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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #1]

It cannot be factually or morally wrong to express a belief, or a disbelief.

Then neither atheism nor theism can be factually or morally wrong.

[bjs1]

Preamble:

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.

This is the most common definition of atheism I have seen on this board.

As far as I can tell, this makes atheism true, provable, and worthless.

We could apply the same criteria to theism. We could say that theism is a claim about my mental state, not a truth claim. We would then say that theism cannot be factually or morally wrong. This would make theism equally true, provable, and worthless.

We could adjust one of the conversations from post 1 to read:

Christian: Hi. I believe in God.
Atheist: Is Christianity making the claim that God exists?
Christian: No.
Atheist: Is Christianity making the claim that Christianity is correct?
Christian: No.
Atheist: Is Christianity making any truth claim?
Christian: No. Christianity makes no truth claim. “I believe in God” describes my mental state, not a claim about whether any God exists. My god might not be real. I might be mistaken. But as a theist, I believe that my god is real.

So now both theism and atheism are true.

To me it just seems, well, silly. Who cares if something is true when it doesn’t have any substance?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #2]

It cannot be factually or morally wrong to express a belief, or a disbelief.

Then neither atheism nor theism can be factually or morally wrong.

____________________________________

I get it... I struggled with that, too.


Atheism is only a claim about a person's mental state which is a rejection of theism.
Theism is the claim that at least one god is real, which is used to justify the belief in particular gods.

Do you see the difference between the two?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #3]

As far as I can tell, this makes atheism true, provable, and worthless.

We could apply the same criteria to theism. We could say that theism is a claim about my mental state, not a truth claim. We would then say that theism cannot be factually or morally wrong. This would make theism equally true, provable, and worthless.

Yes we could.

However, in my experience, theists usually make the claim that at least one god is real. They make truth claims. while atheists never have to.

On this web site, theists will be commonly seen to proclaim the existence of their God.
This is vastly different from how modern atheists explain their position... right?

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #3]

As far as I can tell, this makes atheism true, provable, and worthless.

We could apply the same criteria to theism. We could say that theism is a claim about my mental state, not a truth claim. We would then say that theism cannot be factually or morally wrong. This would make theism equally true, provable, and worthless.

Yes we could.

However, in my experience, theists usually make the claim that at least one god is real. They make truth claims. while atheists never have to.

On this web site, theists will be commonly seen to proclaim the existence of their God.
This is vastly different from how modern atheists explain their position... right?

No one has to make truth claims. Most theists do because…. I suppose that I can only speak for myself.

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

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.

When that is the case, why bother posting? We could just stay home, so to speak.

In a debate, “You can’t prove it,” is always the strongest position to take. If we push that idea far enough, then there is literally nothing that you or I can prove. At that point, we have robbed both of our positions of their importance. Our own positions have no value in themselves, and they prevent us from taking on views that might hold genuine substance.

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

[Ray the atheist]

[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.

If you felt that you were right, I think you would say that.
You aren't saying that.

[Ray the atheist]

[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.

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.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #6]

In a debate, “You can’t prove it,” is always the strongest position to take. If we push that idea far enough, then there is literally nothing that you or I can prove. At that point, we have robbed both of our positions of their importance. Our own positions have no value in themselves, and they prevent us from taking on views that might hold genuine substance.

I'm saying that you can't prove it.
That's basically what atheism means.

If atheists believed that have proved it, we would all be theists.
If theists admit that they can't prove it.. yes, we can all go home and focus on our new, important hobbies.

Such as working on climate and health issues.. world peace and things that we might have time for right now due to theology taking over.

You seem to forget that atheism is antagonistic to theism.. for many good reasons.
I can't go home until there's still one theist left defending theism.

You can go home if you quit defending it.
Seems that we are stuck holding our ground.

[Ray the atheist]

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

The reason that atheism can't prove "no God " is because theism is undefeatable because it cannot prove "God".

If you could prove God, then theism could not be defeatable.
Since you seem to admit that you have no proof of God, then that fact alone makes theism defeated.

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