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.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 46 by Tcg]

After a bit of research, I've found that bananas used to be theists in that they argued for the existence of God.

Humans interfered however and selectively bred that trait out of them. They are now atheists apparently.

In 2006, (Ray) Comfort recorded a segment for The Way of the Master's television show in which he argued that the banana was an "atheists' nightmare", arguing that it displayed many user-friendly features that were evidence of intelligent design. Comfort retracted the video upon learning that the banana is a result of artificial selection by humans, and that the wild banana is small and unpalatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

[William]

[Replying to post 40 by StuartJ]

It's VERY telling to note the great flurry of activity on this topic ...

And the VERY limited activity here, for example:

Evidence that the biblical Yahweh is "God"

Personally speaking, I think the telling bit is in the difficulty theists appear to have regarding 'what is atheism' and their current positions somehow prevent them from understanding this.

It may, perhaps, have something to do with the necessity of having demons work through atheists (something which their religion teaches) and thus, the wily old atheist demon is attempting to confuse the flock but trying to teach it something about what they have already been taught about, thank-you-very-much.

Tsk Tsk.

It is the same process regarding the Yahweh is "God" argument. Demonathists are tricky wolves - whatever garb they be wearingth.

[EPH2:8]

[Replying to post 46 by Tcg]

After a bit of research, I've found that bananas used to be theists in that they argued for the existence of God.

Humans interfered however and selectively bred that trait out of them. They are now atheists apparently.

In 2006, (Ray) Comfort recorded a segment for The Way of the Master's television show in which he argued that the banana was an "atheists' nightmare", arguing that it displayed many user-friendly features that were evidence of intelligent design. Comfort retracted the video upon learning that the banana is a result of artificial selection by humans, and that the wild banana is small and unpalatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

Did the banana argue for the existence of God or did ray comfort use a banana to argue for the existence of God?

[Tcg]

[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.

[brunumb]

[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?

[StuartJ]

[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.

The kids have that meaningless look of godlessness on their faces too ...!

Perhaps they thought they should have been doing their science homework instead of wasting time playing that game of family make-believe grandmothers look so serious about ...?

[Danmark]

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.

The point of Hitchens' quote is that there is no evidence for God so the argument for God's existence can be dismissed.

The ENORMOUS logical flaw in the OP is the giant leap from evidence of something to the claim of "meaning or purpose." The latter does not flow from the former.

Nonetheless, the argument that atheism has significance is easily established by the mere fact so many are interested in it, including the author of the OP by his/her publication of this very OP.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 43 by Overcomer]

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. It is NOT a lack of belief at all. If you lacked belief in God, you would be a non-theist and you wouldn't be here trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

Your rewording (italicised by me) is very telling. Not having a belief in gods is a lack of belief in gods, but you had to reword it to imply it is a belief of sorts. It is not. What is an atheist if not a non-theist? Sheesh.

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

Arguments are NOT evidence.

You are welcome to say that you don't find any of them compelling and provide rational counter-arguments. 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.

No. What you construe as counter-arguments trying to prove God does not exist are no such thing. They are an explanation of why your arguments, and lack of evidence, fail to establish that God must exist.

They are busy trying to prove that God didn't create the earth, that God isn't the source of moral values, etc. It's all about a denial of God's existence.

We know how the earth formed and there is no evidence that any God was involved. Moral values evolved with human societies. There is no evidence that they were provided by God. It is not necessary to deny God when there is no compelling reason to believe that it exists. The vast majority of people did not gain their belief in god by evaluation of evidence. They got it through indoctrination when their minds were most vulnerable. The geographical distribution of different religions and even Christian sects testifies to that.

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.

False conclusion reached from incorrect original premises. But, while on the subject, can you provide all the evidence you used to dismiss the thousands of other gods that people believe in

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 -- 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.

Nope. Trivial issue addressed elsewhere.

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, 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.

I'm saying that there is no good reason to be a theist. You may think otherwise, but I don't think that any theist reached their position of belief through reasoning and evaluation of evidence. All of that is just a post-hoc attempt to validate their beliefs. Atheism is not meaningless. The worship of imaginary deities, conspicuous by their absence, is what is meaningless.

[StuartJ]

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.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 17 by wiploc]

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

These individuals would be unique, yet extremely rare (as long as you are not referring to the agnostics). They would not become involved in the daily attacking of the religious and their beliefs. Hence, they also wouldn't need to defend themselves or their position. They would just become irrelevant 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

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.