Is the Tide Turning on Religious Belief?

[Dr. Who]

But it is, it is true as atheists. You can be more, adopt other, let's call them, identities, as in I'm an atheist, something of a traditionalist, a conservative, an American, a Westerner, etc. As discussed just above you might embrace some form of humanism. Whatever, but it won't be found in atheism no matter how you define it.

I think you've identified part of the problem with your assumptions, in that being an atheist doesn't define people, whereas to a great extent, theists are defined by their religious beliefs. The two are not conceptually similar. The word atheism describes not believing in the existence of gods but doesn't describe what the atheist does believe. It's analogous to saying this is a horse and that is not a horse. The only thing you know about the latter is that it's not a horse. Horse has a whole set of characteristics that are defined. You can't use those definitions to establish the characteristics of 'not a horse'. You can't ask 'horse' questions regarding 'not a horse' and expect coherent answers. For example, if you ask how many hooves 'not a horse' has, the response might be "none" or it has four "feet". So when you ask questions like how the atheist 'accounts' for the existence of evil (as in moral transgression), you are asking a 'horse' question because atheism doesn't doesn't ponder such questions nor does it account for the existence of such concepts. It has no tenets. It's 'not a horse'. All you can expect from that kind of question is either no answer or a pragmatic answer dealing with the possible causation of abnormal human behavior, which isn't what you were looking for. While some atheists adopt certain specific philosophies like humanism, existentialism or even nihilism, most atheists don't define their philosophical stance with that much specificity.

[Dr. Who]

Round and round we go.

You make your own truth, priciples and meaning out of an otherwise meaningless existence. Right? We are the source of truth. We are the source of meaning. Correct?

Therein lies the fundamental difference between theism and atheism, with the exception that atheists don't see their existence as meaningless, but yes, we are the source of our meaning. You appear to be using truth to connote a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality, which is of course inapplicable in an atheistic context.

[Dr. Who]

It means it comes from beyond you. You are not the source.

That doesn't mean that I'm not interested in his answer.

[Chris]

Therein lies the fundamental difference between theism and atheism, with the exception that atheists don't see their existence as meaningless, but yes, we are the source of our meaning. You appear to be using truth to connote a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality, which is of course inapplicable in an atheistic context.

Protagoras, the father of moral relativism: "Man is the measure of all things."

Plato, "Theaetetus": "For if sensations are always true, and one man's discernment is as good as another's, and every man is his own judge, and everything that he judges is right and true, then what need of Protagoras to be our instructor at a high figure; and why should we be less knowing than he is, or have to go to him, if every man is the measure of all things?"

[Chris]

I think you've identified part of the problem with your assumptions, in that being an atheist doesn't define people, whereas to a great extent, theists are defined by their religious beliefs. The two are not conceptually similar. The word atheism describes not believing in the existence of gods but doesn't describe what the atheist does believe. It's analogous to saying this is a horse and that is not a horse. The only thing you know about the latter is that it's not a horse. Horse has a whole set of characteristics that are defined. You can't use those definitions to establish the characteristics of 'not a horse'. You can't ask 'horse' questions regarding 'not a horse' and expect coherent answers. For example, if you ask how many hooves 'not a horse' has, the response might be "none" or it has four "feet". So when you ask questions like how the atheist 'accounts' for the existence of evil (as in moral transgression), you are asking a 'horse' question because atheism doesn't doesn't ponder such questions nor does it account for the existence of such concepts. It has no tenets. It's 'not a horse'. All you can expect from that kind of question is either no answer or a pragmatic answer dealing with the possible causation of abnormal human behavior, which isn't what you were looking for. While some atheists adopt certain specific philosophies like humanism, existentialism or even nihilism, most atheists don't define their philosophical stance with that much specificity.

The problem ain't my assumptions given that you're just repeating what I said. The problem is you think you can define your way to an answer. Definitions are like analogy, good for clarification of the unknown by the known. Neither are arguments.

[Mister D]

Therein lies the fundamental difference between theism and atheism, with the exception that atheists don't see their existence as meaningless, but yes, we are the source of our meaning. You appear to be using truth to connote a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality, which is of course inapplicable in an atheistic context.

I find this incredible. I can't understand why this took months for you to acknowledge. Right, if atheism is true, we exist in a meaningless, amoral universe. Nothing is true, nothing has meaning, nothing has value unless human beings decide it does. Yes, objective truths, moral facts and so on are inapplicable in an atheistic context. Why did you make such a fuss?

[Dr. Who]

Protagoras, the father of moral relativism: "Man is the measure of all things."

Plato, "Theaetetus": "For if sensations are always true, and one man's discernment is as good as another's, and every man is his own judge, and everything that he judges is right and true, then what need of Protagoras to be our instructor at a high figure; and why should we be less knowing than he is, or have to go to him, if every man is the measure of all things?"

I think there is a conceptual difference between the individual deriving his or her own meaning from life and the individual being the measure of all things. We interact with others, so we must have consensus on what is correct and true and one of the reasons that we have laws.

[Mister D]

Why does life have inherent meaning or purpose? Just because?

It doesn't. Finally, Dr Who understands and accepts that this is the logical conclusion of atheism.

[Mister D]

Protagoras, the father of moral relativism: "Man is the measure of all things."

Plato, "Theaetetus": "For if sensations are always true, and one man's discernment is as good as another's, and every man is his own judge, and everything that he judges is right and true, then what need of Protagoras to be our instructor at a high figure; and why should we be less knowing than he is, or have to go to him, if every man is the measure of all things?"

As an atheist, sge agrees that Man is the measure of all things. How much rage and insult did I have to endure to get that very obvious and simple point across?

[Mister D]

That doesn't mean that I'm not interested in his answer.

You no longer need it.