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]

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?

At this point, it is reasonable to infer that you are just being deliberately uncharitable here. If you're going to exhibit such intolerance every time someone responds with an honest misunderstanding of your argument, then maybe you ought to do a better job of describing your position in the first place. Now, do yourself and the readers a favor and provide Bradskii with the details of your argument that you failed to include earlier which led to these reasonable but apparently incorrect assumptions.

[Bradskii]

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

I'm sure that you're not intending to be obtuse. And I'm just as certain that I'm not being trolled. But...

God is 'He'. He's referred to as 'Him'. Always capitalised. You referred to God. I mentioned that by referring to 'Him'. I now haven't the foggiest idea as to whether you are a Christan, a deist, atheist, agnostic...I literally can't tell from the last few exchanges. So can you please clear the air and let me know what your position is?

Thanks in advance..

[Bradskii]

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.

I hope that you realise that that comes across as being a negative as to my position. 'Hey, Bradskii. Your belief is based on nothing!' OK, there's no exclamation point and I'm sure it's not meant to be intended as it reads there. But if some in this thread have been seen to push back on that argument, then I can understand why.

Very many years of investigation (decades to be more accurate) and reading many dozens of books giving the pros and cons and arguments for and against have led to my position. It cannot be described as 'nothing'. It's not based, as you just said above, on 'no evidence'. There's been a library load of evidence. Some of it compelling, most of it not. But the jury is in. And my personal decision has not been reached because there is 'no evidence' but because the sum total of evidence, in my case, has not convinced me.

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.

Your interactions have been different to mine. You haven't had the same ones as I have had. But the ones that we've each had have led us to different conclusions. I think that we should respect those conclusions as being genuinely formed and genuinely held even if we think they're wrong.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #183]

I hope that you realise that that comes across as being a negative as to my position. 'Hey, Bradskii. Your belief is based on nothing!' OK, there's no exclamation point and I'm sure it's not meant to be intended as it reads there. But if some in this thread have been seen to push back on that argument, then I can understand why.

Very many years of investigation (decades to be more accurate) and reading many dozens of books giving the pros and cons and arguments for and against have led to my position. It cannot be described as 'nothing'. It's not based, as you just said above, on 'no evidence'. There's been a library load of evidence. Some of it compelling, most of it not. But the jury is in. And my personal decision has not been reached because there is 'no evidence' but because the sum total of evidence, in my case, has not convinced me.

It's not intended to negative toward your position, but it is intended to point out that your position is negative. You are saying that you've searched for evidence and found none. You've searched for convincing proofs and found none. You've wanted and wished for (dare I say prayed for) meaningful experiences and had none. So while you are free to construe my words as cleverly masked, they are accurate in terms of what you've found in your search. You've found nothing, so your beliefs are based upon what you've found. You are in search of Bigfoot and after decades of hunting you've come to the conclusion that there is no Bigfoot because despite being earnest and diligent and even wanting in your heart of hearts to find one, you haven't found anything other than the stories of sightings and interactions of others, to convince you, and those experiences of others have not been enough.

[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?

At this point, it is reasonable to infer that you are just being deliberately uncharitable here. If you're going to exhibit such intolerance every time someone responds with an honest misunderstanding of your argument, then maybe you ought to do a better job of describing your position in the first place. Now, do yourself and the readers a favor and provide Bradskii with the details of your argument that you failed to include earlier which led to these reasonable but apparently incorrect assumptions.

What about reading what im saying instead of replacing what I say with whatever you think I want to say. And if by any chance you dont understand whay im saying, you could just ask, instead of building a strawman that you can attack with sarcasm.

You just talk about me being "deliberately uncharitable here." what about you and him? you think you were?

[Vilferatus]

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

I'm sure that you're not intending to be obtuse. And I'm just as certain that I'm not being trolled. But...

God is 'He'. He's referred to as 'Him'. Always capitalised. You referred to God. I mentioned that by referring to 'Him'. I now haven't the foggiest idea as to whether you are a Christan, a deist, atheist, agnostic...I literally can't tell from the last few exchanges. So can you please clear the air and let me know what your position is?

Thanks in advance..

Im not talking about any specific God in this thread, im talking about the philosophical concept of God. Ive said this many times in this thread. You are willingly ignoring that distinction. How is that supposed to be my fault?

[bluegreenearth]

What about reading what im saying instead of replacing what I say with whatever you think I want to say. And if by any chance you dont understand whay im saying, you could just ask, instead of building a strawman that you can attack with sarcasm.

You just talk about me being "deliberately uncharitable here." what about you and him? you think you were?

Since 2019, I have been civilly engaging with a variety of theists in this forum, and to my knowledge, have never been credibly accused of exhibiting hostility or unfairness towards any of my interlocutors. Speaking for myself, I read what you posted and was justifiably confident at the time that my interpretation of your position was reasonable given the information you provided. When you first alerted me to my misunderstanding, I did ask you to clarify your argument. Then, for the inquiries you didn't choose to conveniently ignore, your responses were written in what can be reasonably perceived as an intolerant and/or condescending tone. So, yes, I have been very patient and charitable with you thus far. However, there comes a point when I will only allocate as much patience and charity as is warranted by my interlocutor's behavior towards me and others who participate in this forum.