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]

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?

Not exactly. I'm pointing out that Bradskii misunderstood your initial position, but his error was not to commit a strawman fallacy.

With regard to the non-contingent spaghetti monster reference, it was only meant to illustrate that your unfalsifiable "God" concept was defined too broadly. If you meant for the unfalsifiable "God" concept to exclude an unfalsifiable non-contingent spaghetti monster, then you'll need to provide an argument justifying its rejection as a possible candidate "God" concept or redefine what you mean by the label "God."

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.

The only relevant attribute assigned to those unfalsifiable "God" concepts is that they are all asserted to be possible non-contingent foundations of reality. The additional attributes you want to infer from their labels are not relevant. Feel free to ignore their labels if they are causing a distraction. The point was to demonstrate that your unfalsifiable philosophical "God" concept is defined too broadly for your argument to be meaningful. In other words, even if we grant your assertion, the conclusion of your argument is merely that people can presuppose any unfalsifiable concept of a non-contingent thing as possessing the attribute of "necessary foundation of reality" and subsequently label it as "God."

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

I'm not attempting to prove that your claim about the existence of a theistic god is wrong because it is unfalsifiable. What I attempted to do was distinguish between a deliberate strawman argument and an honest misunderstanding.

[Vilferatus]

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?

Not exactly. I'm pointing out that Bradskii misunderstood your initial position, but his error was not to commit a strawman fallacy.

With regard to the non-contingent spaghetti monster reference, it was only meant to illustrate that your unfalsifiable "God" concept was defined too broadly. If you meant for the unfalsifiable "God" concept to exclude an unfalsifiable non-contingent spaghetti monster, then you'll need to provide an argument justifying its rejection as a possible candidate "God" concept or redefine what you mean by the label "God."

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.

The only relevant attribute assigned to those unfalsifiable "God" concepts is that they are all asserted to be possible non-contingent foundations of reality. The additional attributes you want to infer from their labels are not relevant. Feel free to ignore their labels if they are causing a distraction. The point was to demonstrate that your unfalsifiable philosophical "God" concept is defined too broadly for your argument to be meaningful. In other words, even if we grant your assertion, the conclusion of your argument is merely that people can presuppose any unfalsifiable concept of a non-contingent thing as possessing the attribute of "necessary foundation of reality" and subsequently label it as "God."

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

I'm not attempting to prove that your claim about the existence of a theistic god is wrong because it is unfalsifiable. What I attempted to do was distinguish between a deliberate strawman argument and an honest misunderstanding.

Using AI cause there is nothing else to discuss now, just showing your methological mistakes one after another:

It is highly revealing that now, after being exposed on the rules of modal logic, you are asking me to "ignore the labels" of your own analogies because they are causing a "distraction." You introduced the satirical "spaghetti monster" precisely to smuggle its absurd, material attributes into a serious metaphysical discussion. Now that I have demonstrated that any material or composite entity is strictly contingent by definition and cannot ground necessary logical truths, you attempt to strip your own analogy of its content to save your argument.

A non-contingent foundation of reality is not a vague blank canvas where you can just slap the label "non-contingent" onto any arbitrary object. The ultimate foundation of necessary, immutable logical principles must possess properties derived from strict reason: it must be non-material, immutable, and simple (non-composite). Your satirical candidates are not excluded because of their "labels"; they are excluded because their intrinsic physical nature contradicts the very definition of necessity.

Furthermore, your constant recycling of the word "unfalsifiable" reveals a textbook epistemological error. Karl Popper’s falsifiability applies to empirical, physical science within the universe. Metaphysical frameworks and foundational logical principles are evaluated through internal consistency and abductive power (inference to the best explanation). Demanding empirical falsifiability for the ground of logic itself is a massive category mistake.

[Vilferatus]

You claim it is my fault that Bradski doesnt understand my position?

He demonstrated that what you called a strawman was in fact not. You failed to defend your strawman position, so it is now considered to be a false claim until/unless defended.

You dont know how God is, me neither...

Which god concept are you claiming we don't know things about? I personally know a lot of things claimed about many gods.

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

Debate may not be for you then. Being shown to be wrong is one of the best ways to sharpen your (generic your) own thinking and debate is one of the best avenues to do this.
For example, you could likely post in Holy Huddle that atheists hold the belief that the gods don't exist and you likely wont be challenged. So no ridiculousness from your point of view in that forum. Here, you need to expect to be challenged and not find it ridiculous.

AI made response for your innacurate and missleading comments:

Your intervention is nothing more than a textbook exercise in tribal validation and ad hominem tone policing.

Instead of addressing the actual core of the metaphysical debate—the ontological status of logic and the necessity of its foundation—you choose to decree a "victory" for your group, confuse the historical folklore of religions with the analytical concept of the Logos, and tell me that "debate may not be for you" to protect your friends' wounded egos.

When a trio of forum veterans has to resort to protecting each other's reputations, telling the interlocutor to leave the section, and asking to "ignore" their own failed analogies, it is clear who has run out of civilized, logical arguments. Your attempts to handle this through social pressure rather than rational defense are exactly what is becoming completely ridiculous.

Choose your poison.

"It's very difficult to win an argument against a smart person, but it's absolutely impossible to win against a fool."