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.

[William]

[Replying to post 299 by Danmark]

There is NO "problem with my reasoning."

As I pointed out, in regard to atheism, there is.

The issue for me is one of epistemology.

That is not an issue in relation to what atheism is, as I pointed out.

The scientific method, the most reliable way of knowing, determines there is no evidence of gods, or goblins or other fantastic beings of ancient tradition.

As I pointed out, only the issue of GODs are related to atheism. The process of science is not about 'determining there is no evidence for fantastic beings'.

You may quibble about agnostic v. atheist

I am not 'quibbling' about that at all. You would do well to at least attempt to address my actual argument in context rather than ramble off in unrelated diatribe.

[Bust Nak]

(4) shows how the definition can be made fallacious through a religious belief.

That's the same thing with your example, it's fallacious through a belief regarding religion, as opposed to a problem inherited in the definition. The premise "if we were created by god, then we would not be born theist," is not a function of the definition for atheism.

1,2, and 3 do not have to only conclude (4). (4) is besides the point.

2 and 3 are erroneous enough by themselves.

At least they can be discussed.

My "door frame" definition can be discussed, we are doing it right now.

Thus, they should be open to negotiation for change.

Granted.

The fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Incorrect. Argumentum ad populum happens when someone tries to argue that something is right because lots of people believe in it. I have done no such thing, instead I have argued something is more popular because lots of people use it, and conversely something is less popular because not many people use it.

Your analogy does not reflect the same thing as what my definition of atheism is doing.
Indeed, the popular definitions are what are creating the confusion, and what I am focusing on.

Why does popularity matter here, if your objection is confusion? It's okay for a definition to be confusing if it is not popular?

[FWI]

There is NO "problem with my reasoning." The issue for me is one of epistemology. The scientific method, the most reliable way of knowing, determines there is no evidence of gods, or goblins or other fantastic beings of ancient tradition.

Scientific proof is a myth…

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validity of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.
Except, that's a complete lie. While, they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

Reality is a complicated place. All we have to guide us, from an empirical point of view, are the quantities we can measure and observe. Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements. Distances and sizes are only as good as the measuring sticks you have access to; brightness measurements are only as good as your ability to count and quantify photons; even time itself is only known as well as the clock you have to measure its passage. No matter how good our measurements and observations are, there's a limit to how good they are.

We also can't observe or measure everything. Even if the Universe weren't subject to the fundamental quantum rules that govern it, along with all its inherent uncertainty, it wouldn't be possible to measure every state of every particle under every condition all the time. At some point, we have to "extrapolate or to estimate for values of the argument not used in the process of estimation." This is incredibly powerful and incredibly useful, but it's also incredibly limiting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... f2c1642fb1

Psychology Today: Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof…Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

So, what does science really do? It gives explanations and/or opinions, where some are realized to the best of our understandings, but for others not so much, such as the fantastic claim that life came from nothing and not from intelligent design.

Hence, since there is "no proof" that the scientific method can determine if God exists or He doesn't, we are assured that this position cannot be validated by science or any of its methods. They are just opinions…However, those who believe in God, accept this by common sense, historical writings, logic and faith. Where, faith gives the assurance and conviction of things not seen, as others have seen.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 302 by FWI]

Danmark was careful enough to state "determines there is no evidence of gods, or goblins or other fantastic beings of ancient tradition." That's hardly enough cause to trigger a "scientific proof is a myth…" essay.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 303 by Bust Nak]

Danmark was careful enough to state "determines there is no evidence of gods, or goblins or other fantastic beings of ancient tradition." That's hardly enough cause to trigger a "scientific proof is a myth…" essay.

Yes, it is. But, that doesn't matter...Lack of evidence doesn't equate to: something doesn't exist. Hence, trying to use the scientific method as support that it does, is in error...

[William]

[Replying to post 301 by Bust Nak]

Using the definitions I gave, can you find any opportunity for other fallacious arguments?

Sure:

1) newborns are not atheists.
2) therefore atheists chose to become atheists.
3) therefore atheism is a choice.
4) therefore deserving of hell.

(4) shows how the definition can be made fallacious through a religious belief.

That's the same thing with your example, it's fallacious through a belief regarding religion, as opposed to a problem inherited in the definition. The premise "if we were created by god, then we would not be born theist," is not a function of the definition for atheism.

Would you mind rewording the above as it makes little sense to me in its present form.

Meantime, I did point out the fallacy of either side making claims that humans are born atheists/theists. post #292

Note that a strong atheist argues that both weak atheists and agnostics share the SAME position, "because" they both lack belief.

Weak Atheist: "I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe gods don't exist. I lack belief because theists show no evidence. That is why I am atheist"

Agnostic: "I don't know whether GODs exist of not." iow "I don't know and I don't believe either way." I lack belief because I do not know .

This automatically leads to the claim by strong atheism that "everyone is BORN an atheist."

This argument is then used to support the argument that;

"Since everyone is BORN an atheist, we are naturally atheists."

Which is then used to support the argument that;

"If we were created by GODs, then why were we not born with the natural belief in GODs (born theists) rather than being born lacking belief in GODs, (born atheists).

Which itself supports is used to support the argument;

"We have no choice but to be atheist." iow "Atheists do not choose to be atheists. Theists choose to be theists.

This will be an underlying factor in why strong atheists are insistent on keeping their confusing definitions relevant.

It is probably too much to hope for to get strong atheists (and therefore the weak ones) to agree with changing their age old definitions for the sake of better reflecting truth.

The better alternative is to educate ones self about the fallacy and - at least in that way - no longer be confused/be subject to that purposely confusing dynamic the fallacy encourages.

Consider the strong atheist argument on the topic as one of fallacy.

Note: Where some theists get entangled by this strong-atheist fallacy, is when their own preferred theology teaches them to believe that they and everyone else are BORN theists, based on the belief that everyone is born with the knowledge implanted in them, that "GOD" exists and that those who choose to become atheists do so by denying this knowledge.

[Bust Nak]

Would you mind rewording the above as it makes little sense to me in its present form.

Let me have another go then:

Atheism, a lack of belief in any gods.

1) everyone is BORN an atheist.
2) Since everyone is BORN an atheist, we are naturally atheists.
3) If we were created by GODs, then we whould be born born theists rather than being born atheists.
4) Atheists do not choose to be atheists. Theists choose to be theists.

3) shows how the definition can be made fallacious through a religious belief. 1 and 2 do not have to only conclude 3). 3) is besides the point.

[William]

[Replying to post 306 by Bust Nak]

Let me have another go then:

Atheism, a lack of belief in [strike]any[/strike] gods.

[ftfy] - there really is no need to add the word 'any'.

1) everyone is BORN an atheist.
2) Since everyone is BORN an atheist, we are naturally atheists.
3) If we were created by GODs, then we whould be born born theists rather than being born atheists.
4) Atheists do not choose to be atheists. Theists choose to be theists.

3) shows how the definition can be made fallacious through a religious belief. 1 and 2 do not have to only conclude 3). 3) is besides the point.

If (3) is bedsides the point why did you include it as part of that particular argument for 'the definition of an atheist'?

The truth:

Everyone is born lacking knowledge.

All atheists are atheists because they chose to lack belief in GODs after they have been subjected to knowledge of GODs.

Weak Atheist: "I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe gods don't exist. I lack belief because theists show no evidence. That is why I am weak atheist"

A weak atheists lack of belief in GODs is recognition that knowledge of GODs + no evidence = "chose not to have beliefs about the subject because of no evidence."

Strong Atheist: "I don't believe gods exist. This because, I have seen no evidence of GODs existing and decide that this is enough for me to choose not to believe that GODs exist."


__________________________________________________

Perhaps the real confusion can be sourced in the idea that there are 'weak' atheists in the first place. Perhaps that is a term which strong atheists placed upon Agnostics in an attempt to make agnostics part of the atheist group.

Strong atheists appear to like the idea that everyone is really an atheist, so it stands to reason that they would make up such arguments.

Perhaps the truth of the matter is that agnostics lack belief in GODs, there are no 'weak atheists' (apart from the opinion of so-called 'strong' atheists) and atheists are actually those who do not believe that GODs exist?

Thus

Agnostics = Lack belief in GODs
Atheists = Do not believe GODs exist. Believe agnostics are really 'weak atheists', believe all humans are born atheists, believe even theists can be atheists in relation to other theists who believe in different ideas of GOD.
Theists = Believe GOD(s) exist.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 302 by FWI]

However, those who believe in God, accept this by common sense, historical writings, logic and faith. Where, faith gives the assurance and conviction of things not seen, as others have seen.

In other words, relying on wishful thinking, hearsay and self delusion. The scientific method is a far cry from that and has been demonstrably way more successful at examining reality.

[Bust Nak]

1) everyone is BORN an atheist.
2) Since everyone is BORN an atheist, we are naturally atheists.
3) If we were created by GODs, then we whould be born born theists rather than being born atheists.
4) Atheists do not choose to be atheists. Theists choose to be theists.

3) shows how the definition can be made fallacious through a religious belief. 1 and 2 do not have to only conclude 3). 3) is besides the point.

If (3) is bedsides the point why did you include it as part of that particular argument for 'the definition of an atheist'?

You tell me, that's my attempt at paraphrasing the example you gave of a fallacious argument that uses the definition of atheism along the lines of "a lack of belief in gods." It's fallacious through a belief regarding religion.

The truth:

Everyone is born lacking knowledge.

All atheists are atheists because they chose to lack belief in GODs after they have been subjected to knowledge of GODs.

Woah there, how that the truth?

I can play that game, this is the turth:

Everyone is born lacking knowledge.

All new borns are atheists because they lack belief in GODs because they are born lacking knowledge.

Perhaps the real confusion can be sourced in the idea that there are 'weak' atheists in the first place. Perhaps that is a term which strong atheists placed upon Agnostics in an attempt to make agnostics part of the atheist group.

Strong atheists appear to like the idea that everyone is really an atheist, so it stands to reason that they would make up such arguments.

Or perhaps the real confusion can be sourced in the idea that there aren't 'weak' atheists in the first place. Perhaps that is a term that best describe agnostics as they are part of the atheist group.

Perhaps the truth of the matter is that agnostics lack belief in GODs, therefore are atheists' (apart from the opinion of some so-called theists) as atheists are those who lack belief in god?