Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Edwardo Piet]

Anger is virtuous at times.

Since when? Besides, I thought it was supposed to be one of the seven vices and not one of the seven virtues?

---

The point is that atheists, on THEIR own view, should not find meaning and value in life.

Absolute nonsense. Meaning is not an illusion at all, it completely makes sense from my atheistic viewpoint that meaning exists because subjective meaning is still meaning and still exists.... in the brain. Subjective meaning has a physical existence for fuck's sake. (Objective meaning also exists as tautology (a rock is still a rock whether we're around to appreciate that fact or not): And why should any other objective meaning be necessary?)).

[...]atheists are inconsistent because things like objective values and deep meaning (e.g., "Why are we here?") are unintelligible under atheism.

Nonsense once again. (In that it's no different with theism). "Why are we here?" makes the assumption that there is a reason, a cause. Theists don't know that God exists they just speculate, so they don't really know the cause of existence. I, as an atheist, likewise, don't ultimately know the cause of the universe and ultimately why we are here, but I don't need to know as they don't need to know. I speculate just like they, as theists, do. I just don't make the assumption of God's existence, I instead accept the fact that either the universe has a cause or it doesn't, and if it does I don't know what it is. If it does have a cause why the fuck would it be God?

If the cause of the universe is to be labelled as a "creator", why does it have to have a mind or be at all God-like? Why call it God?

There are many atheists, even here in these forums, who blissfully commit the basic logical mistake of reasoning, "There is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, God does not exist."

I've posted here more than anyone else, and I'm yet to have seen any atheist say that either explicitly or implicitly. There are the gnostic atheists who think they 'know', but I am yet to see them say that they 'know' God doesn't exist because there is a lack of evidence. From what I've seen, the gnostic atheists here actually think they have positive reasons to believe God is impossible, they are not making the Argument From Ignorance they just have invalid reasons to believe God is impossible.

And as for the agnostic atheists here (which I think outnumber the gnostic atheists): They openly admit that God is a possibility. I, for instance, as an agnostic atheist will openly say that there is a lack of evidence for God but he is nevertheless a possibility, or, I will give my opinion that God doesn't exist and assert it "God doesn't exist" (like a lot of us, just for simplicity, will assert our opinions on other matters, such as aesthetics, as if they're fact when we know they're not really) but I of course don't actually believe God is impossible.

When has an agnostic atheist on this forum actually implied that because there is an absence of evidence for God, that God therefore doesn't exist? Accusations of the Argument of Ignorance should be used sparingly, since even when people seem to be using it, they are so often simply being bold. So unless they explicitly declare such a fallacy, you're almost certainly wasting your time and muddying the waters.

(One type of Argument from Ignorance however, the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" is much more common and easier to spot, I think).