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]

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.

Thats just false...

"In English philosophical debates, capitalized 'God' is used to differentiate the concept of Philosophical Theism (a single supreme, necessary, and absolute foundation of reality, such as that of Aristotle, Spinoza, or Leibniz) from a lowercase 'a god', which refers to the gods of polytheism (like Zeus or Thor, who are contingent beings within the universe). Capitalizing 'God' in philosophy is a distinction of ontological status (absolute vs. contingent), not an affiliation with the Bible."

And in any case, even if that was true (wich is not) it would only apply to your culture... you still can notice the distinction by context, and if you are not brilliant enough to do that, just ask, very common practice in debates. Before building a strawman, you apply steelman. Not your case of course.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #195]

Ray the atheist wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 8:02 pm
ME: 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: 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.

I agree that blowing the whistle requires me to take a stance.
I put my stance this way:


" The theological emperor sure looks naked to me".

What do I mean by that?

I mean my stance is all the theology, yours included, has yet to persuade me that theism is true.

Hope that clarifies my stance for you !!

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #195]

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.

I don't agree.

Just because I'm not convinced by an argument doesn't mean that I can't be convinced.
I have been persuaded by good arguments more often than I can ever hope to remember.

I am persuaded by an argument when that argument is sound.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #197]

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.

I've said something.

I defend everything that I write.. unless I don't notice, which can happen.
If you think that I missed to defend one of my propositions, let me know.

Life often interrupts my argumentations !!


As to "not liking atheism", I mean to say that I believe that you like theism better.
Aren't you a theist?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #197]

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 can't at all agree with that.

You’re confusing a definition of atheism with a complete philosophy of life.

Atheism describes belief about gods. It doesn’t prevent me from taking meaningful intellectual, moral, or practical positions.

Maybe you are struggling with "who has the burden of the proof"...

Does the burden of the proof fall on the person with the positive belief, as in "I believe in God". or is it the skeptic who says " I doubt the existence of your god"?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #197]

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'm wondering what your definition of atheism is.
Would you mind defining that term for us?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #197]

Ray the atheist wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 8:18 pm

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

You: 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.
_______________________________________

You say that there is literally nothing that you can prove. Are you blaming your inability to prove that your god is real on the skeptics?

[bluegreenearth]

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.

Thats just false...

"In English philosophical debates, capitalized 'God' is used to differentiate the concept of Philosophical Theism (a single supreme, necessary, and absolute foundation of reality, such as that of Aristotle, Spinoza, or Leibniz) from a lowercase 'a god', which refers to the gods of polytheism (like Zeus or Thor, who are contingent beings within the universe). Capitalizing 'God' in philosophy is a distinction of ontological status (absolute vs. contingent), not an affiliation with the Bible."

This can be granted for the sake of the argument.

And in any case, even if that was true (wich is not) it would only apply to your culture... you still can notice the distinction by context, and if you are not brilliant enough to do that, just ask, very common practice in debates. Before building a strawman, you apply steelman. Not your case of course.

If I've understood correctly, the objection to Bradskii's identification of the "God" in your statement, "God is a necessary concept in logic, logic could not exist without it," as the Abrahamic "god" is that you intended for the label "God" to refer to the concept of a single necessary foundation of reality rather than to any specific deity. Accordingly, you've accused Bradskii of constructing a strawman.

A strawman argument is one that deliberately misrepresents an interlocutor's position in order to make it easier to debunk. So, let's examine Bradskii's original argument to determine if your objection applies:

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.

It appears that Bradskii understood the label "God" in your statement to reference the specific deity you are inferred to believe in because you failed to distinguish the "God" of philosophical theism from the "God" of Christianity in a context where it was reasonable to assume the latter understanding. So, if you were to charitably grant Bradskii's understanding of your argument at the time, modifying the label "God" to be "a god" for purpose of making the point that the Christian deity is just one in a set of other possible deities that could be asserted as the necessary concept in logic was not a deliberate strawman. At best, it was an honest but reasonable misunderstanding.

From there, Bradskii noted that you would still need to demonstrate how every other possible candidate "God" concept is ruled-out to leave the Christian god as the only necessary concept for logic to exist. Given your recent clarification, the reference to a philosophical "God" concept as the single necessary foundation of reality doesn't completely evade Bradskii's point here because such a broad definition encompasses any number of possible unfalsifiable assertions including a non-contingent universal quantum field, a non-contingent spaghetti monster, and a non-contingent Abrahamic deity.

[Vilferatus]

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.

Thats just false...

"In English philosophical debates, capitalized 'God' is used to differentiate the concept of Philosophical Theism (a single supreme, necessary, and absolute foundation of reality, such as that of Aristotle, Spinoza, or Leibniz) from a lowercase 'a god', which refers to the gods of polytheism (like Zeus or Thor, who are contingent beings within the universe). Capitalizing 'God' in philosophy is a distinction of ontological status (absolute vs. contingent), not an affiliation with the Bible."

This can be granted for the sake of the argument.

And in any case, even if that was true (wich is not) it would only apply to your culture... you still can notice the distinction by context, and if you are not brilliant enough to do that, just ask, very common practice in debates. Before building a strawman, you apply steelman. Not your case of course.

If I've understood correctly, the objection to Bradskii's identification of the "God" in your statement, "God is a necessary concept in logic, logic could not exist without it," as the Abrahamic "god" is that you intended for the label "God" to refer to the concept of a single necessary foundation of reality rather than to any specific deity. Accordingly, you've accused Bradskii of constructing a strawman.

A strawman argument is one that deliberately misrepresents an interlocutor's position in order to make it easier to debunk. So, let's examine Bradskii's original argument to determine if your objection applies:

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.

It appears that Bradskii understood the label "God" in your statement to reference the specific deity you are inferred to believe in because you failed to distinguish the "God" of philosophical theism from the "God" of Christianity in a context where it was reasonable to assume the latter understanding. So, if you were to charitably grant Bradskii's understanding of your argument at the time, modifying the label "God" to be "a god" for purpose of making the point that the Christian deity is just one in a set of other possible deities that could be asserted as the necessary concept in logic was not a deliberate strawman. At best, it was an honest but reasonable misunderstanding.

From there, Bradskii noted that you would still need to demonstrate how every other possible candidate "God" concept is ruled-out to leave the Christian god as the only necessary concept for logic to exist. Given your recent clarification, the reference to a philosophical "God" concept as the single necessary foundation of reality doesn't completely evade Bradskii's point here because such a broad definition encompasses any number of possible unfalsifiable assertions including a non-contingent universal quantum field, a non-contingent spaghetti monster, and a non-contingent Abrahamic deity.

You claim it is my fault that Bradski doesnt understand my position? You claim a spaguetti monster can be an absolute, objective, and ultimate foundation of reality? Is that your position?

In all those scenarios, you are commiting the same mistake: Adding attributes to God with no basis. You dont know how God is, me neither... but we know is not a Spaguetti mosnter.

Your attempts to prove me wrong are getting a little to ridiculous at this point.