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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #138]

When some atheists state that they lack belief in Christianity, they're stating their belief that Christian theology is unfalsifiable. When people believe a claim is unfalsifiable, does that necessarily mean they believe the claim is false?

Not necessarily. That the claim is unfalsifiable, however, is still their belief.

[bluegreenearth]

Understood. When some atheists state that they lack belief in Christianity, they're stating their belief that Christian theology is unfalsifiable. When people believe a claim is unfalsifiable, does that necessarily mean they believe the claim is false?

Of course not... if something is not falsable you can not claim it is false, if you do that it would be a fallacy. So, yes you and Clown are correct there, Athotheist is wrong in this statement: "If I state that I do not believe in Christianity, I'm stating my belief that Christian theology is untenable."

It doesnt necessarily means that.

But what you are not getting from his comments is that he understands the distinction between and an atheist and an agnostic. You are mixing both.

You say you are an agnostic atheist and saying atheist means agnostic, wihc doesnt makes sense, becuase if you truly believe agnostic means atheist, then you wouldnt say: "Agnostic atheist" you would only say agnostic.

You guys (clowboat and you) are playing dumb here to create confusion, the problem is you are too good at it.

My personal understanding of atheism and agnosticism is more nuanced than that equivocation between the two concepts. However, the reason I allowed the equivocation in my discussion with Athotheist was to demonstrate that a semantic argument over the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" is less important than the actual positions people are defending. It really doesn't matter if there are different understandings of what the labels "atheism" and "agnosticism" mean because any perceived confusion is easily resolved by asking people to describe the positions they hold on the question of a god's existence.

In other words, I am fully aware of the distinction Athotheist is making between the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" but attempted to demonstrate how the apparent contention is completely dissolved by simply swapping the "atheist" label with the "agnostic" label when encountering self-identified atheists who describe their position as lacking a belief in a god rather than holding a positive belief in the existence of no god. It is easier to meet people where they are in terms of the labels they use rather than try to force the adoption of a different labeling system. For instance, I personally identify as an "agnostic atheist" but have no problem with people who prefer to identify me as an "agnostic" if their understanding of that label best aligns with my described position, even if my understanding of the "agnostic" and "atheist" labels is more nuanced.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #138]

When some atheists state that they lack belief in Christianity, they're stating their belief that Christian theology is unfalsifiable. When people believe a claim is unfalsifiable, does that necessarily mean they believe the claim is false?

Not necessarily. That the claim is unfalsifiable, however, is still their belief.

Cool. I'm glad my clarification was helpful.

[Vilferatus]

Understood. When some atheists state that they lack belief in Christianity, they're stating their belief that Christian theology is unfalsifiable. When people believe a claim is unfalsifiable, does that necessarily mean they believe the claim is false?

Of course not... if something is not falsable you can not claim it is false, if you do that it would be a fallacy. So, yes you and Clown are correct there, Athotheist is wrong in this statement: "If I state that I do not believe in Christianity, I'm stating my belief that Christian theology is untenable."

It doesnt necessarily means that.

But what you are not getting from his comments is that he understands the distinction between and an atheist and an agnostic. You are mixing both.

You say you are an agnostic atheist and saying atheist means agnostic, wihc doesnt makes sense, becuase if you truly believe agnostic means atheist, then you wouldnt say: "Agnostic atheist" you would only say agnostic.

You guys (clowboat and you) are playing dumb here to create confusion, the problem is you are too good at it.

My personal understanding of atheism and agnosticism is more nuanced than that equivocation between the two concepts. However, the reason I allowed the equivocation in my discussion with Athotheist was to demonstrate that a semantic argument over the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" is less important than the actual positions people are defending. It really doesn't matter if there are different understandings of what the labels "atheism" and "agnosticism" mean because any perceived confusion is easily resolved by asking people to describe the positions they hold on the question of a god's existence.

In other words, I am fully aware of the distinction Athotheist is making between the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" but attempted to demonstrate how the apparent contention is completely dissolved by simply swapping the "atheist" label with the "agnostic" label when encountering self-identified atheists who describe their position as lacking a belief in a god rather than holding a positive belief in the existence of no god. It is easier to meet people where they are in terms of the labels they use rather than try to force the adoption of a different labeling system. For instance, I personally identify as an "agnostic atheist" but have no problem with people who prefer to identify me as an "agnostic" if their understanding of that label best aligns with my described position, even if my understanding of the "agnostic" and "atheist" labels is more nuanced.

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?

[Mr E]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #144]

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?

Of course they see it-- they just choose not to acknowledge it, because to do so destroys the tiny fig leaf they hide behind. It's not ignorance, it's willful ignorance, and they are not the same thing. (kind of like atheist and agnostic). Ignorance is not knowing or not understanding, willful ignorance is understanding, while pretending you don't. It's stupid, on purpose-- and it's not stupid at all. It's the mask. I'll pretend I don't see the elephant hiding behind the curtains in the living room.

What is being done is a customizing and twisting of terms for comfort and convenience. It's intentional and a deliberate mechanism employed by dishonest actors in debate, who attempt to rephrase the argument in a way that can't be assailed. Of course, the whole tactic can be exposed for what it is.... It's Humpty Dumptyism, where Humpty Dumpty (in Alice in Wonderland) declares that words mean whatever he decides them to mean.

It's nothing but equivocation where one can easily shift between two very different meanings at will, dishonestly choosing to define a term in a biased way to make their own position easier to defend or their opponent’s stance easier to attack.

So we suddenly have agnostic atheists among us. "Whatever" that means. Next we will have alcoholic agnostic atheists--
"Ah, so your a drunk!"
No, I'm the kind that hasn't had a drink in 10 years. Until recently.

[Clownboat]

AGNOSTIC
Merriam-Webster Definition 2:
"a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"

Such a person is agnostic toward string theory.

Same with a god concept.

Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge. My scenario clearly asked you about beliefs.
Do you acknowledge that this said person does not necessarily believe (atheism) that string theory is false, or do you assert that this person necessarily has the belief that string theory is false?

Whatever your answer to this is, I do acknowledge that the said person may be agnostic towards string theory. I take no issue with that, just like I see no issue with an agnostic atheists because I acknowledge that one is about beliefs and the other knowledge.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #138]

When some atheists state that they lack belief in Christianity, they're stating their belief that Christian theology is unfalsifiable. When people believe a claim is unfalsifiable, does that necessarily mean they believe the claim is false?

Not necessarily. That the claim is unfalsifiable, however, is still their belief.

For further clarification. If a person were to say:
I'm an atheist and I believe that the gods have not been sufficiently evidenced enough for me to believe the claims made about them, therefore I believe that is is prudent for me to withhold belief in the gods until more evidence is presented.

In regards to the existence of the gods, is this person holding a belief or withholding a belief?

[Clownboat]

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?

1. I'm an atheist is something that an atheist would say and is not a contradiction.
2. Christianity is wrong and your God is evil is also something that an atheist might say and is not a contradiction. Some atheists actually do say this, but it's not a requirement (this is the part you don't want to accept).
3. Is something that most atheists would say and is not a contradiction.
4. Is something that an atheist might say. As far as it being a contradiction, not enough information has been supplied to know what they claim to be objectively correct about.

How are any of these four statements a contradiction?

[Clownboat]

What is being done is a customizing and twisting of terms for comfort and convenience.

Readers, is that what you have been witnessing? A twisting of terms?

Copy/paste:
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".

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

I acknowledge your ignorance in this regard and submit that it is what is causing your confusion.
Therefore, to assuage this specific ignorance:
If someone informs you that they are agnostic, they have provided information to you about their knowledge or lack there of on a topic.
When someone informs you that they are an atheist, they have provided information to you about their lack of belief in the available god concepts. They do not necessarily believe that the gods don't exist and may in fact be actively searching for a God(s).

Next we will have alcoholic agnostic atheists--

And then we would have information about a 3rd characteristic about this person. I don't see the problem.

I argue that this is not as silly as you would like it to be.
If someone claims to be an alcoholic, atheistic dentist. What 3 things can we know without a doubt about this person?
Since you refused to answer this question previously, I'll do it for you.
1. They are an alcoholic.
2. They lack belief in the gods.
3. They are a dentist.
I beg you to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #147]

For further clarification. If a person were to say:
I'm an atheist and I believe that the gods have not been sufficiently evidenced enough for me to believe the claims made about them, therefore I believe that is is prudent for me to withhold belief in the gods until more evidence is presented.

In regards to the existence of the gods, is this person holding a belief or withholding a belief?

I believe that is is prudent for me to withhold belief in the gods until more evidence is presented.

As I said, it's not necessary to believe in something to have a belief.