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]

I have been civilly engaging with a variety of theists in this forum since 2019

Read your comment back to you. It goes both ways.

Vilferatus
Apprentice
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2026 9:10 pm

You are both civil until you dont have a civilized way to defend your arguments. The date of my register doesnt prove wrong or right your claims.

Did you think that was a gotcha? or what does your emote mean?

[Bradskii]

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.

Yes. Your position is positive: I bbelieve in God. Mine is negative: I do not believe in God. And my position, as you rightly say, is based on what I have found. Which is, in my opinion, insufficient evidence. Insufficient evidence is not nothing. In some cases it's quite substantial. A whole religion's worth.

If a jury finds a person not guilty because the evidence produced by the prosecutor was insufficient for them to determine guilt, then their decision is based on the evidence. It makes no sense to say that their belief is based on nothing.

Anyway, I think we've made all the points that we'd like to make, even if we don't agree on how it can be worded. I don't find it to be a big deal, so thanks for your input.

[Bradskii]

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?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all. If you use capital 'G' God then you're talking about the Abrahmic God. Whether you are discussing the philosophical concept of Him (note the capital 'H') or discussing his attributes or His plans for humanity makes no difference.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #6]

I would rather be wrong about something than right about nothing.

Ouch... I would rather not be wrong about anything.
I think you are saying that you are probably wrong.

No, I am not saying that I am probably wrong. I am saying that I recognize that I could be wrong. Anytime I make a statement about reality, it is possible that I am wrong. For my part, I believe that I am taking the position that is as close to the truth as I can get.

However, when I only comment on my mental state, and I make no statements about reality, then I can’t be wrong. In that case my position is true by default, but it has no substance. It also prevents me from taking a position that has substance. My own position becomes worse than useless.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #6]

If we define theism or atheism as a mental state – as what I think, but not a statement about reality – then we have robbed them both of their substance. Neither atheism nor theism says anything.

I'd say that’s essentially correct. If defined purely as mental states, they describe beliefs, not whether those beliefs correspond to reality.

I am glad we are able to agree on this.

Theism becomes substantive when there is robust evidence that at least one god exists.
Atheism becomes substantive as a way to blow the whistle on what might be unjustified beliefs.

I'm blowing the whistle .. that theological emperor sure looks naked to me.

You are not blowing the whistle. Blowing the whistle requires you to take a stance; to say something meaningful. You have defined atheism as a mental state. As long as it remains just a mental state, then it cannot challenge a position that says something meaningful.

Any of us can fall back on the line, “I’m not convinced.” There is no amount of evidence that can ever get past that approach. But my mental state does not “blow the whistle” on those who say something of substance.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #6]
You can go home if you quit defending it.
Seems that we are stuck holding our ground.

You are not holding ground. If atheism is just a mental state then it has no ground to hold. We have to say something of substance before we can defend it.

You seem to forget that atheism is antagonistic to theism.. for many good reasons.

Perhaps you could start a thread in which you give those many good reasons, and provide a position that doesn’t fall prey to the attacks you launch against others. That would be substantive and meaningful. Of course at that point you would have to actually start holding ground, and that will be much more difficult.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #6]

If atheism is a lack of belief – a mental state – then it is undefeatable, but it is also less than worthless.

Yeah, I get it that you feel atheism is worthless .. its to be expected.
You don't like atheism very much, do you?

I did not say that I don’t like atheism. I consider Jean-Paul Sartre to be one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. His ideas on radical freedom can be life changing. But he said something. His atheism was not a mental state. He took a position, he defended it, and he lived it out.

While I am not an atheist, I respect any position that says something meaningful and can be lived out in a practical way.

Any position that removes the need to stand for something intellectually and practically is bad for us. It is a position that says nothing, and holding that position prevents us from taking a position that says something. Atheism doesn’t have to be this way, but some people make it into this empty philosophy.

I encourage everyone, no matter what position they hold, to take on the best version of that position. The way this thread defines atheism does not do that.

I don't think that you feel it's worthless due to my argument, though.

I think that atheism is worthless (and worse than that) when it is defined that way that it is defined way it is defined in this thread. I don’t think it has to be that way. I don’t know that this has anything to do with any argument you have made.

Until further notice, of course.. you may yet find proof of God.
There's always that chance, right?

As I have written in earlier posts, there is literally nothing that I can prove. An antagonist can always fall back on “I don’t know” or “I’m not convinced.” As long as atheism is a mental position, evidence and reason are not a factor.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #194]

YOU: I would rather be wrong about something than right about nothing.

ME: Ouch... I would rather not be wrong about anything.
I think you are saying that you are probably wrong.

YOU : No, I am not saying that I am probably wrong. I am saying that I recognize that I could be wrong. Anytime I make a statement about reality, it is possible that I am wrong. For my part, I believe that I am taking the position that is as close to the truth as I can get.

However, when I only comment on my mental state, and I make no statements about reality, then I can’t be wrong. In that case my position is true by default, but it has no substance. It also prevents me from taking a position that has substance. My own position becomes worse than useless.

______________________________________________________

You did say that you would RATHER BE WRONG.
That's what I replied to...

I would never rather be wrong about anything.


Why would you rather be wrong?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #195]

You: If we define theism or atheism as a mental state – as what I think, but not a statement about reality – then we have robbed them both of their substance. Neither atheism nor theism says anything.


Me: I'd say that’s essentially correct. If defined purely as mental states, they describe beliefs, not whether those beliefs correspond to reality.

You: I am glad we are able to agree on this.
________________________________________________________

We only agree that atheism and theism are mental states. We do not agree on your conclusion.

We don't agree that we have robbed these terms of their meanings.
Of course, theism and atheism have meanings independent of our personal beliefs in the matter of God's existence.

The terms describe whether someone believes that gods exist, not whether gods actually exist. That is a separate question about reality, not the definition of the terms or our personal beliefs about God's existence.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #6]
You can go home if you quit defending it.
Seems that we are stuck holding our ground.

You are not holding ground. If atheism is just a mental state then it has no ground to hold. We have to say something of substance before we can defend it.

You seem to forget that atheism is antagonistic to theism.. for many good reasons.

Perhaps you could start a thread in which you give those many good reasons, and provide a position that doesn’t fall prey to the attacks you launch against others. That would be substantive and meaningful. Of course at that point you would have to actually start holding ground, and that will be much more difficult.

I think you are missing the point. Some religious people automatically accuse self-identified atheists of believing that no god exists without asking them about their actual position. This is very frustrating for the many self-identified atheists whose position is that they lack belief in the existence of a god rather than a positive belief in the existence of no god. Furthermore, the mental state of lacking belief in the existence of a god (i.e., atheism) is grounded in another mental state that Christians should be able to understand and share, intellectual honesty. These atheists are compelled by their intellectual honesty to withhold belief in the claim that a god exists because they understand it is unfalsifiable. So, they deliberately stop short of claiming that no god exists, even while they are identifying fallacies in Christian apologetic arguments for the existence of a god.

Therefore, when these atheists push back on Christian apologists who make fallacious arguments in defense of the positive and unfalsifiable claim that a god exists, they are doing so from the common ground of intellectual honesty. In other words, if Christians share the atheists' value of intellectual honesty, they should be willing to humbly acknowledge when atheists correctly identify where apologetic arguments are fallacious because it functions as an internal critique. At that point, insisting that the atheists must identify and defend their own position is irrelevant because their cognitive state of lacking belief is not a positive claim about the non-existence of a god, and the burden of proof rests entirely on the Christians who are supposed to value intellectual honesty but are positively claiming a god exists. Again, if Christians share the atheists' value of intellectual honesty, they should be willing to accept this burden without attempting to fallaciously shift it onto the atheists.