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.

[Vilferatus]

Epistemological Fallacies of the "I Have No Beliefs" Stance in Debate

1. The Definition of Knowledge: Standard epistemology defines knowledge as justified true belief. Claiming to have no beliefs means admitting to having no knowledge. Without knowledge, an individual logically forfeits the right to evaluate or critique an opponent's claims as "false" or "absurd," as they lack a standard of measurement.

The claim some atheist are making is not that they have no beliefs about any claims at all but a lack of belief in the single claim that a god exists. Atheists may have sufficient knowledge about the claim's logical framework for them to conduct an internal critique of the theist's argument.

2. Burden of Proof Asymmetry: Debaters use this phrase as a rhetorical tactic to evade the burden of proof, attempting to maintain absolute neutrality. However, debate is a confrontation of worldviews, not a passive observation. The moment a skeptic issues a negative judgment (e.g., "Your argument is invalid"), they abandon neutrality and make a positive claim that requires justification.

A debate need not always be a confrontation between opposing claims. An internal critique necessarily prohibits an appeal to an external framework. Therefore, it is justifiable to judge an argument as invalid within the context of its own logical framework.

3. Smuggling Axioms: Those who claim to have no beliefs covertly operate under hidden frameworks like materialism, empiricism, or scientism. By refusing to name their presuppositions, they avoid scrutiny, reducing the debate to a one-way attack and violating the core rule of intellectual reciprocity.

Please demonstrate how an internal critique necessarily entails the smuggling of external axioms.

"The claim some atheist are making is not that they have no beliefs about any claims at all but a lack of belief in the single claim that a god exists. Atheists may have sufficient knowledge about the claim's logical framework for them to conduct an internal critique of the theist's argument."

That is true, but you are not using the axioms, and premises from theism.. so yours is not an "internal critique", is an attack using an "unknown framework", the only thing we know about that unknown framework is:

1. It rejects God

2. It must be weak, cause you are afraid to accept it.

[bluegreenearth]

Atheism itself cannot have any beliefs because atheism itself is a belief----the belief that no gods exist.

If the concept of atheism is to only describe the belief that no gods exist, how would you prefer to categorize people who neither claim belief in the non-existence of a god nor claim belief in the existence of a god?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #112]

If the concept of atheism is to only describe the belief that no gods exist, how would you prefer to categorize people who neither claim belief in the non-existence of a god nor claim belief in the existence of a god?

There's always agnosticism.

[bluegreenearth]

"The claim some atheist are making is not that they have no beliefs about any claims at all but a lack of belief in the single claim that a god exists. Atheists may have sufficient knowledge about the claim's logical framework for them to conduct an internal critique of the theist's argument."

That is true, but you are not using the axioms, and premises from theism.. so yours is not an "internal critique", is an attack using an "unknown framework", the only thing we know about that unknown framework is:

1. It rejects God

2. It must be weak, cause you are afraid to accept it.

The explanation I provided was not intended to serve as an internal critique of theism. It was merely clarifying that some atheists do not claim to lack any beliefs at all. So, unless it is permissible within a theistic framework to dishonestly misrepresent what some atheists are claiming, you need to make the appropriate correction.

Returning to the syllogism you provided earlier :

In P1, what is the argument for the entailed claim that the principles of Classical logic can and must be treated as an absolute standard for someone to conduct an internal critique?

In P2, what is the argument for the entailed claim that a logical framework can and must be grounded?

In P3, What is the argument for the entailed claim that an ultimate cause or absolute foundation can only be the Christian god?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #112]

If the concept of atheism is to only describe the belief that no gods exist, how would you prefer to categorize people who neither claim belief in the non-existence of a god nor claim belief in the existence of a god?

There's always agnosticism.

If applying the "agnostic" label is the only way you will properly understand the position of people who lack belief in the claim that a god exists, then why not just substitute the "atheist" label with the "agnostic" label in your mind when you encounter those individuals? Is the arbitrary category label really more important to you than the person's actual position?

[otseng]

[Replying to Mr E in post #80]

Moderator Warning



Personal attacks are forbidden on this forum.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Replying to Mr E in post #80]

[Mr E]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #111]

That is true, but you are not using the axioms, and premises from theism.. so yours is not an "internal critique", is an attack using an "unknown framework", the only thing we know about that unknown framework is:

1. It rejects God

2. It must be weak, cause you are afraid to accept it.

Yes, this-- but not only this.

They create this 'without belief' category for themselves entirely so that their actual, honest beliefs can't be assailed in any way. This is the cowardice I mentioned, and it's not a criticism of any one person, I apologize if it came across that way. My contention is that it's merely a tactic that atheists utilize as a mask, or veil to hide behind. It's like standing on a pile of dung, defenseless, but claiming it's a mountaintop fortress that no one can approach. How convenient to pretend, but how obviously not what they wish it to be.

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.'

[Clownboat]

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

A valid challenge!
Post 85: Copy/paste = "If you believe you dont know something, thats a belief." - Vilferatus

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.

Now explain how are those propositions the same. You spectators are watching.

You quoted this post, but failed to address it. See the bold and correct my misunderstanding if one exists please.

[Clownboat]

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

A valid challenge!
Post 85: Copy/paste = "If you believe you dont know something, thats a belief." - Vilferatus

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.

Epistemological Fallacies of the "I Have No Beliefs" Stance in Debate

1. The Definition of Knowledge: Standard epistemology defines knowledge as justified true belief. Claiming to have no beliefs means admitting to having no knowledge. Without knowledge, an individual logically forfeits the right to evaluate or critique an opponent's claims as "false" or "absurd," as they lack a standard of measurement.

2. Burden of Proof Asymmetry: Debaters use this phrase as a rhetorical tactic to evade the burden of proof, attempting to maintain absolute neutrality. However, debate is a confrontation of worldviews, not a passive observation. The moment a skeptic issues a negative judgment (e.g., "Your argument is invalid"), they abandon neutrality and make a positive claim that requires justification.

3. Smuggling Axioms: Those who claim to have no beliefs covertly operate under hidden frameworks like materialism, empiricism, or scientism. By refusing to name their presuppositions, they avoid scrutiny, reducing the debate to a one-way attack and violating the core rule of intellectual reciprocity.

Ultimately, claiming to have no beliefs is the tactical equivalent of walking away from the chessboard, knocking over the opponent's pieces, and pretending to win simply by refusing to make a move.

This is what i´ve been saying this whole time. Used AI to present a summary, to see if that helps you to avoid retreating under the claim that you dont understand my point.

It can not get more clear than this. Let see how you deflect now.

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.

[Clownboat]

What they are doing is this:

1. Choose a convenient definition of atheism

2. Then claim they are atheist

3. Used the definition they chosed to claim they have no claims.

4. Keep using their beliefs to attack, while they refuse to acknowledge their beliefs so they dont have to defend them.

Readers, do you see that anyone here is doing this? Or have you noticed numerous times that I have supplied the break down of the word atheism? I acknowledge that Vilferatus and Mr. E would like atheism to be something that it is not, which is why they refuse to answer the question about an atheistic dentist as it shows the folly of their thinking.

Again, again, again, again...
a- (Prefix): A Greek prefix meaning "without" or "not". It acts as a negative or privative particle.
the- (Root): Derived from the Greek word theos, meaning "god" or "deity".
-ism (Suffix): A noun-forming suffix meaning "belief," "practice," or "doctrine".

Literally, "without god belief" and yet you still pretend that atheist are something that they are not in order to create an Us vs Them mentality.

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