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.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #86]

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.

I'm glad you are jovial, it makes disagreeing with you more enjoyable. Before diving in any farther, remember the premise of the thread is "Atheism cannot be wrong." I think you've already established that as a false premise entirely. Of course, it can be wrong and you've admitted as much repeatedly, so there's not much to discuss here beyond your finger-pointing at others. Quick question. Isn't the whole foundation of atheists on a Christianity and Religion site the penultimate "us versus them" cult-like identity? I say it is. You have your own version of a Bible Club-- call it abible, as in without a bible, but certainly you have a club and with it you go figuratively prowling about looking for Christians to beat about the head.

A critic is the absolute lowest form of explorer, seeking nothing, but existing merely to throw wet blankets. Hurrah. Bravo. Not truth-seekers, simply classic under-thinkers, quick to critique anyone but themselves, offering no ideas from their own understanding. This is what I mean by a cowardly approach, and it's not intended to be anything personal, rather universal in nature when it comes to those who propose an existence without God at the center of it all. My opinion of course, prove me wrong. And as you've already stated, to even attempt to do so you would be offering your own personal opinion about my personal opinion, your own speculation, beliefs and intentions. It will be 'us atheists vs them Christians.'


String theory, as I understand it does not require any process "without God" in order to function. The opposite might well be true in that the mathematics involved are required to be so precise and without variation that suggests a single source (singularity) outside of that intricate order. I offer this apart from the multiverse concept which I prefer, or the multiverse string theory landscape as a seemingly plausible alternative. In either case, your assumptions about me as a Christian are akin to barking up the wrong tree, but dogs do what dogs do and sometimes dogs doo doo and folks step in it.

[Vilferatus]

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?

That is a convenient excuse... Bu the thing is...if you were right, you woul not be correct (self defeating argument), because you are presupposing that objective reason doesn't exist just to claim that I am wrong. You like to play the debater who doesnt believe in debates... I prefer to debate using formal logic.

If you read the forum rules ('5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.'), you would understand that this forum is not a place where you can just speak nonsense.


So... once you have an evaluable stance (framework), come back to the forum and debate.

[bluegreenearth]

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

Mr E's complaint is that some atheists "hide behind their personal definitions of atheism" where they do not claim to believe no gods exist. Would the statement, "I believe I don't know if a god exists," serve as satisfactory resolution to the complaint?

[Vilferatus]

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

Mr E's complaint is that some atheists "hide behind their personal definitions of atheism" where they do not claim to believe no gods exist. Would the statement, "I believe I don't know if a god exists," serve as satisfactory resolution to the complaint?

Yes, it would be if you dont have opinion on it. The problem is, you do. You have an opinion, but you pretend it comes from a disbelief. It doesnt.

[Clownboat]

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.

You claimed that if you don't know something, that's a belief.
It was shown that you were wrong and why.

Nothing you typed above has anything to do with you even attempting to justify your incorrect claim or to show that my claim was in error.
The irony of using word vomit will not be lost on the readers here.

[Vilferatus]

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.

You claimed that if you don't know something, that's a belief.
It was shown that you were wrong and why.

Nothing you typed above has anything to do with you even attempting to justify your incorrect claim or to show that my claim was in error.
The irony of using word vomit will not be lost on the readers here.

I would never expect you to avoid the arguments I presented and you claim your own victory... Nah im joking... thats all you do. I understand the reason for your nickname now.

[Clownboat]

I'm glad you are jovial, it makes disagreeing with you more enjoyable. Before diving in any farther, remember the premise of the thread is "Atheism cannot be wrong." I think you've already established that as a false premise entirely. Of course, it can be wrong and you've admitted as much repeatedly, so there's not much to discuss here beyond your finger-pointing at others. Quick question. Isn't the whole foundation of atheists on a Christianity and Religion site the penultimate "us versus them" cult-like identity? I say it is. You have your own version of a Bible Club-- call it abible, as in without a bible, but certainly you have a club and with it you go figuratively prowling about looking for Christians to beat about the head.

All these words and none of them address that a-the-ism is a lack of god beliefs.

A critic is the absolute lowest form of explorer, seeking nothing, but existing merely to throw wet blankets. Hurrah. Bravo. Not truth-seekers, simply classic under-thinkers, quick to critique anyone but themselves, offering no ideas from their own understanding. This is what I mean by a cowardly approach, and it's not intended to be anything personal, rather universal in nature when it comes to those who propose an existence without God at the center of it all. My opinion of course, prove me wrong. And as you've already stated, to even attempt to do so you would be offering your own personal opinion about my personal opinion, your own speculation, beliefs and intentions. It will be 'us atheists vs them Christians.'

All these words and none of them address that a-the-ism is a lack of god beliefs.

String theory, as I understand it does not require any process "without God" in order to function. The opposite might well be true in that the mathematics involved are required to be so precise and without variation that suggests a single source (singularity) outside of that intricate order. I offer this apart from the multiverse concept which I prefer, or the multiverse string theory landscape as a seemingly plausible alternative. In either case, your assumptions about me as a Christian are akin to barking up the wrong tree, but dogs do what dogs do and sometimes dogs doo doo and folks step in it.

All these words and none of them address the question asked of you about if a person that withholds belief in String Theory is holding a belief that String Theory is false. You also failed to answer if they are cowardly for withholding belief?

Readers, did you notice how he failed to address these challenges?
(Post 86) 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?

Readers, ask yourself who the coward is...

[Clownboat]

You claimed that if you don't know something, that's a belief.
It was shown that you were wrong and why.

Nothing you typed above has anything to do with you even attempting to justify your incorrect claim or to show that my claim was in error.
The irony of using word vomit will not be lost on the readers here.

I would never expect you to avoid the arguments I presented and you claim your own victory... Nah im joking... thats all you do. I understand the reason for your nickname now.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
You claimed that if you don't know something, that's a belief.
It was shown that you were wrong and why.

Nothing you typed above has anything to do with you even attempting to justify your incorrect claim or to show that my claim was in error.
The irony of using word vomit will not be lost on the readers here.

[Vilferatus]

You claimed that if you don't know something, that's a belief.
It was shown that you were wrong and why.

Nothing you typed above has anything to do with you even attempting to justify your incorrect claim or to show that my claim was in error.
The irony of using word vomit will not be lost on the readers here.

I would never expect you to avoid the arguments I presented and you claim your own victory... Nah im joking... thats all you do. I understand the reason for your nickname now.

Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
You claimed that if you don't know something, that's a belief.
It was shown that you were wrong and why.

Nothing you typed above has anything to do with you even attempting to justify your incorrect claim or to show that my claim was in error.
The irony of using word vomit will not be lost on the readers here.

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

[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.