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]

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?

Wow... this is just another level of ignorance or fanatism. Choose your poison.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #149]

I would argue that this is not as silly as you would like it to be.

No, it really is

that

silly.

It's constantly redefining terms to suit one's fancy. Moving the goalposts for one's own advantage. You just don't like that you've been called out by so many at the same time.

Exposed as a fakir.

[Bradskii]

So thats the trick... you said: "it is a claim about a person's mental state" but you dont lack a belief, you just pretend you do, because a person who doesnt have a belief dont make claims such as: "the biblical God "ignorant, violent, and ineffective."

But in some cases, the bible does paint a picture of God as being, for example, violent.

If a Christian tells me that I should do something because it will please God then I generally ask them 'Which one?' There's a bit of to and fro at that point until they understand what I'm asking. Which is 'Are we talking about the God that drowned the whole planet? And the one that ordered the killing of the Amalekite men, women and children? Is that the God we mean? The violent one?'

I don't have to believe that God exists to ask that question. And maybe the person I'm asking doesn't believe in that God either.

[Bradskii]

God is a necessary concept in logic, logic could not exist without it. So it is an axiom... and as any other axiom, you dont need to prove them, you need to accept them in order to create knowledege.

I don't agree with that. But for the purpose of this post...let's say I do, but with the following minor change: A god is a necessary concept in logic, logic could not exist without it.

The statement covers literally all possible gods. I don't know how you'd get from there to the specific god in which you believe. In fact, it's not possible.

And apologies to anyone following this thread if there is a run of my posts addressing different aspects of it. I've some time to fill and I'm running through the dozen or so pages in one hit.

[Bradskii]

Atheists believe that no gods exist. Therefore, the nonexistence of gods is atheists' belief.

It's a very odd way of putting it. But you might find that 'gods' are a subset of the supernatural with almost all atheists. And I'm quite happy to say that I believe that there is no supernatural. So if you ask me if I believe in a specific god, who happens to be supernatural, then the answer will obviously be no. So your statement isn't really complete. At least as far as I'm concerned. If I was to make the statement then it should be:

As far as I know, I believe that no supernatural gods exist.

I'm quite happy with that. Whereas...

I believe that no gods exist.

...needs to be qualified as noted. And if was asked the question, then I'd assume the qualifications were present, even if they were not stated. So that it would be:

As far as you know, are there any supernatural gods?

[Bradskii]

Thats just semantics... it depends on the definition you chose for that word. Thats why, nobody that wants to have a serious debate claims they have no beliefs... if you dont have beliefs you can not debate. Try debating with a rock, would be the same outcome.

Pssst. We're having a debate right now. And from what I've seen there are quite a few debates going in the forum on to which atheists are contributing. Your statement is nonsensical.

[Bradskii]

It's so easy for them to stomp their feet and yell-- "I don't believe in God or creation!" (for example) but when you ask them what they believe?-- they gape mouth open.... 'I don't know, but it's not God.

And that's where they get stuck.

I believe in lots of things. Ah...but are you talking about creation? If so, then saying a god did it is filling in a gap in our knowledge. It's a bit Occam Razor-ish, a bit god-of-the-gaps, but whatever. I've no problem with you saying that versus me saying 'Beats me, I don't know'. Let's get another beer and talk about sport. But...

...if you want to get from 'a god did it' to 'My God, the God of the bible, the trinity, virgin birth, reincarnation, heaven and hell etc etc did it' then we'll have a debate about that. And it's where you might get stuck going from one to the other. But, hey...it'll be interesting. And I promise I won't stamp either foot.

[Bradskii]

...they must pretend 'they have no belief' rather than accept that the claim they are making is a belief in a world 'without God.'

Well, it all started to a bit pear shaped around page 10. But good to see the mods keeping an eye on things. However...

What you said above seems perfectly OK with me. I certainly believe this is a world without God. Or without Shiva or any other supernatural entities. Because, as you said I 'have no belief' in gods.

Apart from the semantics (which seems to have occupied waaay too much time so far), what it the problem?

[Bradskii]

1. It rejects God

Oh, no. That's quite wrong. What's being rejected is the evidence (Brad thinks about putting forward some evidence for Shiva and then going 'Hah! See, it's the evidence you are rejecting! but decides the point will be accepted in good faith anyway).

[Bradskii]

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?

I'll have to correct that as well.

1. Im an atheist
Yep, I'll go with that. We both understand what it means, so no confusion there.

2. Christianity is wrong and your God is evil
No, that needs qualifying (I'm assuming that there's an implied 'Therefore' at the beginning of that statement). It's that the evidence for Christianity has been deemed unconvincing resulting in the conviction that people holding a belief in Christianity are wrong. And it makes no sense to say 'Your God is evil' as I don't believe that He exists. It's like saying 'Your dragon is too noisy'. And whether you believe He is evil or not is up to you. Maybe you think He was OK to drown everyone etc (see examples upstream) or maybe you're more of an NT type of guy.

3. Atheist only means lacking a believe in God.
Sorry, no. It means lacking a belief in all the gods about whom we have been informed.

4. Im objectively correct.
It's an objective truth that I do actually believe what I've said it true.

Hope that helps. If you have any questions, I'm here to help answer them.