 'mindless'...)

I don't think theists are mindless at all. It takes a lot of courage to admit you're wrong. And that's what every theist does, every day. He selects God's way over his own way. That's the more difficult path.

And the meaning I cook myself may very well be wrong. Just like I can't cook for squat. But it's meaningful to me.

Perhaps it was comments like "I get more happiness eating food I make than mindlessly crunching on crisps from a bag" that suggested mindlessness of theists.

I would also suggest that if that core quote is correct, then there is no 'right' answer. It means that all meaning is created (God's included) and that each of us -- atheist, theist, whatever -- has to choose amongst the options. God's answer isn't the right choice because it's God's or because it's grounded in something absolute or anything like that. It's simply more compelling than the alternatives or it is not...

So perhaps the opposition should be redefined as nihilism versus creation (instead of atheism) to be more precise since all nihilists are atheist but not all creationists are theist (i.e., atheism cuts across this divide...). And the question of the OP should be twofold:

1) How nihilist atheism can supply meaning? And more importantly (IMO, since this first question doesn't make a ton of sense),
2) How non-nihilist atheism escapes the bounds of creationism (broadly defined) or is any different, at bottom, from theism in this respect?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #12]

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can atheism be nihiistic and also create? And if you could reconcile those two points, I would say that atheism is the position of non -belief in any god -claim.It is pointless to ask what it could create and what meaning it could give in our lives. It is like asking someone who does not collect stamps what meaning that gives them or what it contributes to humans life.

Nothing,and no -one should expect it to; it is just a position on stamp -collecting; they don't do it. But, like atheists, they may do many other things, study history, philosophy, critical thinking, ethics, any of which - and other pursuits - related to their non doing of this or that or not, could give meaning in their lives and perhaps to others.

I think the theist error in considering atheism is that they expect it to be some alternative religion which provides a worldview, morals, Meaning. It is not a religion and does not do those things. It has no Dogma, no Commands and no duties. It is simply a rational position on the god -claim. It often does in fact, have a knock - on position on ethics and worldview because it is a subset of rationalism. But that is a benefit rather than a doctrine.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #12]

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can atheism be nihiistic and also create? And if you could reconcile those two points, I would say that atheism is the position of non -belief in any god -claim.It is pointless to ask what it could create and what meaning it could give in our lives. It is like asking someone who does not collect stamps what meaning that gives them or what it contributes to humans life.

Nothing,and no -one should expect it to; it is just a position on stamp -collecting; they don't do it. But, like atheists, they may do many other things, study history, philosophy, critical thinking, ethics, any of which - and other pursuits - related to their non doing of this or that or not, could give meaning in their lives and perhaps to others.

I think the theist error in considering atheism is that they expect it to be some alternative religion which provides a worldview, morals, Meaning. It is not a religion and does not do those things. It has no Dogma, no Commands and no duties. It is simply a rational position on the god -claim. It often does in fact, have a knock - on position on ethics and worldview because it is a subset of rationalism. But that is a benefit rather than a doctrine.

That's why I put emphasis on the second question that I asked at the end (on non-nihilistic atheism) and said the first question is kind of pointless for the very reason you give here, i.e., nihilism can't supply meaning.

And sure, I agree that it doesn't make a ton of sense to ask how atheism can supply meaning either since it is essentially the revocation of a certain meaning (it is not a positive worldview). But as you go on to say, most atheists will take further steps and eventually find meaning in something. When they do that, and they apply that meaning to their lives and the world around them, then the argument is that they are no different from theists at that point. They don't include God in their meaning, sure, but they still take a leap of faith and make a choice no different from theism. (None of us has any absolute certainty of anything, let's be fair.)

So the issue to me is more the lack of recognition common among atheists (or at least perceived) that all of us, once we take that step away from nihilism and choose (be it a meaning of our own making or one handed down to us, be it theistic or atheistic), are all playing the same game. Faith as such is not a point against theism, as often made out, but something we all ultimately share as non-nihilists embarking on a creative path.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #12]

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can atheism be nihiistic and also create? And if you could reconcile those two points, I would say that atheism is the position of non -belief in any god -claim.It is pointless to ask what it could create and what meaning it could give in our lives. It is like asking someone who does not collect stamps what meaning that gives them or what it contributes to humans life.

Nothing,and no -one should expect it to; it is just a position on stamp -collecting; they don't do it. But, like atheists, they may do many other things, study history, philosophy, critical thinking, ethics, any of which - and other pursuits - related to their non doing of this or that or not, could give meaning in their lives and perhaps to others.

I think the theist error in considering atheism is that they expect it to be some alternative religion which provides a worldview, morals, Meaning. It is not a religion and does not do those things. It has no Dogma, no Commands and no duties. It is simply a rational position on the god -claim. It often does in fact, have a knock - on position on ethics and worldview because it is a subset of rationalism. But that is a benefit rather than a doctrine.

That's why I put emphasis on the second question that I asked at the end (on non-nihilistic atheism) and said the first question is kind of pointless for the very reason you give here, i.e., nihilism can't supply meaning.

And sure, I agree that it doesn't make a ton of sense to ask how atheism can supply meaning either since it is essentially the revocation of a certain meaning (it is not a positive worldview). But as you go on to say, most atheists will take further steps and eventually find meaning in something. When they do that, and they apply that meaning to their lives and the world around them, then the argument is that they are no different from theists at that point. They don't include God in their meaning, sure, but they still take a leap of faith and make a choice no different from theism. (None of us has any absolute certainty of anything, let's be fair.)

So the issue to me is more the lack of recognition common among atheists (or at least perceived) that all of us, once we take that step away from nihilism and choose (be it a meaning of our own making or one handed down to us, be it theistic or atheistic), are all playing the same game. Faith as such is not a point against theism, as often made out, but something we all ultimately share as non-nihilists embarking on a creative path.

No .the whole rationalist worldview (including reason, science and materialism as well as humanism) is based on reason and evidence which is the very antithesis of a leap of faith. Ascribing unknowns to a god without decent evidence, never mind in spite of the evidence, is the epitome of a leap of faith.

Your point that "When they do that, and they apply that meaning to their lives and the world around them, then the argument is that they are no different from theists at that point" is well taken and that is actually what I (and other atheists) propose - that we actually have the same meaning as the theists do, but they ascribe all those to a god;we don't. I see no value in a god -imposed plan, god -given morality or a society in a God -shaped bottle.

I can only repeat that ..well, to sum up "Atheism has made such a difference to my Life". A drunk or User may swear that we don't know what we are missing, and not being smashed or out of our minds is lacking something. Thanks, the benefits of being in control outweigh the goodfeel.

There remains (since the supposed benefits of religion fail, like a doomsday prophecy) only the stick and carrot of the clickbait of heaven and the empty threat of hell. When they fail to deliver, Theism has nothing left to offer, but mental whips and chains. Some people may like that, of course.

[Purple Knight]

Perhaps it was comments like "I get more happiness eating food I make than mindlessly crunching on crisps from a bag" that suggested mindlessness of theists.

First and foremost, that was my bad. I'm mad at the people I'm metaphoring to, not theists. I see a connection which is why the metaphor, but it doesn't extend to thinking there's the same mindlessness involved - just the same lack of selection and the same lack of a hand in generating or even choosing the meaning you're supplied with. Honestly I probably shouldn't be mad at people who eat nothing but packaged food either, but I am. At any rate, it takes a lot of conscious thought to be a theist. You can be wrong but that's not the point. It takes loads of thought. Practicing a religion is quite the right turn of phrase, since there's a lot of practice involved. In contrast, the required minimum amount of thought and effort to be an atheist is zero.

How? The question was how atheism supplies meaning. Isn't the point to be on the same level as a theist is, and have a belief that provides meaning?

I was anchoring around this quote (not sure who said it) from the OP: "We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other."

This person (and I would more or less agree) draws a dividing line between atheism and creation that places your answer of how atheism supplies meaning squarely on the side of creation. Which means -- if you accept this dividing line of course -- that your answer is not an answer to the OPQ.

The part I don't quite accept is that this first bit equals no purpose. It equals no objective purpose perhaps, but purpose and meaning don't have to be objective. If this division were valid the only answer to the question would be, "It doesn't." Which would make it a loaded question. I give the OP more credit than that, and I expect that they're hoping someone will bring up a legitimate way for atheism to supply meaning. I think I did that and it was astonishingly simple: By allowing you to select your own meaning, from any available or conceivable.

(By drawing the line where it does, this quote makes it irrelevant whether the meaning came from a supermarket of options or a store that only sells one thing, or whether it is new and individual to you and of your own making or if it is shared by billions of others and has been handed down over generations. Irrespective of how or where the meaning came from, each of these modalities involves the same step of accepting and applying that meaning to the world and using it to shape your life and the lives of those around you. i.e., it is to enter into an act of creation.)

Okay but it's not theism. Do I worship myself? Well if I answer that I ruin my argument, but I don't think I am a god because I don't think anything is a god.

I would also suggest that if that core quote is correct, then there is no 'right' answer. It means that all meaning is created (God's included) and that each of us -- atheist, theist, whatever -- has to choose amongst the options. God's answer isn't the right choice because it's God's or because it's grounded in something absolute or anything like that. It's simply more compelling than the alternatives or it is not...

I can actually agree with that. If God exists and has a logical answer to something, I'm not going to mindlessly turn against it for fear of being a theist if I don't. If the answer came from people and simply became attributed to God, same deal.

So perhaps the opposition should be redefined as nihilism versus creation (instead of atheism) to be more precise since all nihilists are atheist but not all creationists are theist (i.e., atheism cuts across this divide...). And the question of the OP should be twofold:

1) How nihilist atheism can supply meaning? And more importantly (IMO, since this first question doesn't make a ton of sense),
2) How non-nihilist atheism escapes the bounds of creationism (broadly defined) or is any different, at bottom, from theism in this respect?

1) It really can't.
2) As you've defined it, an atheist would be a creationist by engaging in the act of creating value for himself, but that's fine. He'd still be an atheist unless he thinks some god exists and worships it.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #12]

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can atheism be nihiistic and also create? And if you could reconcile those two points, I would say that atheism is the position of non -belief in any god -claim.It is pointless to ask what it could create and what meaning it could give in our lives. It is like asking someone who does not collect stamps what meaning that gives them or what it contributes to humans life.

Nothing,and no -one should expect it to; it is just a position on stamp -collecting; they don't do it. But, like atheists, they may do many other things, study history, philosophy, critical thinking, ethics, any of which - and other pursuits - related to their non doing of this or that or not, could give meaning in their lives and perhaps to others.

I think the theist error in considering atheism is that they expect it to be some alternative religion which provides a worldview, morals, Meaning. It is not a religion and does not do those things. It has no Dogma, no Commands and no duties. It is simply a rational position on the god -claim. It often does in fact, have a knock - on position on ethics and worldview because it is a subset of rationalism. But that is a benefit rather than a doctrine.

That's why I put emphasis on the second question that I asked at the end (on non-nihilistic atheism) and said the first question is kind of pointless for the very reason you give here, i.e., nihilism can't supply meaning.

And sure, I agree that it doesn't make a ton of sense to ask how atheism can supply meaning either since it is essentially the revocation of a certain meaning (it is not a positive worldview). But as you go on to say, most atheists will take further steps and eventually find meaning in something. When they do that, and they apply that meaning to their lives and the world around them, then the argument is that they are no different from theists at that point. They don't include God in their meaning, sure, but they still take a leap of faith and make a choice no different from theism. (None of us has any absolute certainty of anything, let's be fair.)

So the issue to me is more the lack of recognition common among atheists (or at least perceived) that all of us, once we take that step away from nihilism and choose (be it a meaning of our own making or one handed down to us, be it theistic or atheistic), are all playing the same game. Faith as such is not a point against theism, as often made out, but something we all ultimately share as non-nihilists embarking on a creative path.

No .the whole rationalist worldview (including reason, science and materialism as well as humanism) is based on reason and evidence which is the very antithesis of a leap of faith. Ascribing unknowns to a god without decent evidence, never mind in spite of the evidence, is the epitome of a leap of faith.

Reason and evidence are great but they are not infallible either, are they? So I still think there remains at some level an unknown, a choice (whatever you want to call it) and therefore a leap of faith no matter how small it may be. Both (1) to put faith in reason and evidence opposed to other meaning providers out there, such as God, and (2) to trust its results.

I also think the meaning God provides is in fact rational and could have verifiable evidence and so these are not at all mutually exclusive. Furthermore, God's meaning provides benefits that reason and evidence do not. (God's meaning is a bit warmer than cold, hard reason and facts, know what I mean? As much as humanists may want to argue how love and selflessness are rational things...).

So I would suggest that God ultimately provides something better than reason and evidence, even as these are embraced. And that's love of life, to put it simply. Love it, and then find the meaning of it. (As Dostoevsky once put it, and which felt very much in line with the point...)

Your point that "When they do that, and they apply that meaning to their lives and the world around them, then the argument is that they are no different from theists at that point" is well taken and that is actually what I (and other atheists) propose - that we actually have the same meaning as the theists do, but they ascribe all those to a god;we don't. I see no value in a god -imposed plan, god -given morality or a society in a God -shaped bottle.

Yah, that's fine. I'm not trying to suggest that any atheist that charts a creative path is therefore theist, but only that they are playing the same game as a theist by embarking on such a course (i.e., a way out of atheistic nihilism, which I believe even theists must find their way through...). The opposition I setup was between nihilism and creation, not necessarily theism...

I'm also not opposed to meaning-systems that don't involve God but end up saying the same thing as the bible, conceptually speaking. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. So too the name of God, right? So you never know, we may not be opposed at all despite our labels.

[theophile]

Perhaps it was comments like "I get more happiness eating food I make than mindlessly crunching on crisps from a bag" that suggested mindlessness of theists.

First and foremost, that was my bad. I'm mad at the people I'm metaphoring to, not theists. I see a connection which is why the metaphor, but it doesn't extend to thinking there's the same mindlessness involved - just the same lack of selection and the same lack of a hand in generating or even choosing the meaning you're supplied with. Honestly I probably shouldn't be mad at people who eat nothing but packaged food either, but I am. At any rate, it takes a lot of conscious thought to be a theist. You can be wrong but that's not the point. It takes loads of thought. Practicing a religion is quite the right turn of phrase, since there's a lot of practice involved. In contrast, the required minimum amount of thought and effort to be an atheist is zero.

How? The question was how atheism supplies meaning. Isn't the point to be on the same level as a theist is, and have a belief that provides meaning?

I was anchoring around this quote (not sure who said it) from the OP: "We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other."

This person (and I would more or less agree) draws a dividing line between atheism and creation that places your answer of how atheism supplies meaning squarely on the side of creation. Which means -- if you accept this dividing line of course -- that your answer is not an answer to the OPQ.

The part I don't quite accept is that this first bit equals no purpose. It equals no objective purpose perhaps, but purpose and meaning don't have to be objective. If this division were valid the only answer to the question would be, "It doesn't." Which would make it a loaded question. I give the OP more credit than that, and I expect that they're hoping someone will bring up a legitimate way for atheism to supply meaning. I think I did that and it was astonishingly simple: By allowing you to select your own meaning, from any available or conceivable.

(By drawing the line where it does, this quote makes it irrelevant whether the meaning came from a supermarket of options or a store that only sells one thing, or whether it is new and individual to you and of your own making or if it is shared by billions of others and has been handed down over generations. Irrespective of how or where the meaning came from, each of these modalities involves the same step of accepting and applying that meaning to the world and using it to shape your life and the lives of those around you. i.e., it is to enter into an act of creation.)

Okay but it's not theism. Do I worship myself? Well if I answer that I ruin my argument, but I don't think I am a god because I don't think anything is a god.

I would also suggest that if that core quote is correct, then there is no 'right' answer. It means that all meaning is created (God's included) and that each of us -- atheist, theist, whatever -- has to choose amongst the options. God's answer isn't the right choice because it's God's or because it's grounded in something absolute or anything like that. It's simply more compelling than the alternatives or it is not...

I can actually agree with that. If God exists and has a logical answer to something, I'm not going to mindlessly turn against it for fear of being a theist if I don't. If the answer came from people and simply became attributed to God, same deal.

So perhaps the opposition should be redefined as nihilism versus creation (instead of atheism) to be more precise since all nihilists are atheist but not all creationists are theist (i.e., atheism cuts across this divide...). And the question of the OP should be twofold:

1) How nihilist atheism can supply meaning? And more importantly (IMO, since this first question doesn't make a ton of sense),
2) How non-nihilist atheism escapes the bounds of creationism (broadly defined) or is any different, at bottom, from theism in this respect?

1) It really can't.
2) As you've defined it, an atheist would be a creationist by engaging in the act of creating value for himself, but that's fine. He'd still be an atheist unless he thinks some god exists and worships it.

I agree that you answered the OP if we don't religiously focus on the bold text that I cited, as I did

I'm also not trying to say that by creating meaning for themselves an atheist becomes a theist, but only that they share with theism something very fundamental I think, i.e., choice, which means a leap of faith.

I've basically been creating a sidebar argument here that atheists who pride themselves on things like reason and evidence should recognize what they're up to. Reason and evidence are something we have to put our trust in, no different from God. No different from any other creative path or meaning we make.

It's not theistic but there's a certain religious mode to it, you know?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #12]

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can atheism be nihiistic and also create? And if you could reconcile those two points, I would say that atheism is the position of non -belief in any god -claim.It is pointless to ask what it could create and what meaning it could give in our lives. It is like asking someone who does not collect stamps what meaning that gives them or what it contributes to humans life.

Nothing,and no -one should expect it to; it is just a position on stamp -collecting; they don't do it. But, like atheists, they may do many other things, study history, philosophy, critical thinking, ethics, any of which - and other pursuits - related to their non doing of this or that or not, could give meaning in their lives and perhaps to others.

I think the theist error in considering atheism is that they expect it to be some alternative religion which provides a worldview, morals, Meaning. It is not a religion and does not do those things. It has no Dogma, no Commands and no duties. It is simply a rational position on the god -claim. It often does in fact, have a knock - on position on ethics and worldview because it is a subset of rationalism. But that is a benefit rather than a doctrine.

That's why I put emphasis on the second question that I asked at the end (on non-nihilistic atheism) and said the first question is kind of pointless for the very reason you give here, i.e., nihilism can't supply meaning.

And sure, I agree that it doesn't make a ton of sense to ask how atheism can supply meaning either since it is essentially the revocation of a certain meaning (it is not a positive worldview). But as you go on to say, most atheists will take further steps and eventually find meaning in something. When they do that, and they apply that meaning to their lives and the world around them, then the argument is that they are no different from theists at that point. They don't include God in their meaning, sure, but they still take a leap of faith and make a choice no different from theism. (None of us has any absolute certainty of anything, let's be fair.)

So the issue to me is more the lack of recognition common among atheists (or at least perceived) that all of us, once we take that step away from nihilism and choose (be it a meaning of our own making or one handed down to us, be it theistic or atheistic), are all playing the same game. Faith as such is not a point against theism, as often made out, but something we all ultimately share as non-nihilists embarking on a creative path.

No .the whole rationalist worldview (including reason, science and materialism as well as humanism) is based on reason and evidence which is the very antithesis of a leap of faith. Ascribing unknowns to a god without decent evidence, never mind in spite of the evidence, is the epitome of a leap of faith.

Reason and evidence are great but they are not infallible either, are they? So I still think there remains at some level an unknown, a choice (whatever you want to call it) and therefore a leap of faith no matter how small it may be. Both (1) to put faith in reason and evidence opposed to other meaning providers out there, such as God, and (2) to trust its results.

I also think the meaning God provides is in fact rational and could have verifiable evidence and so these are not at all mutually exclusive. Furthermore, God's meaning provides benefits that reason and evidence do not. (God's meaning is a bit warmer than cold, hard reason and facts, know what I mean? As much as humanists may want to argue how love and selflessness are rational things...).

So I would suggest that God ultimately provides something better than reason and evidence, even as these are embraced. And that's love of life, to put it simply. Love it, and then find the meaning of it. (As Dostoevsky once put it, and which felt very much in line with the point..

.)

Of course, reason and evidence are fallible, but if you think that God - claims with or without reason have done any better, you are sadly misled. Unknowns are evidence of nothing either way, so your appeal to them is futile.
Quite apart from cold hard facts being more beneficial than comfortable lies, the supposed benefits of Theism escape me, other than the spurious pleasure of being drunk or high. I prefer cold sober control of my mind. Even Aside from that, you craftily talk about the 'meaning god provides' being rational and 'could have' verifiable evidence, you dismiss in a pretty cavalier way any idea that atheism could provide a way to a life with as much meaning or more. It is a common theist fallacy to assume their jaundiced view of the atheist mindset is true and the atheist life is as bad as they think it is. I can tell you that the mental freedom to see everything as it is, rather than a big evangelical handout for a mythical being is a far,far better thing, as the freedom to think about and question almost anything beats the self serving delusion that we are of supreme importance to a mythological bully

Your point that "When they do that, and they apply that meaning to their lives and the world around them, then the argument is that they are no different from theists at that point" is well taken and that is actually what I (and other atheists) propose - that we actually have the same meaning as the theists do, but they ascribe all those to a god;we don't. I see no value in a god -imposed plan, god -given morality or a society in a God -shaped bottle.

Yah, that's fine. I'm not trying to suggest that any atheist that charts a creative path is therefore theist, but only that they are playing the same game as a theist by embarking on such a course (i.e., a way out of atheistic nihilism, which I believe even theists must find their way through...). The opposition I setup was between nihilism and creation, not necessarily theism...

I'm also not opposed to meaning-systems that don't involve God but end up saying the same thing as the bible, conceptually speaking. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. So too the name of God, right? So you never know, we may not be opposed at all despite our labels.

Rather, I see it as the other way around - the Theists trying to fit the benefits of reason and evidence into their lives, and dealing with the pushing away of the facts when they conflict with the Faith. Not to mention helping themselves to the benefits and cushy lifestyle that science hath provided, which is a sight better than the breadcrusts and maunday pennies that the churches tossed the peasantry on occasions while wallowing in the riches they snaffled from the wallets of the faithful, together with helping themselves to all the gadgets and devices of science, while dismissing science as Opinion and even wrong when it conflicts with their faith. I'd hate to be in that position and thank out lady Athe with incense and burned offerings of roadkill raccoon daily that I am not as they art.

Nihilism..I could write a page, but the bottom line is that it isn't in the end anything to fret about and only Theists, crying for the moon, make it an issue for themselves or anyone else they can bamboozle into fretting about it.
However, maybe this analogy will do. "For 4 decades, people ran in circles, panicking about an asteroid hitting the earth. After that, Science worked out ways of stopping that happening."

[theophile]

No .the whole rationalist worldview (including reason, science and materialism as well as humanism) is based on reason and evidence which is the very antithesis of a leap of faith. Ascribing unknowns to a god without decent evidence, never mind in spite of the evidence, is the epitome of a leap of faith.

We have to start from a position of atheistic nihilism. I think that's the only fair starting point since it wipes the slate clean of any and all so-called sources of meaning and anything else we might be taking for granted. And furthermore, it is our original state. i.e., if all meaning that we know of has been created by human beings, then human beings necessarily precede all meaning, and must have originally been in a state of meaninglessness (i.e., atheistic nihilism).

If we take this first step, then God and theism are on hiatus and so is everything else that would purport to provide meaning (reason and evidence included). Is that fair enough to level the playing field?

If so, my overarching point is that for anyone to get out of this original state, there must be a leap of faith. We've got to put our trust in something, be it in reason and evidence, God, or whatever else. That is step two and there is no other way. Any other approach would require something like a self-evident truth (but you agree reason and evidence are fallible), some kind of circular reference, or perhaps inductive reasoning (which is never perfect).

Just think about it: the very fact that you advocate so strongly on behalf of reason and evidence is because you have such faith in them. And rightly so, because of all the good things they provide. Reason and evidence are great at producing knowledge, and that knowledge-production power is what has in turn increased your faith to what it is... i.e., to something that barely even resembles faith anymore.

And while all of that makes perfect sense, it doesn't remove the fact that you put your trust in reason and evidence in the first place. That underneath it all there is still a leap of faith. No amount of results that follow from your choice changes that fact... Which means, like it or not, you are effectively in a religious relationship with reason and evidence, no different than a theist is with God. I'm not saying you are theist, but only that you share with theism this element of faith.

Otherwise again, please tell me what I'm missing here and how reason and evidence allow you to escape this trap.