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]

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.

(To the intellectually honest folks who are following along, please take note of how the response above still doesn't provide a justification for P1 of the argument. Also note how the request for the arguments that justify P2 and P3 were completely ignored.)

Nothing in my response presupposes the non-existence or existence of objective reason. Your criticism is conflating a logical framework with the cognitive act of reasoning. Logical frameworks are tools designed to evaluate the validity of the relationships between propositions, regardless of whether the propositions are true or not. Reasoning is concerned with the progression of thought from a set of premises to a conclusion that seeks to comport with the reality we observe. For example, a question-begging argument may be logically valid in terms of how the supporting propositions relate to one another but an intellectually dishonest way to reason because it assumes the conclusion in the first premise that does not necessarily comport with the reality we observe.

Returning to your argument:

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

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

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

[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?

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.

You're going to have provide some clarity to your objection above because I'm unable to identify the opinion you are referring to and don't understand how it is relevant.

[Vilferatus]

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.

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

then i challenged you to copy paste where did I claim that, you copy pasted this: Post 85: Copy/paste = "If you believe you dont know something, thats a belief." - Vilferatus

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

[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.

You're going to have provide some clarity to your objection above because I'm unable to identify the opinion you are referring to and don't understand how it is relevant.

Im not surprised. You are only smart ebought to create strawman and attack those positions. When it comes to defend your own, you eiter claim you have none or you pretend to be intelectually uncapable of reasoning. Again... very convienient.

Thats why I told you, think about it first... then debate. You dont even understand your own beliefs or you are just not willing to defend them. So, what are you doing here?

[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.

You're going to have provide some clarity to your objection above because I'm unable to identify the opinion you are referring to and don't understand how it is relevant.

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.

[Vilferatus]

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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]

atheism itself cannot have any beliefs because it is merely the abstract label attached to the cognitive state of lacking belief in a god.

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

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #47]

atheism itself cannot have any beliefs because it is merely the abstract label attached to the cognitive state of lacking belief in a god.

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

According to their definition yes... but the definition of a word just describes a concept.

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.

So they defined atheism, but their definition does not apply to them. They dont care because that definition is just an excuse so they can attack without burden of proof for their own claims.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #97]

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...

An imaginary fan following? In psychology, this refers to a subconscious emotional regulation strategy where an individual behaves, thinks, or styles their life as if they are constantly being watched, admired, or critiqued by a large group of spectators or "fans".

"Dear Readers...." lol

Vilferatus wrote:

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

Exactly.

[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.

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.