5 Myths about Atheism

[jimtron]

Great column (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/atheists_--_naughty_and_nice_--_should_define_themselves.html#more) in Wapo by Susan Jacoby.

I was somewhat taken aback recently when I found myself on a list of "kinder, gentler atheists"--most of them women--compiled by a religious historian attempting to distinguish between socially acceptable atheism and the presumably mean, hard-line atheism expounded by such demonic figures as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. This nasty versus nice dichotomy is wholly an invention of believers who are under the mistaken impression that atheism is a religion in need of a good schism.

[slingblade]

Twas a good read. I liked it. I like her. Thanks!

[Redtail]

Good read, as are the comments.

[SusanB-M1]

Thanks for link. Interesting read. I think I shall quote it on a couple of other forums.

[Trent Wray]

I think one myth I used to have about atheism is that it is essentially the same as a religion, based on faith in science and not god ---- but atheists still have faith that "no God exists", and so this qualifies as a type of religious faith. I don't think this is entirely true, but I recently came across an article on atheism written by an atheist here (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html), and one thing the writer says in particular puzzles me:

There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence. In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason.

In my experience, most atheists are no longer still "examining the possibility" of a god existing outside what contemporary religion tries to define god as. Atheist believe and choose to believe that there is no evidence, has never been any evidence, and will never be any evidence. It is not a point of discussing the possibility. But the above quote seems to imply that if evidence came up that was reasonable, an atheist would consider it and possibly change their mind. Wouldn't this be a better definition of an agnostic or someone still "seeking"? Hasn't an atheist already found an answer to the question of god they are content with to be fact and not theory?

Anyone who cares to respond I'd love to hear your thoughts :o

[CriticalSock]

I think one myth I used to have about atheism is that it is essentially the same as a religion, based on faith in science and not god ---- but atheists still have faith that "no God exists", and so this qualifies as a type of religious faith. I don't think this is entirely true, but I recently came across an article on atheism written by an atheist here (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html), and one thing the writer says in particular puzzles me:



In my experience, most atheists are no longer still "examining the possibility" of a god existing outside what contemporary religion tries to define god as. Atheist believe and choose to believe that there is no evidence, has never been any evidence, and will never be any evidence. It is not a point of discussing the possibility. But the above quote seems to imply that if evidence came up that was reasonable, an atheist would consider it and possibly change their mind. Wouldn't this be a better definition of an agnostic or someone still "seeking"? Hasn't an atheist already found an answer to the question of god they are content with to be fact and not theory?

Anyone who cares to respond I'd love to hear your thoughts :o

I think this is going to generate a lot of unicorn and teapot comments! :)

You don't believe (I hope!) in unicorns. Everything we know about the world says they don't exist. But if an alien spaceship landed and it turned out to be an interstellar unicorn trader, would you cling to your belief or change your mind? If the evidence presents itself, then anyone reasonable should be able to change their mind about anything.

In the past people did believe in unicorns, but they based that belief on fragmentary evidence such as strange horns brought back by sailors and ancient stories and tales of unicorn going's on. Much like peoples belief in god today.

[PixyMisa]

In my experience, most atheists are no longer still "examining the possibility" of a god existing outside what contemporary religion tries to define god as. Atheist believe and choose to believe that there is no evidence, has never been any evidence, and will never be any evidence. It is not a point of discussing the possibility. But the above quote seems to imply that if evidence came up that was reasonable, an atheist would consider it and possibly change their mind. Wouldn't this be a better definition of an agnostic or someone still "seeking"? Hasn't an atheist already found an answer to the question of god they are content with to be fact and not theory?
Atheism is not incompatible with agnosticism. If you don't have a positive belief in God and are open to evidence, you are an agnostic atheist.

There's no point in seeking God, though, until someone comes up with evidence that there is such a thing. You can see from the "Proof of God" thread the quality of evidence that is presented in such discussions.

[Trent Wray]

I think this is going to generate a lot of unicorn and teapot comments! :)

You don't believe (I hope!) in unicorns. Everything we know about the world says they don't exist. But if an alien spaceship landed and it turned out to be an interstellar unicorn trader, would you cling to your belief or change your mind? If the evidence presents itself, then anyone reasonable should be able to change their mind about anything.

In the past people did believe in unicorns, but they based that belief on fragmentary evidence such as strange horns brought back by sailors and ancient stories and tales of unicorn going's on. Much like peoples belief in god today.

Atheism is not incompatible with agnosticism. If you don't have a positive belief in God and are open to evidence, you are an agnostic atheist.

There's no point in seeking God, though, until someone comes up with evidence that there is such a thing. You can see from the "Proof of God" thread the quality of evidence that is presented in such discussions. What is it with atheists and unicorns? :o:D LOL
Okay, I get it (I think). An atheist claims that there has been no evidence to support the existence of the god that most religions describe ... and the evidence also doesn't warrant the exploration of "another version of god" either. But if in the future, some worthwhile evidence comes to light --- any rational person would examine it, whatever it was ... be it the big-green-oz-head or Zeus. But if it's just more of the same (claims of answered prayer or bigfoot prints, etc), it is safe to categorize it and chunk it in with the rest of said evidence. So until then, an atheist isn't necessarily an agnostic, because they have made up their mind "up to this point" and also do not believe in searching further, unless some new evidence comes to light that DIFFERS from previous evidence. An atheist agnostic isn't a contradiction in terms either ... but there is a difference between an atheist agnostic and an atheist.

Maybe I'm closer?

I of course could look up definitions, but I always like to hear people's personal definitions of their own categories/labels/values/etc :)

[GrandMasterFox]

What is it with atheists and unicorns? :o:D LOL

I always wondered that myself. I don't get it.
I mean why specifically Unicorns? Why not goblins, trolls, griffins, hydras, dragons or any other of dozens of mythic creatures most people don't believe in?

Is there something in particular about the unicorn? Or is it a famous quote or something?

Why is it we never hear someone say "prove to me that griffins don't exist"?

[Sledge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

[Trent Wray]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Awesome! Except for the purple oyster part ... :(

And I'm color blind and don't see the color pink :)

[HansMustermann]

Awesome! Except for the purple oyster part ... :(

And I'm color blind and don't see the color pink :)

I think the "invisble" part makes everyone rather equal in the not seeing aspect ;)

[Hokulele]

An atheist agnostic isn't a contradiction in terms either ... but there is a difference between an atheist agnostic and an atheist.

Maybe I'm closer?


Closer. There is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist. It helps to think of the original Greek terms where a- can be translated as "without" and gnosis which is usually translated as "knowledge". But basically, if you ask someone which god(s) they believe in and the answer is "none", they are an atheist, although they may prefer to label themselves a different way.

To make your life even more interesting, atheism can come in different flavors, much like theism. Everything from antitheism to ignosticism can be argued to fall under the umbrella of atheism.

[CurtC]

I always wondered that myself. I don't get it.
I mean why specifically Unicorns? Why not goblins, trolls, griffins, hydras, dragons or any other of dozens of mythic creatures most people don't believe in?

Another popular one, and my favorite, is leprechauns. I tell people that my disbelief in a god is just like their disbelief in leprechauns. If they take a moment to understand why they don't believe in leprechauns, then they'll understand why I don't believe in a god.

[Beerina]

"Religion is a nasty plague born of ignorance, and a parasite on the well-being of humanity, a grotesque, harmful disease, all the while putting on a smiley face as it justifies slaughter and RightThink in spreading itself. If Hell existed, religion would need to die like a pig in it." <-- I wonder on which side of the schism I fall...

[godless dave]

A nice thing about unicorns is the King James version of the Christian Bible says they existed at one time. If a Christian responds with "unicorns aren't in the Bible!" it tells you two things - she doesn't understand analogies and hasn't read her own Bible.

[HansMustermann]

This nasty versus nice dichotomy is wholly an invention of believers who are under the mistaken impression that atheism is a religion in need of a good schism.

Well, I don't know about you, but as an orthodox follower of Athe I say we're long overdue for a good ol' fashioned schism with the reformed atheists ;)

[Third Eye Open]

What is it with atheists and unicorns? :o:D LOL
Okay, I get it (I think). An atheist claims that there has been no evidence to support the existence of the god that most religions describe ... and the evidence also doesn't warrant the exploration of "another version of god" either. But if in the future, some worthwhile evidence comes to light --- any rational person would examine it, whatever it was ... be it the big-green-oz-head or Zeus. But if it's just more of the same (claims of answered prayer or bigfoot prints, etc), it is safe to categorize it and chunk it in with the rest of said evidence. So until then, an atheist isn't necessarily an agnostic, because they have made up their mind "up to this point" and also do not believe in searching further, unless some new evidence comes to light that DIFFERS from previous evidence. An atheist agnostic isn't a contradiction in terms either ... but there is a difference between an atheist agnostic and an atheist.

Maybe I'm closer?

I of course could look up definitions, but I always like to hear people's personal definitions of their own categories/labels/values/etc :)

All this quibbling about atheist and agnostic and whatever mix of the two you come up with is just silly as far as I'm concerned.

Look, if I asked you if unicorns existed, you may say "They could, I don't know for sure". But if a child asked you, or someone who truly was asking for information and not trying to make some philosophical point, you would say 'no.'
Every statement any sane person makes is followed by an unspoken 'as far as I know' afterwords. When I say "I'm going to the store in a minute." or "My cat is sleeping." or "We landed on the moon." None of these statements are absolute, all are subject to change with any evidence to the contrary.

But whenever I say "I'm going to the store." I don't have people jumping on my back saying "But how can you KNOW? What if you die of a heart attack in the next minute? What if your car won't start? How can you be so sure?" Because it is understood that we don't have to point out our lack of absolute certainty when making such statements.

The only reason we have to constantly make it irritatingly clear that we are open to evidence to change our position on god, is because the people asking us are NOT usually open to evidence. Their beliefs ARE absolute, so they assume that ours are also.

So when someone asks me if god exists and I say 'no.' I mean "Not as far as I can tell." Because really, that's what no means anyway. And that is what EVERYONE means when they say no. So I don't really know what the difference between atheism and agnosticism is in that respect.

[PixyMisa]

All this quibbling about atheist and agnostic and whatever mix of the two you come up with is just silly as far as I'm concerned.
This is the Religion and Philosophy forum. Silly is what we do here.

For everyday purposes, yeah, the answer to "Is there a God?" is "No." But this forum is not just about everyday purposes.

[Dunstan]

All this quibbling about atheist and agnostic and whatever mix of the two you come up with is just silly as far as I'm concerned.

Look, if I asked you if unicorns existed, you may say "They could, I don't know for sure". But if a child asked you, or someone who truly was asking for information and not trying to make some philosophical point, you would say 'no.'
Every statement any sane person makes is followed by an unspoken 'as far as I know' afterwords. When I say "I'm going to the store in a minute." or "My cat is sleeping." or "We landed on the moon." None of these statements are absolute, all are subject to change with any evidence to the contrary.

But whenever I say "I'm going to the store." I don't have people jumping on my back saying "But how can you KNOW? What if you die of a heart attack in the next minute? What if your car won't start? How can you be so sure?" Because it is understood that we don't have to point out our lack of absolute certainty when making such statements.


Thank you for sparing me the need to type my own similar comment.

[Trent Wray]

All this quibbling about atheist and agnostic and whatever mix of the two you come up with is just silly as far as I'm concerned.

Look, if I asked you if unicorns existed, you may say "They could, I don't know for sure". But if a child asked you, or someone who truly was asking for information and not trying to make some philosophical point, you would say 'no.'
Every statement any sane person makes is followed by an unspoken 'as far as I know' afterwords. When I say "I'm going to the store in a minute." or "My cat is sleeping." or "We landed on the moon." None of these statements are absolute, all are subject to change with any evidence to the contrary.

But whenever I say "I'm going to the store." I don't have people jumping on my back saying "But how can you KNOW? What if you die of a heart attack in the next minute? What if your car won't start? How can you be so sure?" Because it is understood that we don't have to point out our lack of absolute certainty when making such statements.

The only reason we have to constantly make it irritatingly clear that we are open to evidence to change our position on god, is because the people asking us are NOT usually open to evidence. Their beliefs ARE absolute, so they assume that ours are also.

So when someone asks me if god exists and I say 'no.' I mean "Not as far as I can tell." Because really, that's what no means anyway. And that is what EVERYONE means when they say no. So I don't really know what the difference between atheism and agnosticism is in that respect. That's a good point ... EXCEPT ... even a child won't be convinced that a unicorn doesn't exist if they want to believe it.

A case in point. My son believes shadows are ghosts. I have never put that idea into his head, nor has his mother. Scooby Doo has, I'm afraid. Sooo .... for now he thinks this. I've demonstrated to him how shadows are made, and he understands the concept ... but at night when he's alone in his room, the shadows become ghosts. This is to the degree that he won't sleep alone in his room out of fear and he gets up and hogs the bed almost every night that I sleep in.

To keep telling him over and over again that I don't believe in ghosts, or that the shadows aren't ghosts, or that the ghosts just aren't real .... this doesn't "fix" his overall problem of believing in them and the consequences from it. I still have to let him sleep in my bed or scream and cry from fear every night. He's not ready to accept "the truth" ... because to him, the truth is just as real as my truth. My truth allows me to sleep comfortably. His truth is fed by fear.

It's too late to have him stop watching Scooby Doo ... the "damage" has been done. So now I have to deprogram him.

If he continues to harbor this belief and fear as he gets older, and he chooses to claim that I am mislead in my belief there are no ghosts, then he will "know" he is right. As I will know I am right. He may not be open to the evidence to the contrary, or he may be. Regardless, he will most likely want to find others who support his ideas. Just like theists do. Just like atheists do. Just like scientists do. Just like unicorn believers do. It's human.

And so the terms will come to exist. But it doesn't mean that in his frame of reference that ghosts aren't real.

I work in a hospital where we get all manner of psych patients on my unit. At times, it is beneficial to attempt to convince them of their delusions. Other times, it isn't. The same goes for those with general dementia or other altered mental status. Sometimes it is just more practical to address a patient as though the invisible in the room really was there. It is more calming and peaceful.

So it's easy to say unicorns don't exist, until you think you see them for yourself. Then, who will be able to convince you otherwise? Especially when you see them everynight when you go to bed. Will you always trust rational thought and logic? How do you know? You are convinced they don't exist. Who will be able to convince you otherwise?

And so we have millions and millions of people who either suffer from delusional thinking, or incomplete thinking (needing more maturity and experience), or a mental disorder perhaps, or remnants of some instinctual drive to associate things a certain way .... or something else we haven't considered. That something else doesn't have to be that they are actually seeing unicorns .... just something we haven't considered.

And that something else might be linked to this idea: I'm more willing to tolerate my own children's own beliefs, because I love him. If you came up to him and began to put him down, I may or may not get upset and retaliate either verbally or non-verbally. Even if I held my tongue and walked off, I still might stay effected for awhile, as would he.

Even if he were a 30 year old cult leader destroying minds, I might turn him in but i couldn't bring myself to get rid of him to save others. He's my son. I would still love him, even behind bars. I'm not saying that makes me "righteous" ... only that is how I feel about him.

For me personally, it's not about right or wrong. It's about trying to promote peace and freedom, but also love and mercy at the same time.

So is religion and beliefs in unicorns really the problem? We all have different delusions, or at the very least incomplete conclusions on certain things. Even to the point of causing harm to others (obviously :) ). So is how we handle the issues the problem, or are the issues themselves the problem? It doesn't appear as though the issues are going away. Is love and mercy right? Or should we define it differently. Is is more loving to kill or get rid of those who think differently? Or contain them somehow ... like giving them their own country? :) This hasn't worked either.

This is the Religion and Philosophy forum. Silly is what we do here.

For everyday purposes, yeah, the answer to "Is there a God?" is "No." But this forum is not just about everyday purposes.
Yeah I was hoping that is what they were for, and not just a meeting place for a specific set of beliefs in particular. That would be like going to church :)

I'm always reminded of Willy Wonka and the idea that "candy doesn't have to have a point, that is why it's candy".

[Third Eye Open]

That's a good point ... EXCEPT ... even a child won't be convinced that a unicorn doesn't exist if they want to believe it.

.....

My point wasn't about convincing other people. My point was about my beliefs, and how irritating it is to have to clarify what I mean by 'no' when I say there is no god. I find it irritating that I am seen as closed minded and not open to any other options about god before any discussion has even began.

I find it irritating that absolute certainty is assumed with god beliefs but not with any other belief of any kind ever.

Why must it be assumed that I am closed minded and cannot be shown otherwise before you even try? edit: 'you in the general sense. not you trentwray

[Hux]

That is excellent and well elucidated. Well worth quoting when necessary.

[Trent Wray]

My point wasn't about convincing other people. My point was about my beliefs, and how irritating it is to have to clarify what I mean by 'no' when I say there is no god. I find it irritating that I am seen as closed minded and not open to any other options about god before any discussion has even began.

I find it irritating that absolute certainty is assumed with god beliefs but not with any other belief of any kind ever.

Why must it be assumed that I am closed minded and cannot be shown otherwise before you even try? edit: 'you in the general sense. not you trentwray
Yes I can see that as being irritating, totally. And I didn't think you were calling me out personally :)

I personally am not satisfied with the explanations organized religion give for god, but I am still open to exploring concepts and ideas, as I am still not fully convinced that "the shapes in the clouds mean nothing" so to speak. And I work in a hospital, on a unit, that has many Christian nurses. Occassionally one will ask me if I believe in God, because they see me as being a helpful, caring, generally accepting person of others. When I say, "maybe," they ask me, "what church do you go to?"

So I have to clarify, if I choose to, why I do or do not go to church. And the look on their face reveals their internal conflict: "how can he be loving and understanding but not go to church? what is he then?"

And this irritates me ... beyond irritating. It's sooooooo disappointing. Beyond disappointing. Why? I think it's because I would prefer not only to not have to clarify, but I'd prefer to not be judged. I'd prefer to be accepted. I'd prefer to actually be able to participate with some of them in a deeper, more personally meaningful way .... and if I can't, to at least be left alone instead of being devalued by them when I actually care about them on some level. It's hard when I still value their contributions to my own personal life, but they devalue mine because I do not fit into their mold. So they devalue something I value .... humanity.

It's prejudiced and elitism and other ugliness and ignorance.

And I fully admit that my preconceived ideas of atheistic concepts and ideas were incomplete and based on lack of knowledge, even assumptions and ignorance. I have no problem with admitting that. How else would I learn if I thought I knew it all already? It's why I ask questions when I don't understand or want to understand. I wish it wasn't such a sensitive topic amongst us humans (god and religion and certain philosophies, etc), but it is. Should it be? That I don't know. I would say it shouldn't be such a button with us, as it causes so much strife and derision. But is strife and derision necessary at times? again ... idk. it's situational perhaps.

What's hard for me personally, is when I am the minority in a situation (like with Christians and Atheists alike), and it's assumed that when I say "I believe the idea of god is worth exploring based on personal evidence I'm not content with standard explanations of", it's assumed I'm coming from an evil, deluded, apostate stance (with Christians for example) .... or an ignorant, "just keep thinking about it and you'll see that you're wrong", must-be-judaeo-christian-god I'm talking about stance that might make me equal with Crusaders and Nazi's alike (with some atheists I've talked to, for example).

But I understand having to clarify so much. I'm in the minority. :o But yes, it is irritating and disappointing. Infuriating and even lonely at times :)

[jakesteele]

"Religion is a nasty plague born of ignorance, and a parasite on the well-being of humanity, a grotesque, harmful disease, all the while putting on a smiley face as it justifies slaughter and RightThink in spreading itself. If Hell existed, religion would need to die like a pig in it." <-- I wonder on which side of the schism I fall...

You sound like Jerry Falwell's evil twin.

[Trent Wray]

"Religion is a nasty plague born of ignorance, and a parasite on the well-being of humanity, a grotesque, harmful disease, all the while putting on a smiley face as it justifies slaughter and RightThink in spreading itself. If Hell existed, religion would need to die like a pig in it." <-- I wonder on which side of the schism I fall...

You sound like Jerry Falwell's evil twin. Or perhaps Rorschach from the Watchmen :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you haven't read Jacoby's "The Secularists", do so. Let's put it this way - David Barton's head would explode if he read it.

[skeptiform5]

I'm glad someone publicly put something in a newspaper disproving all the myths surrounding atheism. It was definately worth reading.