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.

[Bradskii]

You are assuming wrong again. Try reading instead of creating strawman next time.

I'm not sure what you thought I was assuming. There are no assumptions in the post. And there are no strawmen. I was just putting my personal views forward on what you said, as I disagreed with some of it.

If you disagree with anything I've said then let me know and I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

[Bradskii]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #161]

Have you not hear that term before? Is this your first time having a chat with atheists? It's a very common term indeed. Have a read through this and it'll help:

I've heard of peas and carrots. And peas are not carrots.

Why is it so difficult for people who claim to be atheists to simply accept standard definitions of terms? Do you seriously not recognize a difference between agnostics and atheists?

Yes, for sure. They obviously can be used independently from each other. But I was surprised that you hadn't heard the term 'agnostic atheist' before. The link that I gave explained it. And from wiki:

'...an agnostic atheist does not believe that any deity exists but does not claim to know that no deity exists, or holds that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown or unknowable.'

As I've said upstream, as far as I know there are no gods. So strictly speaking one could say that I am an agnostic atheist. But to be honest, it's splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. So I'm with you on this one. Use one or the other - it keeps it simple. So Bradskii is an atheist.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #172]

Wonderful. An honest actor with an honest answer, willing to take ownership. In this, you are already a rare breed among atheists, and I appreciate the acknowledgment.

As an atheist then, what is your assessment of the thread premise-- Atheism cannot be wrong? Do you agree with the OP in stating this as fact?

Atheists believe in a world without God. They prefer to say that 'they don't believe in god' but that's no distinction as the OP contends it is. They believe God is not. To not believe in something without proof is akin to believing something is not, without proof. And it's no better, or worse-- than those Christians who believe one thing or another. Agree?

One believes someone/something is there-- albeit invisible. The other insists there is nothing there, in other words- they believe there is nothing there. Yet this simple progression is something that as a group and on the whole, atheists have the greatest difficulty accepting. It's hard for them to admit, and own-- so once again, Cheers, and thank you.

[Bradskii]

Wonderful. An honest actor with an honest answer, willing to take ownership. In this, you are already a rare breed among atheists, and I appreciate the acknowledgment.

Whoo hoo! That's a great start.

As an atheist then, what is your assessment of the thread premise-- Atheism cannot be wrong? Do you agree with the OP in stating this as fact?

I think there's some nuance that might have been missed early on. If you ask me, as an atheist, if I am wrong, then my answer would be a definite no. I honestly don't think I'm wrong. But...if you ask me if atheism - which is a disbelief in gods (note the lower case 'g') could be wrong then we'd need to get into a discussion about what the definition of a god is (lower case again) and I'd probably end up bending over backwards to say that depending on the definition then there's a always a chance that a god exists in some fashion, yadda yadda yadda, so it could be wrong. But I don't think you could ever take that sentence and conclude 'Ah, so you're not sure'. It could also be that the sun won't rise tomorrow, but I'm not in any doubt that it will.

Atheists believe in a world without God. They prefer to say that 'they don't believe in god' but that's no distinction as the OP contends it is. They believe God is not. To not believe in something without proof is akin to believing something is not, without proof. And it's no better, or worse-- than those Christians who believe one thing or another. Agree?

Don't forget that it's 'gods' plural and lower case. And I see we're back to 'I don't believe X' v 'I do believe that X doesn't exist'. And yep, I've been involved in waaay too many discussions when this has been brought up. I'm not sure why it does keep coming up. I think someone said upstream that it's a way for Christians to say 'Hey, you're just like us and you've got no proof either'. Well...yeah. I give it a big 'So what?'

A belief in God and a disbelief in God...neither have proof. One is a positive position: 'He exists' and there is generally evidence put forward to show why that person believes. Fair enough. And it convinces an awful lot of people. When I was growing up I didn't know anyone that it hadn't convinced. My position (I don't want to speak for anyone else) is a negative one. So I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I'll just listen to the evidence for His existence and make my own mind up.

One believes someone/something is there-- albeit invisible. The other insists there is nothing there, in other words- they believe there is nothing there. Yet this simple progression is something that as a group and on the whole, atheists have the greatest difficulty accepting. It's hard for them to admit, and own-- so once again, Cheers, and thank you.

Do Christians believe that there is something there? Well, yes. Obviously.
Do atheists believe there isn't? Well, yes again. Obviously.

I've never known an atheist or a Christian to disagree with those two statements. So I hope that clears up my position anyway.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #174]

I think there's some nuance that might have been missed early on. If you ask me, as an atheist, if I am wrong, then my answer would be a definite no. I honestly don't think I'm wrong.

You believe you are right. But you admit, you could be wrong. I think that puts you as an atheist and me as a Christian on even ground for discussion purposes. Of course, I don't think I'm wrong either, and admit I suppose that I could be, although my margins are narrow in this regard, because I talked with Him this morning. The sun will rise tomorrow, because He wills that it should, a daily resurrection and sign.

Don't forget that it's 'gods' plural and lower case.

I'm mindful of both the gods plural, and the sons of God, plural.

A belief in God and a disbelief in God...neither have no proof. One is a positive position: 'He exists' and there is generally evidence put forward to show why that person believes. Fair enough.

Again, pretty even soil. Yet one's belief is based on some general evidence as you say, while the other bases their belief simply on a lack of evidence. In other words, a belief based on something (personal experiences for example) versus a belief based on nothing (no such personal experiences).

Do Christians believe that there is something there? Well, yes. Obviously.
Do atheists believe there isn't? Well, yes again. Obviously.

Ah, but not just Christians. The Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, and every other nation with any kind of recorded history has that record inclusive of their understanding of these gods. It's universal and predates Christianity by thousands of years across every society. Everyone believed that the gods interacted with humanity, not because someone insisted that they believe in such things, but because that was their experience, and in every society there were always likely to be some small faction whose experience lacked the kind of personal encounters to make it real enough for them to believe also. So they fell away. We call them apostates. I think if all atheists were surveyed and willing to be honest, we would find that most of them were not 'born this way' but had become this way, as a result of similar circumstances and this lack of convincing evidence they always insist they need in order to believe. --And yet they believe there is nothing, based on nothing, as mentioned.

So instead of belief in 'the gods' the natural regression is a belief in atheos. A world without the gods. It often begins as private doubts perhaps, eventually translating into asebeia-- an indifference or outright irreverence toward the gods. Interestingly, it's the very accusation that the Romans made against the earliest Christians- calling them atheists, for this disrespect and lack of belief.

I've enjoyed chatting with you.

[Vilferatus]

Your statement is non sensical becasue you sadly dont understand whaty ive been saying.

1. They claim they are atheist
2. Then say atheism is a lack of belief in God
3. But when you ask them: What is you framework? and they say: I dont have a framework or something else that does not define any framework at all (pure deflection)
4. Then their framework is not atheist is just agnostic.
5. Then they attack christianity using not an agnostic framework, but an unknown undeclared framework. (It is literally intelectual dishonesty).

I didn't understand what you mean by 'framework' in item 3. But in item 4 you go on to say that it's not atheist, it's agnostic (the existence of gods is unknown and/or unknowable). I don't know why you said that, but fair enough. We'll go with that. But I don't take that position. As far as I know (I'll include it this time even though it's always implied) there are no gods. So I refer to myself as an atheist. That's my 'framework'.

Item 5 again makes no sense to me. I don't attack Christianity but you think that those who do use an 'unknown undeclared framework', but it's not agnostic. If I was to comment on Christianity (not attack it) then it would be from my position as an atheist. So there ya go...my framework is now known and declared!

But clearly you are one of those if you are so biased as your answers show for example when you said:

"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."

when did I said the concept of "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist? Ill tell you where: Nowhere.

You must have forgotten. You literally said it in Post 30:

"God is a necessary concept in logic..."

I'm obviously assuming from your posts that you're a Christian. In fact I'm assuming it just from that quote, that 'God is a necessary concept...' So He would be the specific god in which you believe.

im going to ask you one more time: Where did I say: "the concept of "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist?"

You said: You must have forgotten. You literally said it in Post 30:

"God is a necessary concept in logic..."

How is this: "God is a necessary concept in logic..." equal to: "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist?"

Explain that to me please, I might be missing something... if im not, that means you actually made an assumption, and that assumption was wrong.

[Bradskii]

You believe you are right. But you admit, you could be wrong. I think that puts you as an atheist and me as a Christian on even ground for discussion purposes. Of course, I don't think I'm wrong either, and admit I suppose that I could be, although my margins are narrow in this regard, because I talked with Him this morning. The sun will rise tomorrow, because He wills that it should, a daily resurrection and sign.

Cool. There aren't many Christians that would ever come close to saying what you just did.

Again, pretty even soil. Yet one's belief is based on some general evidence as you say, while the other bases their belief simply on a lack of evidence. In other words, a belief based on something (personal experiences for example) versus a belief based on nothing (no such personal experiences).

'A belief based on nothing' sounds really odd to me. But yes, I've no such personal experience of God, gods or the supernatural.

Ah, but not just Christians. The Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, and every other nation with any kind of recorded history has that record inclusive of their understanding of these gods. It's universal.

Indeed. I don't think there's ever been a society that didn't relate to some deity.

So they fell away. We call them apostates. I think if all atheists were surveyed and willing to be honest, we would find that most of them were not 'born this way' but had become this way, as a result of similar circumstances and this lack of convincing evidence they always insist they need in order to believe. --And yet they believe there is nothing, based on nothing, as mentioned.

Well, I don't want to keep pushing this point. But it's based on what I consider to be insufficient evidence. Your belief is based on something. It has convinced you. That something hasn't convinced me. It would be like me trying to convince you that my team is the best in the league by presenting evidence. If you're not convinced and you reject that evidence then you wouldn't believe they're the best. But it would really seem odd to me for someone to say that your belief is based on nothing. It's kinda true, but I think it's mangling the language.

In passing, I was brought up as a Christian (C of E). But I had no deep and meaningful belief as such. I treated the stories from the bible almost like I treated the Greek and Roman stories about their gods. It wasn't until I was attending confirmation classes around the age of 13 (to enable me to take communion) that there was a realisation. It was kinda 'Hang on, they're all treating this seriously'. At which point I actually started drifting away from religion. It wasn't so much as a falling away as a realisation that I wasn't a believer in the first place.

[Bradskii]

im going to ask you one more time: Where did I say: "the concept of "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist?"

You said: You must have forgotten. You literally said it in Post 30:

"God is a necessary concept in logic..."

How is this: "God is a necessary concept in logic..." equal to: "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist?"

Explain that to me please, I might be missing something... if im not, that means you actually made an assumption, and that assumption was wrong.

Ah, my apologies then. When you said that "God is a necessary concept in logic..." I did make an assumption. Which was that it was something that could only be said by a Christian. If you're not, then I'm in error.

So I'm now going to assume that you're not a Christian and don't believe in God. Which has me confused because if you don't believe in Him then how can you say that He's necessary for anything? Perhaps the meaning was: 'it is said that...God is a necessary concept in logic...' and I misread it?

[Mr E]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #177]

'A belief based on nothing' sounds really odd to me. But yes, I've no such personal experience of God, gods or the supernatural.

Well, I don't want to keep pushing this point. But it's based on what I consider to be insufficient evidence. Your belief is based on something. It has convinced you. That something hasn't convinced me. It would be like me trying to convince you that my team is the best in the league by presenting evidence. If you're not convinced and you reject that evidence then you wouldn't believe they're the best. But it would really seem odd to me for someone to say that your belief is based on nothing. It's kinda true, but I think it's mangling the language.

Yes, "my" belief is based on my experience. If it's mangling the language, it's not meant to when I say that your belief is based on no such experience, no evidence... i.e. nothing.

Not as a way to diminish or belittle your beliefs, but to categorize them properly. You simply haven't had the same kind of interaction that I've had upon which to base a belief to entertain.

In passing, I was brought up as a Christian (C of E). But I had no deep and meaningful belief as such. I treated the stories from the bible almost like I treated the Greek and Roman stories about their gods. It wasn't until I was attending confirmation classes around the age of 13 (to enable me to take communion) that there was a realisation. It was kinda 'Hang on, they're all treating this seriously'. At which point I actually started drifting away from religion. It wasn't so much as a falling away as a realisation that I wasn't a believer in the first place.

It's helpful for me to understand this for context so thanks for sharing that background. I 'grew up' in the Evangelical Free Church (an early break away from the Lutheran traditions). As a person of Scandinavian descent, the "free" part meant free from European control and the Lutheran State-run churches in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. My grandparents on both sides emigrated to Minnesota and then to Canada from there with land grants to farm, and they brought their "free church" with them, founding the first Evangelical Free Church in Canada in Enchant, Alberta.

Like you, at some later point in life I began an honest personal inquiry into various details of the faith, but found certain dogmatic beliefs to be rather superficial and not well founded-- so began my exploration and investigation of what some might call the tenets or core beliefs. Rather than a falling away, I dug deeper and found answers to my questions from within, apart from the spoon-fed explanations, the information pointed beyond their ideas to a more satisfying direction confirmed by scripture, rather than revealed by some teacher talking about scripture.

[Vilferatus]

im going to ask you one more time: Where did I say: "the concept of "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist?"

You said: You must have forgotten. You literally said it in Post 30:

"God is a necessary concept in logic..."

How is this: "God is a necessary concept in logic..." equal to: "my specific God" is necessry for logic to exist?"

Explain that to me please, I might be missing something... if im not, that means you actually made an assumption, and that assumption was wrong.

Ah, my apologies then. When you said that "God is a necessary concept in logic..." I did make an assumption. Which was that it was something that could only be said by a Christian. If you're not, then I'm in error.

So I'm now going to assume that you're not a Christian and don't believe in God. Which has me confused because if you don't believe in Him then how can you say that He's necessary for anything? Perhaps the meaning was: 'it is said that...God is a necessary concept in logic...' and I misread it?

Again... who said anything about a He? what are you even talking about?