Common Myths about Atheism and Agnosticism

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I've been in this forum long enough now to see the same topics come up time and again. For theistic visitors, I thought it might be useful to make a list of common myths -- so we'd have something to refer to, rather than having to debate the same matter each time it arises.


Please add any others you think are worthwhile. I'm happy to update this list -- or a mod can take it over if it's useful.
  1. Atheism is a faith
    Atheism is the rejection of religious belief. Some people use an 'excluded middle' argument to argue that atheism imust be a faith: 'Either gods exist or not. If you think they don't then you can't prove it, so atheism must be faith based.' However many atheists reject this argument: If you don't believe in a pink teapot orbiting Jupiter, is that faith-based? And what if 'god' is undefined?

    Atheism is far more complicated than many theists understand. Do not assume that every atheist believes 'Gods don't exist' -- some do believe that and see it as faith; some believe it and don't see it as faith; some simply reject the opposite statement: 'Gods exist' as being meaningless or wrong and feel that faith is irrelevant to the question.
  2. Agnostics are ambivalent about gods
    Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge about the First Cause and the essential nature of things is not and cannot be known. That is a strong metaphysical position, it is not a statement of doubt or uncertainty.
  3. Atheists deify or worship science
    Scientism is the belief that science has authority over all areas of life -- physical, metaphysical, spiritual. Some atheists may embrace scientism but many don't. (Indeed, many scientists don't believe in scientism.)

    Atheists may be skeptical about scientific results and scientific wisdom the same as anyone else. Some atheists are ignorant of and largely indifferent to science.
  4. Atheists deify or worship humanity
    Humanism is the belief that humanity is the centre of importance -- which is not necessarily the same as worshipping humanity. Some atheists are humanists; many are not. Some see humanity as just a species of which they happen to be a member.
  5. Atheists all had a bad experience with religion
    Many atheists have no bad experience with religion until they decide they are atheists and perhaps not even then. Some atheists are raised by atheistic parents, but many have religious families, and knowledgable, kind religious teachers. Atheists don't always 'lose their faith' -- in many, religious faith never grew in the first place.

    Religious people worried about an atheist's spiritual state sometimes ask 'What did we do wrong?' In many cases, it's nothing. Humans are diverse. Some can't live without religion, but some don't need it, don't like it and can't see a use for it.

    Some atheists too are the devout who have lost their faith. Some may feel a sense of grief or betrayal over this; others may feel that they are better off. It's polite to ask before expressing pity.
  6. Atheists hate religion
    Atheists have a wide range of feelings about religion, indeed an atheist may have more than one feeling about religion.

    Only about 2.3% of the world describes itself as atheist, while around 86% of the world describes itself as religious in some way, so many atheists grow up among religious people and have had religious family and friends all their lives. Many atheists enjoy religious fiction, religious music and art, religious ceremonies and rituals -- even if they don't believe in religious magic, they may simply enjoy them as an expression of human emotion, imagination and society .

    Some atheists may be resentful of the way they have been treated by some religions. Some may feel that religious institutions are oppressive, but that religion itself is fine. Some may feel that religion itself is a dangerous delusion. Some may think that religion is fine, but that it plays too much of a role in government, custom and law. Even atheists that hate religion do not necessarily hate the religious -- though some do. In practice, atheistic views about religion are very similar to the sorts of views that the religious have about each other.
  7. Atheists aren't really irreligious -- they just haven't found the right argument or the right person to explain it to them
    Many atheists read widely about many religions. Some have a great deal of respect for religious history and religious accomplishments. Some are atheistic for reasons of conscience; others find religious claims to be ludicrous or repellant. Very few atheists are looking for someone to convert them. While some atheists are willing to engage in discussion or debate, many are sick and tired of the same arguments being trotted out. Many atheists don't trouble themselves thinking about religion on a day to day basis, so as a rule 'I'm an atheist' is not an invitation to discuss atheistic beliefs or one's favourite religion. It's generally polite to ask before so indulging.
  8. Non-theists are willfully ignorant of religion, ignore the evidence or deliberately misinterpret it
    This myth is most often held by theists who've tried and failed to convert some non-theist. It's a myth that demands an answer to the question: 'Why don't my arguments work on you? They worked on me!'. But here's the problem: given any set of facts (real or fictional) we can always tell more than one story about them. Often when non-theists argue with theists they're demanding to know: why should I believe your facts? Your story? The devout who have embraced one story with all their hearts can fail to see that there may be other interpretations. A story that is compelling to one person may seem narrow-minded and arbitrary to another.

    But there is another mythic element to this: the world is full of religions and they can't all be true. Many non-theists see no reason to consider theistic arguments without overwhelming physical evidence for their truth. Non-theists generally find that such evidence is lacking, and many find theistic attempts to supply such evidence as a waste of their time.
  9. If atheists don't believe in God, why do they rebel so hard against Him?
    Just as vegetarians are sometimes pressed to admit that they secretly crave meat, atheists are pressed to admit that they secretly crave God. When others presume to speak for you, sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    As mentioned elsewhere in this list, atheists have a spectrum of feelings about religion -- from warm tolerance through to indifferent rejection to outright hostility. When atheists are hostile to religious premises it can be for moral reasons (they feel that religions may be doing harm), philosophical reasons (they think that theology is ludicrous) or social reasons. Most atheists don't feel that they're rebelling against anything. Rather, they feel that they're trying to live their lives as their conscience and judgement dictates. However, many atheists experience pressure from religious people telling them that they're rebelling, and some react against that pressure -- the pressure to submit and conform to other peoples' views.
  10. Science shows that religion is wired into our brains; therefore atheists are aberrant
    The rate of religious belief tends to be very high throughout the world. Some scientists, (e.g. geneticist Dean Hamer), have proposed a 'God gene' to explain why humans tend to be more religious than not. While such a candidate gene has been nominated (it's VMAT2), the science of the study has been challenged; there has been no peer review and its effects and significance are still debated.

    Regardless, atheists are normal people in every respect, having normal relationships and living normal lives -- just doing so without religion. They are no more aberrant than (say) left-handed people. Once, superstition saw left-handedness as sinister. The people who wish to marginalise atheism as aberrant may want to do the same. But what such people don't seem to realise is that if heredity determines belief then it can equally determine false belief. In other words, a 'God gene' if true, could raise into question the truth of theists' most deeply-held convictions.
  11. Non-theists are libertines, hedonists, communists, devil-worshippers
    Some non-theists do not drink, smoke, take drugs or have sex outside of marriage. Others -- like many religious folk -- do. But notably, crime rates among atheists are lower than among many popular religious faiths, and atheist divorce rates are lower than divorce rates in popular religions.

    Non-theistic political beliefs run the same spectrum as everyone else. Atheists reject religion and therefore reject religious archetypes like devils and demons just as strongly as they reject gods.
  12. Non-theists are amoral, or borrow their morals from religion
    Morality is an understanding of what is good and bad, and what we owe one another. Like everyone else, non-theists draw their morals from their families, teachers, friends, their readings, reflections and their own consciences. In religious societies, non-theism has often been seen as heretical and many non-theists have been persecuted for their beliefs.

    There is no religion so powerful that everyone in the world knows its creed. When a religious person says 'You borrowed your creed from my religion' they're really saying 'My religion is supreme in the world'. That is an offensive statement to make to anyone -- including non-theists.
  13. Atheists are miserable because they have nothing to live for
    Atheists tend to see life itself as worth living for, but atheists can also have ideals worth dying for -- like family, community, society, and moral ideals.
  14. There are no atheists in foxholes
    Atheism has many martyrs who have literally died for their beliefs. One of these was Socrates, an atheist who was poisoned by the priesthood of Athens for heresy. He had no wish to die, but accepted his fate on grounds of conscience, even when he could have fled. The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers supports atheists in the armed services, and a skeptical analysis of this aphorism is here.
  15. Atheists have no sense of mystery, awe, humility, reverence or wonder
    Atheists can be just as impressed and stunned by babies, flowers, stars, and music, just as touched by kindness and generosity, just as ashamed of their own failings and thankful for the graces of others, just as respectful of births and deaths and marriages as other people. Atheists generally find that one doesn't need to believe magical stories about beauty, the wonders of life and one's own failings to feel strongly about such things. Some atheists are deeply reverent about the complexities of existence -- so much that they may be outraged at religions that think it can explain everything. But naturally, as with theists, the mileage with individual atheists may vary.
  16. Atheists want to eradicate religion
    Atheism is not a religious tribe or a political party any more than 'bald people' are. It's just the absence of religion, in the same way that baldness is the absence of hair. Many atheists are individualists -- they don't feel that they belong to any particular group.

    Some atheists believe that religion is bad for people, and would like to see less religious belief in the world. Others feel that there's no problem with religious faith, but it's just not for them. Some feel in-between, that there's no problem with religion per se, but that it sometimes gets carried away. Some atheists are unapologetically evangelical, in the same way that some theists are.
  17. Atheists are a rabble of opinionated individualists, idealists, pedants, heretics, moaners, rock-chuckers and armchair philosophers
    This is not so mythical. In most societies, atheism is seen as an heretical position. Many atheists live in a permanent minority, and may encounter unrelenting pressure from family, friends, teachers, and government authorities to conform. Consequently, their opinions may be strong and individualistic. In a mixed social setting, they may bite back their strongest opinions for the sake of getting along, but in a setting with other atheists they'll often let fly -- at religion, at society and at each other. It's sometimes combative, but often constructive too. The forum's moderation is intended to keep it civil, but that doesn't always make it agreeable.
 
Last edited:

fullbookjacket

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
276
Reaction score
29
Location
Florida
Looks like you've covered them well.

I take exception with a statement in #12: "Atheists are in a permanent minority." We're a small minority here in America, and you may feel the same about Australia...but that may not always be the case. I used to be a Christian...my wife still is, but in a lukewarm way...now I'm an atheist, and so are my two adult daughters, and at least one of their boyfriends. Religion is slowly, slowly eroding here.

In some Western European nations, I hear atheism is now around 50%.

In the U.S., numbers aren't reliable, but I've seen estimates around 5%, with some 14% declaring "no religion." Whatever that means...I think it's because people have been conditioned to think of the term "atheist" as a negative thing, and can't quite come to grips with their lack of belief. I would wager that atheism in young adults would be around 20% now.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I take exception with a statement in #12: "Atheists are in a permanent minority." We're a small minority here in America, and you may feel the same about Australia...but that may not always be the case. I used to be a Christian...my wife still is, but in a lukewarm way...now I'm an atheist, and so are my two adult daughters, and at least one of their boyfriends. Religion is slowly, slowly eroding here.

In some Western European nations, I hear atheism is now around 50%.
You're right -- thank you -- and the text is now corrected.

Atheism is not at 50% anywhere in Europe (or any country that I'm aware of), but I've seen figures quoting nontheism at around 60% in Scandanavia. Curiously though, a country like Sweden with low theism still has a high rate of baptisms, weddings and funerals in churches. So perhaps the social elements of religion are being retained even if the metaphysical elements aren't.

Atheists seldom get along well with conservative religious power (or perhaps, vice-versa). I think it likely that they'll get less frothy as and when that power recedes. Meanwhile though, we have what we have.
 
Last edited:

knight_tour

Fantasy Tourist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
62
Location
Rome, Italy
Website
tedacross.blogspot.com
Some non-theists do not drink, smoke, take drugs or have sex outside of marriage. Others -- like many religious folk -- do. But notably, crime rates among atheists are lower than among many popular religious faiths, and atheist divorce rates are lower than divorce rates in popular religions.

Good stuff! I am a great example of the above quote. I'm agnostic, yet I have never had a drink or a smoke, never committed a crime, and the closest I have come to a drug is Hershey's with Almonds or Pepsi. I've been married for sixteen years and have never cheated on my wife. If more people had my morality we wouldn't have many problems in this world. And, as you say, I did not arrive at my morality from religion.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Curiously though, a country like Sweden with low theism still has a high rate of baptisms, weddings and funerals in churches. So perhaps the social elements of religion are being retained even if the metaphysical elements aren't.

Well, I'm an atheist, but in any official statistic I will show up as a Roman Catholic Christian. That's because I never bothered to leave the church. I doubt I will as long as my parents are alive. It appears to mean something to them, and since I don't really care I remain a nominal (and paying - there's a "church tax") member.

A couple of years ago I received an invitation to one of my friends' wedding. Considering that she's been married for a couple of years (to the husband also featured on the invitation) and had two children, I was a trifle confused. Turns out they finally caved in to family demands, and had a church wedding.

To complicate matters, I know Christians who left the Roman Catholic church (and didn't join another), meaning that they would show up as "ORB" ("Ohne Religiöses Bekenntnis" - "without religious denomination") in official statistics, even though - belief-wise - they're Christians.

Demographic data usually measure group membership, not belief or lack thereof. I wouldn't rely on that.
 

knight_tour

Fantasy Tourist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
62
Location
Rome, Italy
Website
tedacross.blogspot.com
Hey, there is still a pretty big social stigma attached to being atheist or agnostic. I believe there is a MUCH higher percentage of us in the U.S. than the statistics show.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Demographic data usually measure group membership, not belief or lack thereof. I wouldn't rely on that.

there is still a pretty big social stigma attached to being atheist or agnostic. I believe there is a MUCH higher percentage of us in the U.S. than the statistics show.
In Australia, religion isn't gathered by birth records, but by direct polling in censuses. They don't rely on parish records because these days, people don't live and die in the same community, some faiths probably don't keep records at all, many believers don't attend brick-and-mortar churches, and some faiths are probably unwilling to share their records anyway.

Since our census information is depersonalised before it's reported I think it's likely to be no less accurate than (say) Kinsey's sex surveys of the 1930s.

As at 2006 we had around 64% nominally Christian with a quarter of those church-goers, around 30% no identifiable religion with 19% or so explicitly non-religious, with Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism the fastest-growing faiths due largely to immigration. Christianity has fallen by about 6% of total population in ten years, while non-theism has grown by 3% of total pop. Christianity is proportionally higher for older people (around 85% for the over 65s, while only 55% for the 18-24s), so perhaps it will fall another 10% or so in the next 30 years. Non-theism grew at a rate of 27% of its own total over the last five years, while non-Christian religions grew by 18% of its own total.

Without doing the modelling, my guess is that by around 2060 or perhaps sooner, Christianity and nontheism will be fairly evenly split, with non-Christian faith making up a substantial minority. That will doubtless have some cultural impacts -- for instance, I doubt that the Lord's Prayer would be read to open Parliament any more, or that Biblical oaths will be expected in court. I reckon our Christian-supremacist marriage laws will be gone inside 30 years, but I think they'll still be here for another ten. I don't know how much it would affect schools, though. Our education is already either secular or specifically religious, depending on where parents choose to send their kids.
 
Last edited:

fullbookjacket

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
276
Reaction score
29
Location
Florida
I don't think that the growth of non-theism, agnosticism, and atheism will be a slow, steady, straight-line growth. I think there will be a tipping-point, a critical mass, at which point the philosophy of atheism will begin to grow rapidly. At what point? I don't know, but I'll guess that once about 20% of a given population admits that it's atheist, it will no longer be regarded as a fringe element and will be viewed as "mainstream." It will then be openly discussed without such prejudice against that point of view, and people will quickly join its ranks.

What do I base this on? Not much...gut instinct, perhaps. Racial equality in the U.S. didn't really become a mainstream thought until maybe the late 1950s and 60s. Gender equity, in the 70s. Sexual orientation, in the 80s and 90s.

Change is slow but irreversible.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I don't think that the growth of non-theism, agnosticism, and atheism will be a slow, steady, straight-line growth. I think there will be a tipping-point, a critical mass, at which point the philosophy of atheism will begin to grow rapidly.
What philosophy of atheism? Atheism is idea, not ideology.

Rationalism, humanism, materialism, naturalism, ... sure, those are ideologies. But atheists don't necessarily embrace any or all of them. Neither are they entirely incompatible with religion. I have Christian humanist friends, for instance, and rationalist Buddhist friends, and naturalism is little more than a form of deism anyway, with a secular origin story and lacking a moral narrative. Plus, there are plenty of people who identify as theists who live 98% of their lives as materialists.

I don't see how one can sell atheism, or even why one should. What Dawkins advocates for example, is not atheism per se but rational materialism which just happens to also be atheistic. There are certainly atheists who believe in humans' ability to manipulate metaphysics (i.e. 'mind over matter' or 'will over the laws of nature'), but Dawkins would laugh in their faces (in fact, he's done so by a reposted article here.)
 
Last edited:

Fokker Aeroplanbau

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
424
Reaction score
34
Website
negationcorner.blogspot.com
I don't think that the growth of non-theism, agnosticism, and atheism will be a slow, steady, straight-line growth. I think there will be a tipping-point, a critical mass, at which point the philosophy of atheism will begin to grow rapidly. At what point? I don't know, but I'll guess that once about 20% of a given population admits that it's atheist, it will no longer be regarded as a fringe element and will be viewed as "mainstream." It will then be openly discussed without such prejudice against that point of view, and people will quickly join its ranks.

What do I base this on? Not much...gut instinct, perhaps. Racial equality in the U.S. didn't really become a mainstream thought until maybe the late 1950s and 60s. Gender equity, in the 70s. Sexual orientation, in the 80s and 90s.

Change is slow but irreversible.

I think we already reached that point with 9/11. Seeing funny sounding people run air-planes into [our] America for an all access pass to virgins opened a lot of people's eyes. If that sounds moronic, how intelligent is running around saying there is an invisible legion of angels protecting every good Christian?

However, will spirituality survive? Yeah, probably. A surprising amount of Europeans still believe in the metaphysical, life after death, and some other quaint spiritual concepts one would think atheism would counteract. Religion, even if it isn't defined, is built into the human psyche.

I think we'll see a rise in atheism, and then a full fledged wave. But as established religion slowly floats away into more of a institution, than religion, we'll see a regrowth of churches. Combine that with our Human Condition and at one point, I believe, atheism will once again sink down.

It's been the story since the dawn of history, and is partially the reason why I sniff at atheism's new-found arrogance. Atheism, in any sense, is not new. It's not fresh, it doesn't "free" humanity and it's nothing new to anyhow who is culturally literate. History is all about pendulums swinging one way, and back again. For a while we were experiencing a period of Romanticism. We'll long debate what exactly signalled the start of it. But when it becomes de jure for Presidents to speak continually of "liberty," and "freedom," and leading public figures to speak of "justice," and "the American Dream," we know there is a period where we are looking beyond reality for answers. When the best speeches of our century are "I have a dream," and we will "bear any burden, and pay any price" for metaphysical goals; it's obvious we're in a period of looking beyond reality.

It's only natural that this next century focuses on doubt and the disbelief in "higher," powers.
 

Fokker Aeroplanbau

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
424
Reaction score
34
Website
negationcorner.blogspot.com
Dear select individuals,

My name is Carla and I am on my friend's blog name while we are working on a project together. I just want to say I think it is hilarious that you all are arguing about atheism and agnosticism on the internet. This brings me much joy.

Love,
Carla
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I think that non-theism and/or weak theism is a natural outcome of peace, security, education and affluence. This is a corrollary of the reverse result: that poverty, fear and ignorance puts butts on pews. So what happens into the longer term may depend on what we do with our societies over-all.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
My name is Carla and I am on my friend's blog name while we are working on a project together. I just want to say I think it is hilarious that you all are arguing about atheism and agnosticism on the internet. This brings me much joy.
Welcome, Carla however briefly. Writers tend to write about their passions, and non-theism is a passion for some writers, just as religion, politics, sex, sport, or pomeranians can be.
 

fullbookjacket

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
276
Reaction score
29
Location
Florida
What philosophy of atheism? Atheism is idea, not ideology.

Rationalism, humanism, materialism, naturalism, ... sure, those are ideologies. But atheists don't necessarily embrace any or all of them. Neither are they entirely incompatible with religion. I have Christian humanist friends, for instance, and rationalist Buddhist friends, and naturalism is little more than a form of deism anyway, with a secular origin story and lacking a moral narrative. Plus, there are plenty of people who identify as theists who live 98% of their lives as materialists.

I don't see how one can sell atheism, or even why one should. What Dawkins advocates for example, is not atheism per se but rational materialism which just happens to also be atheistic. There are certainly atheists who believe in humans' ability to manipulate metaphysics (i.e. 'mind over matter' or 'will over the laws of nature'), but Dawkins would laugh in their faces (in fact, he's done so by a reposted article here.)

I knew you'd jump all over my phrase "philosophy of atheism." I use the word "philosophy" loosely...just as you could say there is a philosophy of music or a philosophy of particle physics, I use philosophy of atheism to mean a broad body of work and school of thought. I won't pigeonhole it like most brand-name philosophies.

You skipped right over my point and focused instead on semantics.
 

fullbookjacket

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
276
Reaction score
29
Location
Florida
Dear select individuals,

My name is Carla and I am on my friend's blog name while we are working on a project together. I just want to say I think it is hilarious that you all are arguing about atheism and agnosticism on the internet. This brings me much joy.

Love,
Carla

Why do you find it hilarious?
Welcome to the discussion, by the way. I just now read your earlier, lengthier post...good stuff.
 
Last edited:

fullbookjacket

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
276
Reaction score
29
Location
Florida
A surprising amount of Europeans still believe in the metaphysical, life after death, and some other quaint spiritual concepts one would think atheism would counteract. Religion, even if it isn't defined, is built into the human psyche.

A good, short book on this is Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer.

An even better book is Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
You skipped right over my point and focused instead on semantics.
Sorry for seeming pedantic, but I don't actually understand what you mean.

To try and be more constructive, what sort of non-theistic philosophies do you think might emerge in society? Materialism? Naturalism? Scientism? Hedonism? Metaphysical apathy?

I think that materialism is a sure bet while ever there's affluence and security. I also think we'll see more humanism (secular and sectarian) as populations get more pluralistic and diverse. Dawkins notwithstanding, I don't believe that rationalism will grow much at all in developed countries, though I think it has a way to go in developing countries.

I can't see people who identify as religious dropping much below 40-50% in Australia in the forseeable future, though I think religious commitment will continue to thin. I think that charismatic Christianity will continue to rise against the more traditional rites, and it wouldn't surprise me to see charismatic versions of other faiths (especially Judaism and Islam) grow substantially. I'd expect to see the entertainment/fellowship side of religion continue to strengthen, as it has in recent years.

If 40-50% of people identify as religious, that would mean that 50-60% don't. But of those, I reckon we'll see around half saying 'they believe in something', which would leave maybe 25-30% as actual nontheists.
 
Last edited:

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Atheism is a faith
Atheism is the rejection of religious belief. This can be for several reasons -- e.g. gods don't exist, or statements about gods aren't meaningful outside of fiction. Atheists generally do not feel that their position is faith-based; they'll often argue that any burden of proof lies with believers, not with unbelievers. Some religious people can't understand this view. Perhaps different people fundamentally differ on what 'truth' means.

It's a fine and useful list, several points of which I might disagree with ... but why argue conflicting faiths?

I'd suggest however that atheism IS in fact a faith (my apology if that shoots down anyone's worldview or self-identity. I don't mean harm to suggest that we SHARE having faiths, atheist and theist alike).

ANYTHING accepted on faith (or by faith) is A FAITH.
If Atheists cannot rationally prove or support their position (which they cannot) or disprove the theistic position ... then atheists simply are accepting their position BY faith.

It doesn't matter who 'has the burden of proof' in this case.

We can all play with the moveable line between Atheism and Agnosticism to hide behind or cloud the issue (which isn't anything a rationalist should embrace, rationally) ... definitions and meanings vary ...

There is a difference between NOT KNOWING whether God or gods exist ... and CLAIMING no God or gods exist.

One (the agnostics') is a factual statement: "I do not know, I cannot prove it is so" then we may fairly discuss and judge your criteria for knowing.

But "not knowing" is a position that allows either side to be correct. Not knowing (imo) is knowing where faith is ALLOWED and PROPER.

The other (the atheists' "there is no god") DEMANDS that the atheist present evidence of "fact"

Otherwise, it ends in pointless stalemate: one faith that god or gods exist ... the other faith that God or gods don't exist.

Prove it.

At least in Christianity, by Christianity's own criteria, FAITH is seen as more useful and valid than "proof" (as the common answer goes, "No one has more PROOF that God exists than SATAN; it is by FAITH we are saved")

On the other hand:

Any Atheists who happily surrender their own criteria of rational reasoning and materialist factuality ... imo retreat into admitting their own dependence upon FAITH.

"I am an atheist" someone says.
"Why?" is the rational question, and even the Believer is allowed to ask it intelligently.
What's the answer? Where's the atheists' evidence to support their position?

Now, one common defense is via the definition that an Atheist merely declares that THEY PERSONALLY practice no religion or recognize no god. Fine.

But that leaves them no basis to obstruct or complain about (or look down upon or insult) those who DO have religion and gods.

That leaves their complaint about having to endure "religion" in "society" as little more than someone else complaining about the "bad" Muzak being played in elevators or while you're on hold over the telephone! :)

Ignore it.

Atheist hates it, devoutful (if that's a word) likes it ... deal with it. As long as the we ALL remember NOT to oppress anyone over their conflicting taste in Muzak (and history has its sad history of both Devout and atheists practicing genocide, no side is blameless indeed) ... can't we all get along? Yes, we can!

Shouting out how terrible the Muzak is, to those who enjoy the Muzak? Demanding that the Muzak not be played in public? Who's causing the problem there?

But ... I'd challenge the reader that Atheism is indeed a faith ... whenever it claims to speak about anything objective beyond THE INDIVIDUAL'S own subjective beliefs or absence of beliefs.

And that doesn't mean the speaker is still not merely stating THEIR BELIEF in the absence of the REAL THING.

The blind man may not "believe" in the rainbow, even when everyone else who can see the rainbow knows it's there.

The rainbow can be there, be visible, and still not have the many beautiful symbolic and spiritual meanings that many religions give it. I agree. (Me, I'm all "live and let live" ... and stay out of the way of the on-rushing freight train.)

But the one who argues the rainbow isn't even there ... may be more wrong about rainbows than those who see it and find Meaning in it.

Non-theists are amoral, or borrow their morals from religion
Morality is an understanding of what is good and bad, and what we owe one another. Like everyone else, non-theists draw their morals from their families, teachers, friends, their readings, reflections and their own consciences. In religious societies, non-theism has often been seen as heretical and many non-theists have been persecuted for their beliefs.

To that, I've just never had a satisfactory answer to my issue: If the atheist accepts that ALL MORALITY is of human origin, then why should any atheist BE BOUND by another's merely human morality?

Sparta practiced its 'morality' by killing 'weak' babies who couldn't become Spartan warriors ...
Nazi 'morality' wouldn't have become valid simply because they had WON the war and indoctrinated future generations in their genocidal 'morality' ...

Human "morality" cannot logically demand acceptance by all other humans, when the INDIVIDUAL can be more morally "moral" than a corrupted SOCIETY.

After all, it wasn't THE BIBLE burning witches, it was OTHER PEOPLE.
It's no defense to say "Oh! but those witchburners were driven to murder by their RELIGION" ... if you then demand that "religion" is a HUMAN CONSTRUCTION. :)

The only morally binding "Morality" must be accepted as having come from some source MORALLY-SUPERIOR to mere humans, otherwise every human is their own arbeiter of what's "moral" (and if I want to steal your car or your book idea or prey upon your loved ones ... and Society cannot catch me ... I have just obeyed my own human morality. Defective though it is ... it's like an OPINION, no better or worse than everyone else's)

Those who suggest that morality is genetically encoded into us as social animals ... I fear ignore the dark side of the human psyche, equally encoded.

There IS a dark side and a bright side to humanity ... but nothing HUMAN can demand we obey the bright side and not the dark. Except fear of being caught, fear of power and punishment. Maybe I'll rightfully I'll take that from my Superior (GOD) ... but why take it from the rest of the fallible human herd?

Is the predator WOLF swayed by the democratic agreement of the prey LAMB?
That is Nature's "morality" ...

If we are creatures of NATURE, it is a cruel world and human morality (even of some other human's construction) has no claim on us.
If we are creatures of GOD ... that is a divine claim which the Atheist seems to remove themselves from.

I agree that a human society works better if we all co-operate and play nice: but that's not "morality" and neither is it "Natural" and neither is it anything a human culture has ever sustained across a few thousand years ... :(

There may be a REASON humans see (or choose to see) their Morality as being given to them FROM ABOVE, by their Superior(s), by their BETTERS.

Morality is an understanding of what is good and bad, and what we owe one another.

I understand that Humanism might think it is able to offer explanations about what is 'good' or 'bad' or what we 'owe' each other.

I respectfully suggest 'Atheism' has NOTHING to say on the issue.

I suggest that some Atheists have so deeply internalized the moral teachings of RELIGIONS that they assume/believe those moral teachings to be inherent in the human creature totally removed from religious influence. But I think that's a wrong assumption.

Anyway ... replies and rebuttal are welcome.

PS

I don't mean the following to be any way personally argumentive, it's presented as merely a subjective opinion, of which others already have offered personal thoughts:

If more people had my morality we wouldn't have many problems in this world.
said an agnostic.

It's been the story since the dawn of history, and is partially the reason why I sniff at atheism's new-found arrogance.
said another viewpoint

I reckon our Christian-supremacist marriage laws
was offered ...

I just mean to suggest we're also sharing our PERSONAL views, as I do below, without meaning any personal insult or friction.

It also seems important to some (on both sides of the issue) to "keep score" of how many are atheists and how many are believers.

To inflate their own atheist numbers, sometimes it seems to me that atheists are too eager to count agnostics as being almost-count 'em like they're with us-atheists.

"Weak" atheists. If that's not a lukewarm bad marketing strategy, what is? :)

"I don't know" agnostics should fairly be counted as NEITHER atheist nor devoutful.
If I were agnostic, I'd distrust and reject the first side who mis-represented my position of fair objective impartiality!

Personally, I don't trust ANYONE'S herd. Mine included!

I'd gladly see all the hypocritical POSER "Christians" give it up, and shut up, just like I'd like to see all the hypocritical poser "atheists" give up complaining about something which is (for them, whoever they are) no more than a sneering fanboy argument over taste in manga or music. :)

It takes two sides voicing their sincere depths to have a worthwhile debate, and part of the sincerity and depth is to want to understand the others' position ... not just duckspeak (to borrow from Orwell) one's own!

The insincere posers should shut up. If the faker religious have the majority for now ... the poser atheists will be equally tragic if they ever take the majority, imo.

To both SINCERE parties, I'd happily say "Live Your Faith, and let the Other Guys Live Theirs" ... But recognize what's faith (yours AND theirs) and what isn't, and tread respectfully in that knowledge!

Let GOD sort them out. :)
Or let the dying godless Universe scatter their dust.

I have my opinion on who had a better deal while their dust was walking around.
But I know my opinion matters only to me, as others' opinions matter to them.
 
Last edited:

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I'd suggest however that atheism IS in fact a faith (my apology if that shoots down anyone's worldview or self-identity. I don't mean harm to suggest that we SHARE having faiths, atheist and theist alike).
There are two common refutations of this view...
One is: it is not an act of faith to reject the ludicrous

A second is: the word 'god' is not meaningful outside of fiction. Therefore the existence question has no truth-values.
Which is not to say that atheists may not also hold faith-based positions. (I hold several, but my atheism is not one of them).

Atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily part of a continuum. Often they are polar disparates.

If you'd like to discuss this further, my suggestion is to start another thread. I'd also suggest that if you're a theist, you tread carefully here with sweeping statements categorising others' world-views. Non-theists have often been on the receiving end of a great deal of prejudice, dismissal and misrepresentation. The position that atheism is faith-based is often seen as such prejudice. Regardless though, one polite question can be worth a dozen disclaimers, and will often get a better response.

Anyway ... replies and rebuttal are welcome.
Not in this thread!

Please bear in mind that among non-theists, the statements I made in the original post are not much in contention. I actually wrote them with a view to helping theists get along better here.

In this thread, I welcome suggestions for discussion and amendment to the list above, but I'm not interested in retreading ancient debates. If theists have questions about the above, then I'm happy to explain or discuss stuff in another thread and I'm sure that many others are too.
 
Last edited:

fullbookjacket

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
276
Reaction score
29
Location
Florida
small axe,

Your points are welcome but can you please abbreviate them a bit? I have no desire to wade through that 9,000-word tome.

What I gleaned from skimming was your desire to label atheism a faith. You can call it what you want and we can argue semantics. "Faith", in common usage, implies a belief in gods. Just the opposite of atheism. I consider myself an atheist because I don't think there are gods (as defined by the current majority religions). I never claimed to KNOW that there are no gods.

Other things gleaned: you say that if someone believes in gods and some don't, they should just get along. I agree. But that doesn't mean that one should be excused from believing anything without having to defend it. Would you accept the traditional belief of a flat earth? Would you accept the notion that Jews should be rounded up and sent to camps? I hope not...you'd want the believers to prove their case before you build a society around it.

You are right about one thing. Atheism is not a philosophy or right or wrong, unlike Humanism. Atheism is simply a nonbelief.
 

Hittman

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
261
Reaction score
33
Location
Upstate NY
Website
www.davehitt.com
ANYTHING accepted on faith (or by faith) is A FAITH.
If Atheists cannot rationally prove or support their position (which they cannot) or disprove the theistic position ... then atheists simply are accepting their position BY faith.

Using that definition, not believing unicorns are real is a faith.

(The rest of your post is way too long winded to address. Remember that brevity is the soul of wit.)

Theists put all kinds of baggage on atheism. They need it to be something it isn't. I suspect it's because their religious belief is such a central part of their life they can't even conceive of it missing from someone else's. So they insist on all kinds of nonsense about it being a faith, about atheists being their own god, about them really hating god, and blah blah blah and etc.

It doesn't matter how often they're corrected gently, slapped down sternly, or hit between the eyes with a sledge hammer. They'll be back again, and soon, repeating all their goofy allegations as if they were pearls of wisdom we just couldn't do without. They are impervious to reason and reality.

There is one, and only one, thing that describes all atheists. We don't believe in gods. That's it. Not Jehovah, not Allah, not Zeus, not Ra, nor any of the other 10,000 gods mankind has worshiped.

Many of us are skeptics, but not all of us are. Many of us are humanists, but not all. Many of us are enthralled with science, but not all. Many of us are heterosexuals, or carnivores, or gourmands, or musicians, or plumbers, or or or . . . whatever, but there is only one thing that defines all atheists. If everyone could put that one thing the correct perspective they'd see how trivial and unimportant it is. The only thing that makes it important is all these damn theists who insist on making it important.

Try this: Whenever anyone makes a claim about atheists other than the actual definition, replace "atheists" with "stamp collectors." Note how silly it sounds.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Stamp collectors are immoral and hate religion and want to kill robot ninja Jesus.

Makes perfect sense to me.
 

zornhau

Swordsman
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
167
Location
Scotland
Website
www.livejournal.com
The thing about being a faith is that it implies equality with other faiths, leading to equal airtime in the classroom. So all moves towards labelling "us" as such should be treated as sinister.

In truth - as I've argued before - people of faith share our worldview - no pink unicorns, cause and effect, electricity works, wishing routinely doesn't, but then extend it with faith.
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
I'd also suggest that if you're a theist, you tread carefully here with sweeping statements categorising others' world-views. Non-theists have often been on the receiving end of a great deal of prejudice, dismissal and misrepresentation. The position that atheism is faith-based is often seen as such prejudice.

I agree there's no cause for argument here. :)

I'll reply to what others have said (and if the reply is unwarranted, it is less so than the original introduction of the NEW topic, imo) and then leave it go.

The truth spoken can be ignored but must eventually be dealt with, from either side of the debate. That's why threads and discussions are valuable.

Then turning to the original topic of the thread:

If you state something is a "myth" about atheism ... I suggest that ANYONE (regardless of the writer's background, or the readers') has a right to logically offer how they see it as being NOT a "myth"

That's not meant to be taken as
... sweeping statements categorising others' world-views.
any more than you calling something a "myth" about atheism HERE is an affront to MY world-view.

But we can examine whether it is a "myth" or not ... or a reasonable viewpoint.

Belief in a thing you cannot offer evidence of is "faith" ...

Dis-belief in a thing you cannot disprove via evidence is also "faith" ... (I'd suggest)

When someone retorts that "Of course no one can prove a thing does not exist" ... inevitably I respond "And that, my friend, is why your acceptance of the non-existence of gods is either doomed by rationality or its own FAITH. Because you cannot "prove" your point by your own criteria, and the faithful prize their faith as its own end regardless of proof."

The "unicorn" response can be seen as not valid.

If we allow that the "New World" / Americas were first discovered by Christopher Columbus (and that's just a common Euro-centric historical inaccuracy and bias, obviously, but taught as fact for centuries) then we can imagine such an argument between Europeans in the year ... 500 AD.

Scholar A says: "We know the world is a globe, and we know with fair accuracy that it is far BIGGER than the known lands we can account for. Therefore, I have faith that there is an unknown Continent, upon which unknown peoples live, and they will someday be found."

Scholar B retorts: "Nonsense! There is no evidence of an unknown Continent, and so there is NO UNKNOWN CONTINENT! You might as well believe in "unicorns" living there, or ... haha ... "Aztecs" !!!" :)

The ERROR there is when Scholar B demands that Scholar A is a fool living by "faith" ... yet denies that Scholar B (himself) is ALSO speaking from a "faith" of his own (equally devoid of evidence).

He is an a-continentist instead of an a-theist, perhaps ... but faith is faith, and lack of evidence is not evidence of lack or non-existence, as they say.

Christians at least admit and recognize their faith (actually, they prize it)

... shrug ...

Secondly, the whole "unicorn" response is pointless because a simple horse with a horn could possibly be whipped up via genetic manipulation and proved ... don't the Japanese have a lab full of kittens that glow like freakin' fireflies or sumthin' ? :)

So the atheist who demands that unicorns are impossible sort of defuses his argument that gods are impossible. If you wish to argue against gods, dragging unicorns into it is unwise. (Though, yes, I'm not sure how popular a lab-created God would be, sparkly firefly glow or not!)

-----> Did someone comment about atheism as it pertains to "Morality" issue?

I challenged that as being possibly another "NOT a myth" also (and certainly we're allowed to discuss what is "myth" versus "reason" here, aren't we?
Or what's the OP list for? Dogma?)

Anyway ... I didn't mean to derail the thread (nor do I think I have derailed it) Apologies if I did.

A list was offered, and I hoped to discuss and help refine it along with everyone else here. I've offered my thoughts and can be done, unless anyone cares to reply.

PS I noticed this later, from another commenter:

The thing about being a faith is that it implies equality with other faiths, leading to equal airtime in the classroom.

If both are faith, then both should be factually presented as such. To do otherwise is to censor truth.

'Equality' is ... well ... that's a loaded word. Faith equals faith, is all I'll say. Where Science can scientifically PROVE itself, good, it should do so by proof, not by mere cultural indoctrination.

You will find me AGREEING with agnostics that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim "Creation" stories should NOT be presented as "fact" but as "faith" ... But I would also make sure that in the 'classroom' Science is not allowed to represent its own elements of "faith" however.

No one here would be unwise enough to state that Evolution scientifically explains the ORIGIN of Life ... but I've had debates with folks who argued that Darwin "scientifically disproved" any Divine involvement in the ORIGIN of living things on Earth. They got that misunderstanding from their Science class, I fear. Science values exactness, and should not fall into embracing things on faith or mere tradition, itself.

So all moves towards labelling "us" as such should be treated as sinister.

"Sinister" is also a loaded word. Fact is neither benevolent or 'sinister' ... and fearing the INTENT of a fact is (in some extremes) a dangerous and paranoiac venture.

I'm a Christian. I believe that Climate Change and Global Warming are a demonstrated great danger to Life and a violation of Mankind's stewardship of Nature.

But I RECOGNIZE the damage done to the Climate Change cause ... by the appearance (if not the fact) of hijinx and dis-honesty among a tiny miniscule part of the scientific community that has been labeled "Climate-gate" :(

Was revealing those e-mails "sinister" in the sense that it was politically motivated?
Was cooking the scientific results or censoring experimental results "sinister" no matter how benevolent the intent?
Who then did the greater damage to the Climate Change cause?

Science that is not true to its own objectivity and facts becomes its own worse enemy. It hands its foes the weapon to use against itself.

A question I'd ask is: To what degree might "atheism" be violating its own foundations of rationality and objectivity, sometimes?

(We ALL know that religions have violated their own higher principles in the past ... but who cares to join them in their past partisan error, in this future enlightened age? Whether a religion can BE enlightened, ever, we need not debate. Whether the failings of religion are in fact the failings of humans and not their higher angels, and thus whether MAN is the root of Man's errors ... we need not debate, either)

Fact is fact ... and those who value fact must beware embracing their own myths ... no matter how self-comforting. It's just my view, my opinion, my two cents here. :)
 
Last edited:

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Small Axe -- there's no reason you can't start a new thread for this discussion, and I wish you would. There's no telling where a debate over the faith of atheism will go, and if it results in a thread-lock I will be exceedingly irritated because this thread needs to stay open to allow contributors to suggest rephrases and additions of the original post. Moreover, I'd like to reply to some of your points, but I can't do it here.

I wasn't kidding -- please take it elsewhere.