Atheism -"No God, "religion has no validity"

[dreamsofpotato]

Got into a small debate with someone over atheism, thought i'd come here for some advice:

I said i'm an atheist. He responds and said he could never be one because atheism says there is absolutely no god and nothing created the universe. I disagreed with that definition and said that I'm pretty sure the only absolute claim that atheism makes is that Religion has no validity, no credibility in any sort of cosmological debate, that religion is made-up and the gods of those religions are made-up. As for cosmology, I said, most atheists leave that question to science.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this argument. Should i not have argued and accepted his definition of atheism? Was I wrong in my definition? Does such a claim warrant a correction? Or were we both splitting hairs?

[robvalue]

The most accepted definition of atheism is that you lack belief in gods. In other words, you see no good reason or evidence to believe they do exist. It doesn't mean you are necessarily saying that they actually don't exist. What that says about religion is really up to each atheist. It would be a safe bet that it would follow on from this to say most religions also lack evidence and are invalid, but it's not part of the definition as such. Atheism only directly assesses claims about existence of gods.

Atheism says nothing more than this, so no it's not claiming anything about where the universe came from or how. People tend to tack on stuff like this, but it's totally invalid. Any particular atheist could hold any number of further views, but that's nothing to do with atheism.

So unless you're saying you're a gnostic/strong atheist, who also claims there is no God, he is wrong. And either way, claims about origins are unrelated so that's a red herring.

Hope that's of some help?

[abaris]

Depends on the definition of nothing. If it's about nothing sentient, I tend to agree. But something did create the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.

I would also go as far as to say, the existence of the universe in it's vastness is the strongest argument against all the scripted geocentric gods.

[robvalue]

The universe may have always existed though, and as such would require no cause.

[AFTT47]

I've said this before and I'm sorry if anyone is tired of hearing it. Somebody asked though, so...

Don't waste your time arguing the meaning of labels. Tell them exactly what you believe and let them worry about labels.

[bennyboy]

Got into a small debate with someone over atheism, thought i'd come here for some advice:

I said i'm an atheist. He responds and said he could never be one because atheism says there is absolutely no god and nothing created the universe. I disagreed with that definition and said that I'm pretty sure the only absolute claim that atheism makes is that Religion has no validity, no credibility in any sort of cosmological debate, that religion is made-up and the gods of those religions are made-up. As for cosmology, I said, most atheists leave that question to science.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this argument. Should i not have argued and accepted his definition of atheism? Was I wrong in my definition? Does such a claim warrant a correction? Or were we both splitting hairs?

Just FYI:

a = "not", the- (theos) = "god", -ism = "belief"

You can combine these two ways:
1) a+theism = not theism, i.e. LACK a belief in God. "You believe in God. I don't have that belief, unless you can prove it's valid." (also called weak atheism).

2) athe- (atheos) + ism = belief in not-God. "I've never seen evidence for any God, and I do not think the God idea is even logically sound. I believe no God exists." (also called strong atheism).


You can be strong atheist about specific definitions of God, and a weak atheist about others: "I definitely don't believe in an all-good Sky Daddy who punishes sins with an eternity in hellfire. But I'm open to the idea that SOME kind of god exists if you can show me some evidence for it." Of course, your friend's evidence is likely to be the existence of the universe, which he will insist without evidence must have been created by an intelligent entity. Or maybe he'll just wave toward a beautiful sunset and talk about the glory of Jeebus.

[wiploc]

The universe may have always existed though, and as such would require no cause.

I don't understand that claim. I know that Christians make that claim about their god, but it seems arbitrary.

Suppose we discovered that a hamburger had always existed: two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, all on a sesame seed bun. Wouldn't you want an explanation? Wouldn't you want to know what had caused that to always exist?

I feel the same way about Jehovah. And, if the universe is eternal, then I feel that way about the universe.

Let me clarify: I'm not saying that eternal gods, universes, and hamburgers necessarily have causes. I don't know that they do. I think plenty of non-eternal things (tiny things) are uncaused.

But I also think that when theists claim that everything---except their god---needs a cause, they are being arbitrary and self-serving.

I don't know of any reason to believe that eternal things are uncaused.

[Magilla]

The universe may have always existed though, and as such would require no cause.

I don't know of any reason to believe that eternal things are uncaused.

I don't want to play a semantics game, but my interpretation is that something eternal has no beginning, and so there is no BEFORE to its existence. Thus if something could be eternal, then it would have no cause. Cause necessarily entails a before state.

[robvalue]

Yeah, things get a bit weird when you talk about eternal things. For something to have proceeded an eternal universe, it must have caused the universe "giving" it an eternal past, or perhaps putting it in a state where it mimics a universe that actually has had an eternal past. Like a saved game state.

I'm not sure how else it could work.

[emilynghiem]

The universe may have always existed though, and as such would require no cause.

I don't understand that claim. I know that Christians make that claim about their god, but it seems arbitrary.

Suppose we discovered that a hamburger had always existed: two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, all on a sesame seed bun. Wouldn't you want an explanation? Wouldn't you want to know what had caused that to always exist?

I feel the same way about Jehovah. And, if the universe is eternal, then I feel that way about the universe.

Let me clarify: I'm not saying that eternal gods, universes, and hamburgers necessarily have causes. I don't know that they do. I think plenty of non-eternal things (tiny things) are uncaused.

But I also think that when theists claim that everything---except their god---needs a cause, they are being arbitrary and self-serving.

I don't know of any reason to believe that eternal things are uncaused.

HI wiploc
I see the human conscience as questioning things if it is meant to find some answer.
and if it already has the answer/information needed as good enough, it won't seek more. the tricky part is sometimes like a zen riddle, where just because you pose the question on one thing, it doesn't mean that's the real reason for asking. sometimes the process of answering that question leads to some other understanding that voids the original question as not the real point.

this happens to me all the time. I seek a solution to a question or problem and by the time I find things that help me, they may not be at all what I thought I needed or wanted. but in the search, I was led to places, people or resources that helped me anyway.

in the case of God and the universe, the truth is we can never really prove or disprove one way or the other because none of us was physically there at the time these supposedly started. so it is all faith based anyway. our reasons for either questioning, rejecting or being satisfied with the answers we have depend on what works for us.
and if something isn't good enough, we will search further. but again the answers we find may not be to the questions we thought were important or we were asking.

happens to me so often, i expect this as the norm.

---

Yeah, things get a bit weird when you talk about eternal things. For something to have proceeded an eternal universe, it must have caused the universe "giving" it an eternal past, or perhaps putting it in a state where it mimics a universe that actually has had an eternal past. Like a saved game state.

I'm not sure how else it could work.

the way I would explain the eternal truth/universe
it would be like the script in life was already written, it just exists period.
the plot points and characters in the beginning are already set up to
work with the events in the middle and the end; these are co-influencing
and correlated and not before/after cause/effect but designed as an
integrated plot where the ending influences why the beginning happened and
vice versa.

and then we as players acting out the script move linearly
from scene to scene, and we go through suspension of disbelief,
just like going through a movie you already know is written and how it goes.
but when you are following the scenes, you still feel suspense or surprise
at the unexpected jumps. we still go through the ups and downs to enjoy the
roller coaster ride and journey through life, but have faith there is a happy ending.

so from our viewpoint the cause and effect is linear timewise,
but that's not how the script was written where all characters
and interactions were designed holistically to balance out and tell a complete story.