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]

When it comes to the gods, I'm currently withholding belief in any of them. I think a God/afterlife idea could be neat though and I think I would personally prefer it to non existence.

Cowardly.

Are you asserting it is cowardly for people to neither affirm nor deny the unfalsifiable claim that a god exists, even if it would be intellectually dishonest for them to do so? Do you find it more admirable when people affirm or deny the unfalsifiable claim that a god exists because it takes bravery to exhibit the intellectual dishonesty necessary for them to do so?

[bluegreenearth]

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.

When atheists affirm a lack of belief, they are not making any arguments. So, there is nothing absurd in their position to criticise. The implication that you have the mind-reading capacity to know when atheists believe no gods exist is where the absurdity necessarily resides. Furthermore, even if some atheists were to privately believe no god exists but do not publicly argue for the non-existence of a god because they are compelled by intellectual honesty to acknowledge that such an unfalsifiable claim cannot not be reasonably adjudicated, it would be absurd to expect them to provide and defend such an argument. Similarly, if there are theists who do not publicly argue for the existence of a god because they are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that such an unfalsifiable claim cannot be reasonably adjudicated, it would be absurd for atheists to expect them to provide and defend such an argument.

[Mr E]

When atheists affirm a lack of belief, they are not making any arguments. So, there is nothing absurd in their position to criticise. The implication that you have the mind-reading capacity to know when atheists believe no gods exist is where the absurdity necessarily resides. Furthermore, even if some atheists were to privately believe no god exists but do not publicly argue for the non-existence of a god because they are compelled by intellectual honesty to acknowledge that such an unfalsifiable claim cannot not be reasonably adjudicated, it would be absurd to expect them to provide and defend such an argument. Similarly, if there are theists who do not publicly argue for the existence of a god because they are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that such an unfalsifiable claim cannot be reasonably adjudicated, it would be absurd for atheists to expect them to provide and defend such an argument.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks..... preamble before discovering something rotten in the state of Denmark.

It's a very simple question that doesn't require the kind of verbose dancing seen above.

If not God, then what? What do you as an atheist believe about the origin of the universe? Or do you go through life with no opinions of your own beyond the opinion that you can't form any opinions?

[Vilferatus]

"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. "

What are the detailed premeses and conclusion of the argument for your claim?

Premise (P) 1: To debate and make a claim pressuming you could be "objectively correct" you need to treat the principles of logic as an absolute, universal standard.

P2: Objective, absolute standard can not be groundend in relative or subjective foundation (pure logic).

P3: Philosophically an ultimate cause or absolute foundation is by definition the concept of God.

Conclusiom: To debate, and pretend to be objectively correct, you are using the framework that uses God as an axiom.

[Vilferatus]

[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.

How does the statement, "I do not know if a god exists," qualify as a belief?

If you believe you dont know something, thats a belief.

[Clownboat]

You belong to an ill-defined athiestic cult.

That's as ridiculous as claiming I belonging to a group of people that don't collect stamps! Oh Clownboat, you non collecting stamp person. You and your group of fellow non stamp collectors, getting together and discussing your non stamp collecting. You and the rest of those people that don't do that thing that you also don't do are a cult!

As silly as your claim is, you are wrong, demonstrably so in fact because atheism has been defined and broken down many times for you in this thread:

Here it is! Don't miss it 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.

You show the truth of my words in bold. Thank you for continuing to be the evidence for my claim and I appreciate you doing my work for me.

When it comes to the gods, I'm currently withholding belief in any of them. I think a God/afterlife idea could be neat though and I think I would personally prefer it to non existence.

Cowardly.

Let's test the cowardly claim shall we?

When it comes to String Theory and Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory, you may currently lack belief in either, possibly due to a lack of information or understanding. This is NOT the same as you saying that either theory is false or believing that they are false. Do you agree?
Does removing the emotional baggage that often times comes with religious beliefs help? Surely you see how it easy it would be for someone to withhold belief in String Theory without having to believe that it is false? Religions are no different, outside of the emotions that often come with religious beliefs.

Does a person that withholds belief in String Theory, hold a belief that String Theory is false? Are they a coward for withholding belief?

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?

[Clownboat]

If you believe you dont know something, thats a belief.

The claim that a person doesn't know something is a judgement and isn't necessarily a belief about the truth or falsity of the thing a person claims to not know.

judgment
noun
: the act or process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing

Let's be honest, to claim that a specific God doesn't exist is to give this god concept credit it doesn't deserve. First do the work showing that one of the gods is real, or likely so.

Here, this part is being skipped and instead you and Mr. E are jumping to pretending that atheists have a belief about your god concept. This subconsciously reinforces said god belief. Why you ask? Well that's because now you and Mr. E can assume that your claimed god concept is worth believing that it doesn't exist. In reality, the god concept was never evidenced in the first place, which is what justifies withholding belief.

[Vilferatus]

If you believe you dont know something, thats a belief.

The claim that a person doesn't know something is a judgement and isn't necessarily a belief about the truth or falsity of the thing a person claims to not know.

judgment
noun
: the act or process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing

Let's be honest, to claim that a specific God doesn't exist is to give this god concept credit it doesn't deserve. First do the work showing that one of the gods is real, or likely so.

Here, this part is being skipped and instead you and Mr. E are jumping to pretending that atheists have a belief about your god concept. This subconsciously reinforces said god belief. Why you ask? Well that's because now you and Mr. E can assume that your claimed god concept is worth believing that it doesn't exist. In reality, the god concept was never evidenced in the first place, which is what justifies withholding belief.

No, the part that is skipped is: What do you believe? What you have already answer is this: "As to what I believe though, I believe many Christian churches display cult behavior, where they tell their members what to think, to expect persecution (or your doing it wrong) and that there are groups out their united against their true beliefs in order to create an Us vs Them mentality."

The only thing you provided there is a personal opinion about others intentios... that can not be proven. So you end up in the same position. You bring nothing to the debate but speculation and baseless claims, cause you have no base (framework).

You dont see that?

Im going to act like you now and speculate on your intentions: You are just defending the strong atheism as a fanatic, without accepting you are so you nobody can critique your position cause you claim it is non-existant.

Thats literally the whole point, and you are deflecting all the time. Intelectual cowardice that ends in words vomit.

[Vilferatus]

@clownboat @bluegreenearth

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.

[bluegreenearth]

Premise (P) 1: To debate and make a claim pressuming you could be "objectively correct" you need to treat the principles of logic as an absolute, universal standard.

P2: Objective, absolute standard can not be groundend in relative or subjective foundation (pure logic).

P3: Philosophically an ultimate cause or absolute foundation is by definition the concept of God.

Conclusiom: To debate, and pretend to be objectively correct, you are using the framework that uses God as an axiom.

For P1, when conducting an internal critique, someone need only operate within the logical framework that is applicable to the specified argument. This is because the principles of a logical framework are descriptive, not prescriptive. There are multiple forms of logic, each describing its own consistent framework. Therefore, no individual logical framework can function as an absolute or universal standard for all contexts, even if Classical logic were to be treated as a practical standard. So, when an alternative logical framework applies to a specified argument, an internal critique cannot not appeal to Classical logic as the absolute standard.

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

For P3, I am inferring from the content of your previous posts that "the concept of God" refers to the Christian god. What is the argument for the entailed claim that an ultimate cause or absolute foundation can only be the Christian god?