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]

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.

Tell me where do you see grown ups debathing if Santa Claus is real, and asking each other wether or not the letters kids send to Santa Claus are logical? xD

Your analogy is literally validating my point and destroying your own: To claim Santa Claus is analogic to God, you are taking a stance, that you know you can not defend logically, so you pretend you have none.

Ty for ilustrating that example of intelectual cowardice i was refering to.

[Clownboat]

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

Mr E, let me be the first to inform you that atheists do in fact have beliefs. Likely many of them. I have personally spoken with many an atheist.
However, when it comes to beliefs in the gods, they must lack this belief, otherwise they do not fit the definition of atheist.

Claiming anything else is just playing pretend. Likely to bolster group think: "look at that enemy of our beliefs' we need to unite against them".
The mechanism creates unity and a false justification that their beliefs must be important enough for this 'other group' to be against us.

For anyone interested:
Key Characteristics of a Cult
Us vs. them mentality: The group claims to be the sole source of truth and authority, while everyone outside of the group is portrayed as wrong, untrustworthy, or even evil.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cult-5078234

Atheists must lack belief in the gods, but this fact goes against portraying them as wrong, untrustworthy or evil, so many insist that there is a belief present when that is clearly not required.

[Clownboat]

Tell me where do you see grown ups debathing if Santa Claus is real, and asking each other wether or not the letters kids send to Santa Claus are logical?

Please copy/paste where I said I see grown up debating if Santa Claus is real. When you cannot, some self reflecting should take place.

To claim Santa Claus is analogic to God, you are taking a stance, that you know you can not defend logically, so you pretend you have none.

Santa Clause is analogic to God when we compare children and their Santa beliefs to Christians and their God beliefs. I have this stance and am prepared to defend it.

Ty for ilustrating that example of intelectual cowardice i was refering to.

What's that verse about pride again? I think it might have mentioned a fall as well...

[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.

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

Presuppositional apologetics is intellectually dishonest because it relies upon a "Begging the Question" fallacy by assuming the conclusion in the starting premise. It also relies upon an intellectually dishonest "Equivocation" fallacy when defending its reliance upon a "Begging the Question" fallacy. Presuppositional apologetics argues that its circular framework is justified because all epistemological frameworks must begin with unsupported assumptions. This deceptive justification conflates "vicious circularity" with the "foundational circularity" of epistemic axioms. Furthermore, the argument also equivocates on two different understandings of "logic" by conflating the abstract language framework people use to describe formalized rules of reasoning with the presupposition that the Christian god is the ontological source of logical reasoning. By insisting that any application of logic necessarily presumes the existence of the Christian god, presuppositional apologetics dishonestly imbeds its conclusion in the definition of logic.

The presuppositional apologetic trap typically begins by asking non-believers to identify an absolute foundation for the logic they are using to critique theistic claims. Regardless of how non-believers respond to this inquiry, the apologist insists that all non-Christian worldviews reduce to an absurdity, and only the Christian god can account for the laws of logic because of the impossibility of the contrary. However, this presuppositional apologetic tactic is intellectually dishonest because it equivocates on the concept of "logic" and is viciously circular as previously explained.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #60]

It's a slipping of the mask.

Atheists hide behind their personal definitions of atheism-- which purely defined is simply "without God."

They'd much rather say something like-- 'It's not an active disbelief, it's a lack of belief.' How bold.

But for clarity:
The theist affirms the statement, “There is a God.”
The agnostic says, “I do not know if God exists” or “You cannot know God exists.”
The atheist affirms the statement, “There is no God.”

These are all beliefs.

[Mr E]

[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?

Presuppositional apologetics is intellectually dishonest because it relies upon a "Begging the Question" fallacy by assuming the conclusion in the starting premise. It also relies upon an intellectually dishonest "Equivocation" fallacy when defending its reliance upon a "Begging the Question" fallacy. Presuppositional apologetics argues that its circular framework is justified because all epistemological frameworks must begin with unsupported assumptions. This deceptive justification conflates "vicious circularity" with the "foundational circularity" of epistemic axioms. Furthermore, the argument also equivocates on two different understandings of "logic" by conflating the abstract language framework people use to describe formalized rules of reasoning with the presupposition that the Christian god is the ontological source of logical reasoning. By insisting that any application of logic necessarily presumes the existence of the Christian god, presuppositional apologetics dishonestly imbeds its conclusion in the definition of logic.

The presuppositional apologetic trap typically begins by asking non-believers to identify an absolute foundation for the logic they are using to critique theistic claims. Regardless of how non-believers respond to this inquiry, the apologist insists that all non-Christian worldviews reduce to an absurdity, and only the Christian god can account for the laws of logic because of the impossibility of the contrary. However, this presuppositional apologetic tactic is intellectually dishonest because it equivocates on the concept of "logic" and is viciously circular as previously explained.

Love definitions?

Pinch Hitter- a substitute in place of another player during a game.

The player who gets replaced is out of the game for the rest of the day and cannot return.

Sorry Ray-- batter out.

[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?

Presuppositional apologetics is intellectually dishonest because it relies upon a "Begging the Question" fallacy by assuming the conclusion in the starting premise. It also relies upon an intellectually dishonest "Equivocation" fallacy when defending its reliance upon a "Begging the Question" fallacy. Presuppositional apologetics argues that its circular framework is justified because all epistemological frameworks must begin with unsupported assumptions. This deceptive justification conflates "vicious circularity" with the "foundational circularity" of epistemic axioms. Furthermore, the argument also equivocates on two different understandings of "logic" by conflating the abstract language framework people use to describe formalized rules of reasoning with the presupposition that the Christian god is the ontological source of logical reasoning. By insisting that any application of logic necessarily presumes the existence of the Christian god, presuppositional apologetics dishonestly imbeds its conclusion in the definition of logic.

The presuppositional apologetic trap typically begins by asking non-believers to identify an absolute foundation for the logic they are using to critique theistic claims. Regardless of how non-believers respond to this inquiry, the apologist insists that all non-Christian worldviews reduce to an absurdity, and only the Christian god can account for the laws of logic because of the impossibility of the contrary. However, this presuppositional apologetic tactic is intellectually dishonest because it equivocates on the concept of "logic" and is viciously circular as previously explained.

Dude, did you just copy-pasted a response to "Presuppositional apologetics" without even realizing that is not my position? I never claimed that God exist because logic exist... my claim is this: When you are debating, you are attempting to use logic to prove your stance to be objectively correct. At the point you entered a teistic framework where the concept of God is an axiom.

So everything you said is a Strawman... and you ignored my point. Something you do all the time btw.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #67]

Dude, did you just copy-pasted a response to "Presuppositional apologetics" without even realizing that is not my position? I never claimed that God exist because logic exist... my claim is this: When you are debating, you are attempting to use logic to prove your stance to be objectively correct. At the point you entered a teistic framework where the concept of God is an axiom.

So everything you said is a Strawman... and you ignored my point. Something you do all the time btw.

I know some folks get right into this and love to debate the rules of debate. I personally find it tiresome and completely a waste of time, while avoiding the substance of an issue. "That's a strawman!" "That's a fallacy!"

Sigh. Yawn.

Let's examine claims. A theistic framework, or an atheistic framework? That is the question.

And if an atheistic framework (without God) what do these atheists offer in place of God?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #60]

It's a slipping of the mask.

Atheists hide behind their personal definitions of atheism-- which purely defined is simply "without God."

They'd much rather say something like-- 'It's not an active disbelief, it's a lack of belief.' How bold.

But for clarity:
The theist affirms the statement, “There is a God.”
The agnostic says, “I do not know if God exists” or “You cannot know God exists.”
The atheist affirms the statement, “There is no God.”

These are all beliefs.

Language disagrees with what your group tells you to believe about atheists.

In order to demonstrate that I speak the truth:

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.

You are an atheist when it comes to competing god concepts. I know without a doubt that you therefore lack a belief in any of them. What I can't know about your atheism in this regard is whether you believe that all other gods don't exist.
Therefore, when talking with atheists, you can know they lack belief in the gods. What you cannot know is if they believe gods don't exist, because that is not a requirement in order to be atheist towards god concepts.
(Obviously, I acknowledge that it would be hard for a Christian to be open about competing gods concepts. A person believing that they have the answers already stops possible learning after all, but hopefully you understand the analogy).

[bluegreenearth]

Dude, did you just copy-pasted a response to "Presuppositional apologetics" without even realizing that is not my position? I never claimed that God exist because logic exist... my claim is this: When you are debating, you are attempting to use logic to prove your stance to be objectively correct. At the point you entered a teistic framework where the concept of God is an axiom.

So everything you said is a Strawman... and you ignored my point. Something you do all the time btw.

Since you refused to start a new thread that described your argument in detail when I asked for that information in response to your PM some time ago, my only option is to form a tentative hypothesis about what position you seem to be defending based on various clues from your posts. Accordingly, my response to your "strawman" accusation is the same now as it was the last several times you hid behind it: A response based on an honest misunderstanding of your position is not a strawman, especially when you refuse to provide the detailed premises and conclusion of your argument. When you are ready to fully disclose the argument you're defending, let me know.