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.

[bluegreenearth]

Thats just semantics... it depends on the definition you chose for that word. Thats why, nobody that wants to have a serious debate claims they have no beliefs... if you dont have beliefs you can not debate. Try debating with a rock, would be the same outcome.

It is demonstrable that someone need not claim a belief to expose where fallacious reasoning was employed by other people in defense of their claimed belief. Offering a counter-belief would be superfluous in such an exercise.

Dude... you really dont get it right? there is no way to judge anything without a measure... it is literally impossible.

How would you know if something is hot or cold if you dont know what those words mean? language only makes sense because we assigne a meaning to the words that describe a concept.

The framework is what determines the meaning of those words... without framework your words mean nothing. So if you accept you have no framework, you just declined to possibility to debate in a serious manner. Everything you say mean nothing.

Sure, I'll grant you that a shared language framework is required to expose where fallacious reasoning was employed by other people in defense of their claimed belief. It seems obvious to me that a shared language framework was already entailed in what I had previously stated without it having to be publicly declared. So, your objection seems to be grasping at straws a bit here. Furthermore, when conducting an internal critique of someone's claimed belief, there is still no functionality to declaring and defending a counter-belief in that situation. In fact, all you can and should do when conducting an internal critique is evaluate the other person's belief from within the framework of that belief, no external framework required.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #38]

I didn't mention that posture because it's not my posture.

can you define your posture?

I laid that out in full in my post.

Look at the argument again... that's my "posture".

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #52]

Thats not a posture or framework... Thats is the definition you chose for Atheism.

But that itself does not define your posture or framework... It seems to me that you are proving my point.

If you don't have a framework, where are all those critiques to theism coming from?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #52]

In case you aren't already aware, Vilferatus is attempting to run a presuppositional apologetic trap on you. I don't recommend engaging with the intellectual dishonesty of presupposional apologetics unless you understand how to conduct an internal critique of it.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #52]

In case you aren't already aware, Vilferatus is attempting to run a presuppositional apologetic trap on you. I don't recommend engaging with the intellectual dishonesty of presupposional apologetics unless you understand how to conduct an internal critique of it.

How is that intelectually dishonest? and what is the trap im supposed to be preparing for him?

[Mr E]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #54]

In case you aren't already aware, Vilferatus is attempting to run a presuppositional apologetic trap on you. I don't recommend engaging with the intellectual dishonesty of presupposional apologetics unless you understand how to conduct an internal critique of it.

Yes! By all means, when asked to explain their actual positions, atheists should run and hide.

-Because they can't. Their only argument is always to lash out at the beliefs of others, while pretending they are "above" beliefs. It's complete intellectual dishonesty in it's purest form.

I'm glad you recognize the dilemma.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #54]

In case you aren't already aware, Vilferatus is attempting to run a presuppositional apologetic trap on you. I don't recommend engaging with the intellectual dishonesty of presupposional apologetics unless you understand how to conduct an internal critique of it.

Yes! By all means, when asked to explain their actual positions, atheists should run and hide.

-Because they can't. Their only argument is always to lash out at the beliefs of others, while pretending they are "above" beliefs. It's complete intellectual dishonesty in it's purest form.

I'm glad you recognize the dilemma.

Im sure you are being sarcastic, but, how im I supposed to be intelectually dishonest for asking "where are your critiques coming from?" what is the standard you are using to claim something is good or wrong?

[Mr E]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #57]

Im sure you are being sarcastic, but, how im I supposed to be intelectually dishonest for asking "where are your critiques coming from?" what is the standard you are using to claim something is good or wrong?

Not sarcastic per se, rather I'm pointing out the absurdity of the atheist arguments wherein they claim to have no beliefs.

Of course they do. They just don't like the fact pointed out to them. It's pretense that they love to hide behind, thinking it some sort of high ground to throw rocks at someone's beliefs while claiming none of their own.

It's 'bad faith contrarianism' and merely an attempt to avoid scrutiny of their own positions while trying to dismantle everyone else's. @blugreenearth recognizes your effectiveness at dismantling @ray the atheist position, so he is telling him-- "danger danger danger" because he sees that it destroys ray's ability to strategically hide or downplay his beliefs if he responds to your query. Of course your questions are asked honestly, but neither of them can admit that, nor answer honest questions while pretending their views are unassailable.

It's so easy for them to stomp their feet and yell-- "I don't believe in God or creation!" (for example) but when you ask them what they believe?-- they gape mouth open.... 'I don't know, but it's not God.

And that's where they get stuck.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #57]

Im sure you are being sarcastic, but, how im I supposed to be intelectually dishonest for asking "where are your critiques coming from?" what is the standard you are using to claim something is good or wrong?

Not sarcastic per se, rather I'm pointing out the absurdity of the atheist arguments wherein they claim to have no beliefs.

Of course they do. They just don't like the fact pointed out to them. It's pretense that they love to hide behind, thinking it some sort of high ground to throw rocks at someone's beliefs while claiming none of their own.

It's 'bad faith contrarianism' and merely an attempt to avoid scrutiny of their own positions while trying to dismantle everyone else's. @blugreenearth recognizes your effectiveness at dismantling @ray the atheist position, so he is telling him-- "danger danger danger" because he sees that it destroys ray's ability to strategically hide or downplay his beliefs if he responds to your query. Of course your questions are asked honestly, but neither of them can admit that, nor answer honest questions while pretending their views are unassailable.

It's so easy for them to stomp their feet and yell-- "I don't believe in God or creation!" (for example) but when you ask them what they believe?-- they gape mouth open.... 'I don't know, but it's not God.

And that's where they get stuck.

I agree with you, I just would prefer to focus on the reasoning rather than their intentions. But my problem with "bluegreen" is that he generally avoids talking about his own framework... So how im I supposed to consider his words seriously on a debate, if he is not willing to define what he fundamentally means with them.

[Clownboat]

If someone claims that they are atheist, under the definition you just provided..

what would be their stance? can you define that?

There must not be any belief and there must not be any stance. The ONLY requirement is a lack of belief in god concepts.

or atheism is just a label that people use to hide their real beliefs so they dont have any burden of proof?

Thank you for evidencing my claim:
"I believe it is the desired view for many Christians for atheists to be some enemy of Christianity that drives this misunderstanding."

Readers, this poster clearly desires atheist to be some enemy that rejects, or in this case, hides their belief.
This need for an enemy is cult behavior and is used to create unity within the group. Atheist lack belief, they are not enemies anymore than an adult is an enemy of Santa Claus.