Atheism cannot be wrong

[Ray the atheist]

Preamble:

What can I possibly mean by that?
Notice that the title is about Atheism, and not Atheists..
I will be making that quite plain below

But first….

Definitions:

Atheism:

A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is an expression of a disbelief.
When I say that I'm an atheist, I am expressing my disbelief, I'm not making a claim that the god isn't real.
It might be real, I might be mistaken, your god might be real, but as an atheist, I just don't believe it.

Theism:

A belief in at least one god.
Theism is an expression of belief. When I say that I'm a theist, I'm expressing my belief that at least one god exists. My god might not be real. I might be mistaken. But as a theist, I believe that my god is real.

_________________________

Atheism isn't a moral claim:

Atheism cannot be morally wrong, as in “evil,” and it cannot be morally right, as in “good.”

Atheism isn't a truth claim:

Atheism cannot be factually wrong, as in “false,” and it cannot be factually right, as in “true.”

It cannot be factually or morally wrong to express a belief, or a disbelief.

So, atheism cannot be logically wrong, and it cannot be morally wrong.
______________________________

I am making the STRONG distinction here between "atheism" and "atheist".

Atheists can and do have moral and factual judgments of claims.. For example, I am very willing to discuss my conclusions about Christianity and all theism in general.

Atheists and Atheism are not identical.
The first means people who do not believe in gods, and the second is the position of a non-belief in gods.

I will remind you of that at the end of my preamble.
The distinction is crucial.

______________________________

Here is an example of a short conversation to explain what that means:

Christian : Hi.
Atheist: I don't believe in your god.
Christian: Is atheism making the truth claim that "there are no gods"?
Atheist: No.
Christian: Is atheism making the claim that Atheism is correct?
Atheist: No.
Christian: Is atheism making a truth claim?
Atheist: No. Atheism itself makes no truth claim. “I don't believe in your god” describes my mental state, not a claim about whether your god exists.

As you can see, the only claim that an atheist needs to make is that "I don't believe in your god".

_________________________

As to morality, it's the same deal:

Christian: Hi.
Atheist: I don't follow your morality.
Christian: Are you claiming that my morality is evil?
Atheist: Atheism itself makes no moral claims. I have my own, personal opinions, though.
Christian: Does atheism claim the moral high ground?
Atheist: No.
Christian: When it comes to morality, what ARE you claiming?
Atheist: Atheism does not make a moral claim. I'm simply saying that I don't follow your morality, and I can explain why.
________________________________________

The atheist in these conversations isn't making a truth claim about the existence of your God, and it's not making a moral claim about your God, your religion, or yourself.

“I don't believe X” does not logically entail “I believe not-X.”

Example: “I don't believe extraterrestrial life exists” does not mean “I believe extraterrestrial life does not exist.”

Christians should be aware of what most modern atheists are saying because it would save us all a lot of time.

Pew provides useful evidence. In 2019, 97% of self-described atheists defined atheist as someone who does not believe in God, rather than explicitly claiming God does not exist.

This 97% can be noticed across most social media, including reddit atheists. Very few atheists insist that they know there is no God. .. It would be nice if reddit allowed for polls, we could make a quick test of what atheists actually claim.

So, if you can accept that we aren't making any truth claim or moral claim, then, atheism can't be factually or morally wrong.

Remember, that I'm not talking about my personal position on Christianity as the truth, nor am I talking about my personal position on Christianity as morally righteous.

Those would be my personal opinions, not the meaning of atheism.


The Argument:

P1: Non-belief in X does not entail a factual or moral claim about X.
P2: Atheism, understood as non-belief, is non-belief in gods.

C: Therefore, atheism cannot be factually or morally wrong.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #97]

Readers, did you notice how he failed to address these challenges?
(Post 86) Now readers, please notice if Mr. E addresses either of the challenges:
1. Claiming that someone belongs to a group because they withhold belief in the gods is like identifying someone as a non stamp collector. That and they claim it is ill defined. Will the breakdown of the definition be ignored again, or addressed?
2. Is it cowardly for a person to withhold belief in String Theory?

Readers, ask yourself who the coward is...

An imaginary fan following? In psychology, this refers to a subconscious emotional regulation strategy where an individual behaves, thinks, or styles their life as if they are constantly being watched, admired, or critiqued by a large group of spectators or "fans".

"Dear Readers...." lol

Vilferatus wrote:

Where did i claim that? copy paste that for your spectators xD

Exactly.

Mr. E.
I have been debating here for a long time. When my debate opponents refuse to answer valid debate questions, I have no recourse but to instead appeal to our readers.
I assure you, our readers our not imaginary.

Care to take a stab at non stamp collecting or if withholding belief in String Theory would be cowardly? You quoted these things from me, but then just made ad hominem attacks and didn't address what was asked of you. I'm sure those reading here have noticed.

[Vilferatus]

I do have beliefs, so I don't know why you keep saying that I don't.
You quoted this post, but failed to address it. See the bold and correct my misunderstanding if one exists please.

So you are not an atheist?

[Clownboat]

It's the weakest of positions-- and they know it, which is why they must pretend 'they have no belief' rather than accept that the claim they are making is a belief in a world 'without God.'

Your critique is not valid.

I currently lack belief in all the available god concepts and would add a God belief if/when I find one to be credible. I do not hold a belief in a world without gods like you falsely lay at my feet and I personally like the idea of a loving God/afterlife. Can you make a God belief credible for me to then place my belief in? If you nor anyone else can at this time, I will reserve my right to continue to withhold belief until I deem it necessary to add a belief.

Do you acknowledge that I'm withholding belief until/unless conditions change? If I actively held a belief that the gods were not real, I would not be willing to add this belief, but I am willing to add a God belief to my life again.

Just so you know, I'm technically I'm not an atheist, but I more or less accept that label while debating on this board as it is far less confusing for most Christians. That and the Christian god concept is what is mostly discussed here and in regards to that god concept specifically, I withhold belief, so being perceived as an atheist seems apt enough for me to not split hairs here.

[Clownboat]

I do have beliefs, so I don't know why you keep saying that I don't.
You quoted this post, but failed to address it. See the bold and correct my misunderstanding if one exists please.

So you are not an atheist?

Correct, but in regards to this debate site and your preferred god concepts specifically, you can consider me an atheist as that label is valid enough.

The part you quote mind out again was this:
You and Mr. E continue to insist that atheism is something that it is not. It is mandatory to lack beliefs in the available god concepts in order to qualify as an atheist. Do you acknowledge this fact?
A person could be an atheistic dentist. Such a person would have two qualities that every human on earth can know without a doubt about this person:
1. They are a dentist.
2. They LACK belief in the available gods.
If I'm wrong, please correct my misunderstanding.

[Vilferatus]

I do have beliefs, so I don't know why you keep saying that I don't.
You quoted this post, but failed to address it. See the bold and correct my misunderstanding if one exists please.

So you are not an atheist?

Correct, but in regards to this debate site and your preferred god concepts specifically, you can consider me an atheist as that label is valid enough.

The part you quote mind out again was this:
You and Mr. E continue to insist that atheism is something that it is not. It is mandatory to lack beliefs in the available god concepts in order to qualify as an atheist. Do you acknowledge this fact?
A person could be an atheistic dentist. Such a person would have two qualities that every human on earth can know without a doubt about this person:
1. They are a dentist.
2. They LACK belief in the available gods.
If I'm wrong, please correct my misunderstanding.

you are all over the place, dont have a defined posture, you jump from one framework to another, and you claim others are wrong but you are correct, that we misrepresent you, but you have no idea what you represent.

Ill ignore you from now on, until you start making sense.

[Clownboat]

you are all over the place, dont have a defined posture, you jump from one framework to another, and you claim others are wrong but you are correct, that we misrepresent you, but you have no idea what you represent.

Once again you ignore that which is asked of you in debate and instead offer nothing but ad hominem attacks which are against the rules.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

Ill ignore you from now on, until you start making sense.

As you have noticed, I no longer post for your benefit expecting you to reply to debate questions asked of you. I now mostly reply for those reading here and will continue to do so until I see fit. I don't even think about you outside of posting these replies.

[bluegreenearth]

If not a desire to create an Us vs Them mentality, then what else might be controlling their unacceptance?

I can only make an inference at this point based on the clues they've provided, but this behavior may be part of an intellectually dishonest strategy to bait the atheist into a question-begging apologetic tactic. It begins by insisting that atheists must demonstrate how their non-Christian worldview (i.e., atheistic beliefs) accounts for something like logic before they can use it to argue against Christianity. The apologist then presupposes the Christian god as the necessary precondition for intelligibility and proceeds to deconstruct the non-Christian's worldview in such a way as to accuse it of reducing to an absurdity unless they borrow from the Christian worldview.

[bluegreenearth]

Somehow, this response posted as a duplicate of my comment above. Please ignore this post.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #123]

I currently lack belief in all the available god concepts and would add a God belief if/when I find one to be credible. I do not hold a belief in a world without gods like you falsely lay at my feet and I personally like the idea of a loving God/afterlife. Can you make a God belief credible for me to then place my belief in? If you nor anyone else can at this time, I will reserve my right to continue to withhold belief until I deem it necessary to add a belief.

Do you acknowledge that I'm withholding belief until/unless conditions change? If I actively held a belief that the gods were not real, I would not be willing to add this belief, but I am willing to add a God belief to my life again.

Just so you know, I'm technically I'm not an atheist, but I more or less accept that label while debating on this board as it is far less confusing for most Christians. That and the Christian god concept is what is mostly discussed here and in regards to that god concept specifically, I withhold belief, so being perceived as an atheist seems apt enough for me to not split hairs here.

Your refusal to state whatever it is you really believe is telling. It's telling 'your readers' that your own true, personal beliefs are poorly defined and indefensible-- which is why you hide behind a facade, taking up only a sniper position from where you can attack others and remain a dissembler. It's opportunistic sanctimony and frankly tiresome.

I'll leave you to your readers, with one question regarding your hidden beliefs.

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #123]

I currently lack belief in all the available god concepts and would add a God belief if/when I find one to be credible. I do not hold a belief in a world without gods like you falsely lay at my feet and I personally like the idea of a loving God/afterlife. Can you make a God belief credible for me to then place my belief in? If you nor anyone else can at this time, I will reserve my right to continue to withhold belief until I deem it necessary to add a belief.

Do you acknowledge that I'm withholding belief until/unless conditions change? If I actively held a belief that the gods were not real, I would not be willing to add this belief, but I am willing to add a God belief to my life again.

Just so you know, I'm technically I'm not an atheist, but I more or less accept that label while debating on this board as it is far less confusing for most Christians. That and the Christian god concept is what is mostly discussed here and in regards to that god concept specifically, I withhold belief, so being perceived as an atheist seems apt enough for me to not split hairs here.

Your refusal to state whatever it is you really believe is telling. It's telling 'your readers' that your own true, personal beliefs are poorly defined and indefensible-- which is why you hide behind a facade, taking up only a sniper position from where you can attack others and remain a dissembler. It's opportunistic sanctimony and frankly tiresome.

I'll leave you to your readers, with one question regarding your hidden beliefs.

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments?

Please form valid debate questions so I can be allowed to attempt to demonstrate that what I believe is true.

For example, if you want to know what I believe about a subject, you need to ask. I can't refuse to answer a question you haven't asked.
If you do have a question about a belief I might have like you allude to above, please ask it of me and I promise I will provide an answer. Perhaps I'll be shown that what I believe is wrong and I'll then need to amend my thinking even!

I bolded the questions I asked of you that you quoted, but failed to respond to. (Pointing this out to the readers by the way).