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.

[Bradskii]

So we suddenly have agnostic atheists among us. "Whatever" that means.

Have you not hear that term before? Is this your first time having a chat with atheists? It's a very common term indeed. Have a read through this and it'll help:

https://www.humanreligions.info/types_of_atheism.html

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #155]

You say:

As far as I know, I believe that no supernatural gods exist.

after you say:

I'm quite happy to say that I believe that there is no supernatural.

So you qualify your belief after expressing it without qualification.

[Vilferatus]

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.

Pssst. We're having a debate right now. And from what I've seen there are quite a few debates going in the forum on to which atheists are contributing. Your statement is nonsensical.

Your statement is non sensical becasue you sadly dont understand whaty ive been saying.

1. They claim they are atheist

2. Then say atheism is a lack of belief in God

3. But when you ask them: What is you framework? and they say: I dont have a framework or something else that does not define any framework at all (pure deflection)

4. Then their framework is not atheist is just agnostic.

5. Then they attack christianity using not an agnostic framework, but an unknown undeclared framework. (It is literally intelectual dishonesty).


But clearly you are one of those if you are so biased as your answers show for example when you said:

"I don't agree with that. But for the purpose of this post...let's say I do, but with the following minor change: A god is a necessary concept in logic, logic could not exist without it.

The statement covers literally all possible gods. I don't know how you'd get from there to the specific god in which you believe. In fact, it's not possible."

when did I said the concept of "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist? Ill tell you where: Nowhere.

So what are you even talking about?

You are just assuming my position instead of reading what im saying, because you want me to be wrong. Clownboat, bluegreenearth and you have that in common. You are very engaged with this topic... why would that be?

[Vilferatus]

OK, so do you understand the contradicion in saying:

1. Im an atheist

2. Christianity is wrong and your God is evil

3. Atheist only means lacking a believe in God.

4. Im objectively correct.

Do you see it finally? or is it still incomprehensible to you?

I'll have to correct that as well.

1. Im an atheist
Yep, I'll go with that. We both understand what it means, so no confusion there.

2. Christianity is wrong and your God is evil
No, that needs qualifying (I'm assuming that there's an implied 'Therefore' at the beginning of that statement). It's that the evidence for Christianity has been deemed unconvincing resulting in the conviction that people holding a belief in Christianity are wrong. And it makes no sense to say 'Your God is evil' as I don't believe that He exists. It's like saying 'Your dragon is too noisy'. And whether you believe He is evil or not is up to you. Maybe you think He was OK to drown everyone etc (see examples upstream) or maybe you're more of an NT type of guy.

3. Atheist only means lacking a believe in God.
Sorry, no. It means lacking a belief in all the gods about whom we have been informed.

4. Im objectively correct.
It's an objective truth that I do actually believe what I've said it true.

Hope that helps. If you have any questions, I'm here to help answer them.

You are assuming wrong again. Try reading instead of creating strawman next time.

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Comment

Personal comments are not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bluegreenearth]

OK, so do you understand the contradicion in saying:

1. Im an atheist

2. Christianity is wrong and your God is evil

3. Atheist only means lacking a believe in God.

4. Im objectively correct.

Do you see it finally? or is it still incomprehensible to you?

Who is claiming to be objectively correct about what?

Let me help you get this corrected:

1. I don't know if a god exists or not, and I lack belief in unfalsifiable claims about a god's existence or non-existence.

2. "Atheist" is the label some people assign to a person who lacks belief in unfalsifiable claims about the existence of a god and can also be the label some people assign to a person who believes in the unfalsifiable claim that a god does not exist.

3. "Agnostic" is the label some people assign to a person who does not know if a god does or does not exist and can also be the label some people assign to a person who lacks belief in unfalsifiable claims about the existence or non-existence of a god.

4. It is objectively correct that it would be intellectually dishonest to knowingly rely upon a fallacious argument to justify a belief in an unfalsifiable claim.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #161]

Have you not hear that term before? Is this your first time having a chat with atheists? It's a very common term indeed. Have a read through this and it'll help:

I've heard of peas and carrots. And peas are not carrots.

Why is it so difficult for people who claim to be atheists to simply accept standard definitions of terms? Do you seriously not recognize a difference between agnostics and atheists?

[bluegreenearth]

OK, so do you understand the contradicion in saying:

1. Im an atheist

2. Christianity is wrong and your God is evil

3. Atheist only means lacking a believe in God.

4. Im objectively correct.

Do you see it finally? or is it still incomprehensible to you?

I'll have to correct that as well.

1. Im an atheist
Yep, I'll go with that. We both understand what it means, so no confusion there.

2. Christianity is wrong and your God is evil
No, that needs qualifying (I'm assuming that there's an implied 'Therefore' at the beginning of that statement). It's that the evidence for Christianity has been deemed unconvincing resulting in the conviction that people holding a belief in Christianity are wrong. And it makes no sense to say 'Your God is evil' as I don't believe that He exists. It's like saying 'Your dragon is too noisy'. And whether you believe He is evil or not is up to you. Maybe you think He was OK to drown everyone etc (see examples upstream) or maybe you're more of an NT type of guy.

3. Atheist only means lacking a believe in God.
Sorry, no. It means lacking a belief in all the gods about whom we have been informed.

4. Im objectively correct.
It's an objective truth that I do actually believe what I've said it true.

Hope that helps. If you have any questions, I'm here to help answer them.

You are assuming wrong again. Try reading instead of creating strawman next time.

John 8:7 - When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

[Bradskii]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #155]

You say:

As far as I know, I believe that no supernatural gods exist.

after you say:

I'm quite happy to say that I believe that there is no supernatural.

So you qualify your belief after expressing it without qualification.

I was hoping that it would be understood that 'as far as I know' is implied in every case. So the second quote is to be taken as: I'm quite happy to say that as far as I know, I believe that there is no supernatural.

I'm just saving myself some typing.

[Bradskii]

Your statement is non sensical becasue you sadly dont understand whaty ive been saying.

1. They claim they are atheist
2. Then say atheism is a lack of belief in God
3. But when you ask them: What is you framework? and they say: I dont have a framework or something else that does not define any framework at all (pure deflection)
4. Then their framework is not atheist is just agnostic.
5. Then they attack christianity using not an agnostic framework, but an unknown undeclared framework. (It is literally intelectual dishonesty).

I didn't understand what you mean by 'framework' in item 3. But in item 4 you go on to say that it's not atheist, it's agnostic (the existence of gods is unknown and/or unknowable). I don't know why you said that, but fair enough. We'll go with that. But I don't take that position. As far as I know (I'll include it this time even though it's always implied) there are no gods. So I refer to myself as an atheist. That's my 'framework'.

Item 5 again makes no sense to me. I don't attack Christianity but you think that those who do use an 'unknown undeclared framework', but it's not agnostic. If I was to comment on Christianity (not attack it) then it would be from my position as an atheist. So there ya go...my framework is now known and declared!

But clearly you are one of those if you are so biased as your answers show for example when you said:

"I don't agree with that. But for the purpose of this post...let's say I do, but with the following minor change: A god is a necessary concept in logic, logic could not exist without it.

The statement covers literally all possible gods. I don't know how you'd get from there to the specific god in which you believe. In fact, it's not possible."

when did I said the concept of "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist? Ill tell you where: Nowhere.

You must have forgotten. You literally said it in Post 30:

"God is a necessary concept in logic..."

I'm obviously assuming from your posts that you're a Christian. In fact I'm assuming it just from that quote, that 'God is a necessary concept...' So He would be the specific god in which you believe.