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.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 308 by brunumb]

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.

When, you use the phrase: "in other words" and what follows, you are only giving a personal opinion. This has no bearing or value on the issue at hand. The usage of the scientific method certainly has its benefits in selected areas, but not, the one in question. This is made clear in post 302 (not by me, but by the scientists). So, it seems that you have taken a different approach in defining the scientific method.

Yet, you reject: common sense, historical writings, logic and faith as being wishful thinking, hearsay and self-delusional…and seem to choose this:

In the words of evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.�

[Bust Nak]

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.

When, you use the phrase: "in other words" and what follows, you are only giving a personal opinion. This has no bearing or value on the issue at hand. The usage of the scientific method certainly has its benefits in selected areas, but not, the one in question. This is made clear in post 302 (not by me, but by the scientists). So, it seems that you have taken a different approach in defining the scientific method.

Why does it seem that way to you? How is the scientific method, as propose by brunumb, Danmark and others here, different from the scientific method as outline by the article linked to in post #302?

Yet, you reject: common sense, historical writings, logic and faith as being wishful thinking, hearsay and self-delusional…and choose this:

In the words of evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.�

And why shouldn't we, given its benefits in selected areas?

[William]

[Replying to post 309 by Bust Nak]

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?

I already covered that a few posts back. It is simply because atheists appear to want their argument for atheism to be stronger and more appealing to the undecided, that they make erroneous efforts to be all-inclusive which is why they attempt to stack the deck in the favor of their position (which is "believe that GODs don't exist") and state that all humans are born atheists.

Atheists do not lack belief in GODs. They actively do not believe GODs exist.

Everyone is born lacking knowledge.

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

If anything, everyone is born ignorant. They lack knowledge. Lacking belief comes later when knowledge is obtained, and that means - in relation to GOD/ideas of GOD;

an;

Agnostic is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who forms no beliefs either way. They lack belief in the existence of GODs and they lack belief in the non-existence of GOD. In other words, they have formed no beliefs either way about the knowledge.

an;

Atheist is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who forms beliefs regarding that knowledge. They lack belief in the existence of GODs and they form beliefs in the non-existence of GOD. They have formed the belief that GODs do not exist, in regard to the knowledge.

They are - as mentioned - also into promoting the beliefs that agnostics are really 'weak atheists', that all humans are born atheists, and that even theists can be atheists in relation to other theists who believe in different ideas of GOD.

a;

Theist is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who either forms beliefs, adopts preexisting beliefs or mixes and matches the new with the preexisting.

All the above positions require knowledge of ideas of GOD, and are thus not based in the default of ignorance.

A new born human is the position of ignorance.

The atheist argument which got a foothold and has been used by atheists successfully to confuse the gullible - both in their own ranks and in the ranks of other positions - is that "human beings are born 'naturally atheist'". A deceptive claim.

Atheists spreading disinformation about human beings being born 'atheists' is also a way of fudging the numbers.


'Someone who lacks belief on GODs' = Atheists deceptive definition of atheism


So that definition of atheist becomes open to interpretation and - when it comes to labling others, or being used to confuse, or to make further deceptive claims about - also becomes potentially abusive in regard to the unwary.

No position can correctly and ethically give itself the right to proclaim that all new born humans are 'of its ilk.'

The argument that all new born humans are atheists, is false because it is based upon a false definition - a definition which allows for atheist to thus make the claim.

The TRUTH is, the definition of atheist is;

Atheist is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who forms beliefs regarding that knowledge. They lack belief in the existence of GODs and they form beliefs in the non-existence of GOD. They have formed the belief that GODs do not exist, in regard to the knowledge.

[Bust Nak]

I already covered that a few posts back. It is simply because atheists appear to want their argument for atheism to be stronger and more appealing to the undecided, that they make erroneous efforts to be all-inclusive which is why they attempt to stack the deck in the favor of their position (which is "believe that GODs don't exist") and state that all humans are born atheists.

And the counter argument is: it's simply because theists appear to want their argument for theism to be stronger and more appealing to the undecided, that they make erroneous efforts to make atheism less-inclusive, which is why they attempt to stack the deck in the favor of their position (which is "atheist believe that GODs don't exist") and stated that no humans are born atheists.

Atheists lack belief in GODs. Only a subset actively believe GODs do not exist.

If anything, everyone is born ignorant. They lack knowledge. Lacking belief comes later when knowledge is obtained...

Not lacking belief implies having beliefs though, so you are trying to tell me, babies are born theists then briefly becomes atheists, as they obtain knowledge, and either remain an atheist or convert back?

Theist is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who either forms beliefs, adopts preexisting beliefs or mixes and matches the new with the preexisting.

Right, which means babies are not theists and by default atheists.

A new born human is the position of ignorance, making them atheists.

The theist argument which is trying to maintain its foothold and has been used by theists successfully to confuse the gullible in their own ranks - is that "human beings are not born 'naturally atheist'." A deceptive claim.

Theists spreading disinformation about human beings not being born 'atheists' is also a way of fudging the numbers.

'Someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who forms beliefs regarding that knowledge'' = theists deceptive definition of atheism.

So that definition of atheist becomes open to interpretation and - when it comes to labling others, or being used to confuse, or to make further deceptive claims about - also becomes potentially abusive in regard to the unwary.

Atheism can correctly and ethically give itself the right to proclaim that all new born humans are 'of its ilk.'

The argument that all new born humans are not atheists, is false because it is based upon a false definition - a definition which allows for theist to thus make the claim.

The TRUTH is, the definition of atheist is;

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

In case it need stating explicitly, my underlying point is, all you have are assertions, not an argument.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 311 by Bust Nak]

Why does it seem that way to you?

Personal opinions were used to comment on negative feelings toward the idea of non-physical existence and in a way, to those who accept this. The attempt to use science as a support tool is a non-starter, where science itself rejects the notion that it can determine the falsehood of non-physical life existing.

However, this thread introduced a concept, which is physical in nature and can be explained by naturally existing rules. The idea here is that an equal playing field must be guaranteed…Where, the writers you mentioned seemed to not even consider this concept…

How is the scientific method, as propose by brunumb, Danmark and others here, different from the scientific method as outline by the article linked to in post #302?

The scientific method only addresses a "limited understanding" of the physical. This was clearly shown in post 302, 304 and 310. Where, the writer in the Forbes article admits that the use of extrapolation is incredibly limiting the actual facts (302). It is also commonly accepted in the scientific community that the lack of evidence does not equate to something that doesn't exist (304). And, the fact that science has had problems with the absurdities of some of its own theories and the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises (310) surely gives many the reason for pause. These realities are not included in the rebuttal postings.

For example: Gravity is a natural phenomenon or miracle, which is only understood by how it works. But, science has no clear idea on how our universal got it…This lack of origin is not generally discussed. Why? Maybe, it's because most scientists accept the concept of materialism and just can't accept the reality of gravity's actual origin. This problem affects many other scientific positions.

And why shouldn't we, given its benefits in selected areas?

Because, common sense, historical writings, logic and faith are a factor in scientific understandings, not always or "all four listed" in every case. Yet, in one way or another, they are used. So, to assume that past mistakes and logic are ignored, even common sense and personal beliefs don't influence, is truly a stretch and would be hard to believe…

[Danmark]

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…

That is as far as one needs to read to understand whether your arguments even deserve to be read, let alone answered.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 308 by brunumb]

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.

When, you use the phrase: "in other words" and what follows, you are only giving a personal opinion.

It is far more than "personal opinion." The scientific method has resulted in the eradication of disease and all the technological advances we enjoy, from the computers and internet that allow us to communicate, to the wonder of UHD TV and modern travel.
In other words
“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.�

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Scientific proof is a myth…

Of course, and that is a core principle of science- the method

And also the reason why science- the academic/political opinion, is so often diametrically opposed to it.

[Bust Nak]

Personal opinions were used to comment on negative feelings toward the idea of non-physical existence and in a way, to those who accept this. The attempt to use science as a support tool is a non-starter, where science itself rejects the notion that it can determine the falsehood of non-physical life existing...

Who is using science as a support tool in determining the truth of "non-physical life existing" though? The whole point of my challenge was that you seem don't seem to be responding to what was written but responding to what you thought the implications were.

The scientific method only addresses a "limited understanding" of the physical. This was clearly shown in post 302, 304 and 310. Where, the writer in the Forbes article admits that the use of extrapolation is incredibly limiting the actual facts (302). It is also commonly accepted in the scientific community that the lack of evidence does not equate to something that doesn't exist (304). And, the fact that science has had problems with the absurdities of some of its own theories and the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises (310) surely gives many the reason for pause.

So far so good...

These realities are not included in the rebuttal postings.

... but that's where you lost me. brunumb and co were very careful in reflecting said realities.

Because, common sense, historical writings, logic and faith are a factor in scientific understandings, not always or "all four listed" in every case.

Logic, sure, what place do the other three have in science?

[William]

[Replying to post 313 by Bust Nak]

I already covered that a few posts back. It is simply because atheists appear to want their argument for atheism to be stronger and more appealing to the undecided, that they make erroneous efforts to be all-inclusive which is why they attempt to stack the deck in the favor of their position (which is "believe that GODs don't exist") and state that all humans are born atheists.

And the counter argument is: it's simply because theists appear to want their argument for theism to be stronger and more appealing to the undecided, that they make erroneous efforts to make atheism less-inclusive, which is why they attempt to stack the deck in the favor of their position (which is "atheist believe that GODs don't exist") and stated that no humans are born atheists.

Atheists lack belief in GODs. Only a subset actively believe GODs do not exist.

Well at least I gave some example as to how atheists arguments about this are erroneous. You arguing that theists can do the same underlines my argument that either way the argument that newborn humans are 'atheist' or 'theist' is erroneous.

You also keep ignoring the argument that whether one's position is agnostic, atheist or theist, all positions are created through knowledge (of the subject of ideas of GOD) not new-born human ignorance.

If anything, everyone is born ignorant. They lack knowledge. Lacking belief comes later when knowledge is obtained...

Not lacking belief implies having beliefs though, so you are trying to tell me, babies are born theists then briefly becomes atheists, as they obtain knowledge, and either remain an atheist or convert back?

On its own 'not lacking beliefs' might imply having beliefs, but it is not on its own. It is accompanied by knowledge of ideas of GOD.

From the 3 positions, only agnostics remain lacking in the forming of beliefs re knowledge of ideas of GOD. That is ready what is going on. Agnostics do not form beliefs around the knowledge of ideas of GOD.

When they do, they then shift from being agnostic to being atheist or theists.

The truth of this is simple enough for most individuals to comprehend. The truth of this allows for any confusion to be sorted.

Theist is someone who has knowledge of ideas of GODs and who either forms beliefs, adopts preexisting beliefs or mixes and matches the new with the preexisting.

Right, which means babies are not theists and by default atheists.

Incorrect. Babies do not have knowledge of ideas of GOD, which is prerequisite to holding the recognized positions of agnostic, atheist and theist. The idea that there are only 'theists' or 'atheists' is bogus as well.

The rest of your post is more of the same erroneous argument from you. Even the fact that you have not brought your own words of argument from your own thought processes implies you have no valid argument to make. Your main mistake is in continuing to believe babies are atheists because you are trying to avoid the fact that knowledge of ideas of GOD is prerequisite to the positions of agnostic, atheist and theist.

Once one allows that truth into ones thought processes, one is better equipped to proceed in truthfulness, avoiding confusing, erroneous definitions and seeing through other arguments which come from being based in these erroneous definitions some believe in and actively promote.