10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked

[[deleted user]]

Atheists are moral, loving and multicultural, and you might even find them in foxholes.

More here: http://www.alternet.org/story/152395/...

[RB]

Great link, thanks for sharing it Donegal!

[Jimmy]

I believe in one form or another I've heard all of those leveled against me to some degree at some time in my life.

[J.]

Pretty good article--I particularly like #10 (one of my personal favorite pet peeves for the last few years.) And I was strangely surprised by #4, since this had never crossed my mind. (Is that because I'm a white dude?) It should be pointed out, though, that #5 makes a pretty serious (straw man) fallacy. Sure, when Joe Religiousguy says atheism is a faith, he probably means what this implies he means--but there are two ways they might be saying something much less unthinking:

1. There are instances where indecision is, itself, a decision. To use a rather poor analogy: when the boat is sinking, you can choose to believe that the lifeboat will hold you and get in, but not deciding just means you go down with the ship. In that sense, denying assent (even in the Cartesian sense) is making a decision, for certain types of decisions. (People of faith, of course, think that religious faith is 'that type' of decision.) That formulation should be a little more fair to people of faith.

2. "Militant atheists", if that's an acceptable term, who should probably be called anti-theists, DO believe as a matter of faith. They can't prove that god(s) don't exist, but they (affirmatively) deny existence. But for your garden-variety everyday atheists, who simply deny belief, the statement that they believe on faith still has meaning: The idea "we should not assent to something without (some kind of) proof," which many atheists cite in some form as a reason for their atheism, is a rare self-denying claim. (I.e., if you think it's true, then you can't possibly believe it, and if you believe it, you can't really think it's true.) So in that sense, the postulate that leads to atheism--the primordial belief itself--is a matter of faith.

So the statement "Atheism is a faith" has something much more substantive in it than this article lets on. That's not a good sign.

[MadgeUK]

Yes, I find it confusing too. It is an oft repeated argument. If atheists have 'faith', what do they have faith IN? As RC says, let's stick to dictionary definitions and both the OED and Wikipedia say: 'Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity'. I do not see atheists as having such beliefs, militant or not. Atheism About explains this old argument well:-

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmy...

[J.]

Maybe I can clarify a little. The confusion of language has something to do with this--many atheists want to be called agnostics, and vice versa, with very specific, definitive meanings of these words.

In either case, when I say "atheist," I'll mean someone without an assent in "God exists," nor in "God doesn't exist." (i.e. 'no faith' either way.) But buried behind this lack of belief either direction is a principle: "I should have enough evidence before I assert something is true."

That is the statement that most atheists believe in, and since it can't be proven, it's a statement you are accepting on faith. In fact, since it's a "should" statement, it's equivalent to a moral statement. But any moral statements have to be based directly on faith or on a utility argument, which is again resting on faith.

[J.]

MadgeUK, Wikepedia's definition is needlessly specific. Doesn't faith usually mean "belief without proof?" (I have faith my chair will support me, I have faith my students will fail their next exam (even if I don't want them to), I have faith that this book will freaking rock, etc.) What constitutes proof is, of course, a matter of some debate--overwhelming proof? Logical proof? Probabilistic proof? 51% proof? But regardless, when atheists say they don't believe in God, they usually mean they don't have enough proof to believe.

(Of course, saying "I definitely disbelieve in God" is obviously a matter of faith. If that statement could be proven, this whole argument would have been over long ago.)

So here's the statement most atheists have faith in: "I should not believe something without [whatever kind of] proof."

But that statement itself is a matter of faith. So belief or disbelief in god depends on belief or disbelief in another (unproven) statement, so it becomes a matter of faith either way.

That is the only sense in which I can say "atheism is a faith," is in reference to pre-religious-faith statements, moral statements about the correctness or validity or "should"-ness of cognitive assent.

But let me be very clear (even if it's possibly more controversial): EVERY belief is ultimately based on a statement accepted only on faith, in the same way all the theorems of geometry are based on some unproven axioms. When atheists fail to admit this, it's as nonsensical to me as when religious people insist their beliefs are totally logical and not faith-based.

[Blaise]

Ah but you see, J, an Atheist does not mean that I am waiting for some fact or that I "believe" something to be. For me God is not. It is not a subject I mull over, pining for a resolution and some "proof". It is not belief or faith. It is like saying an orange is not blue. It just isn't, so that is all there is for me. I think Atheist tend to say "I believe there is no God" just to be polite to the God believers. It just sounds abrupt and hostile to say there is no God to someone who fervently believes there is one.

[Hazel]

Blaise wrote: "Ah but you see, J, as an Athiest does not mean that I am waiting for some fact or that I "believe" something to be. For me God is not. It is not a subject I mull over, pining for a resolution and..."

Agreed, I'm being polite and tactful when I say I don't believe in god, when what I actually want to say is "there is no god, get over it".

[MadgeUK]

Hazel wrote: "Blaise wrote: "Ah but you see, J, as an Athiest does not mean that I am waiting for some fact or that I "believe" something to be. For me God is not. It is not a subject I mull over, pining for a..."

Agreed. Blaise hit the nails on the head: 'God is not. It is not a subject I mull over, pining for a resolution and some "proof". It is not belief or faith. It is like saying an orange is not blue. It just isn't, so that is all there is for me.'

I see that J's Profile says that he studies Logic and Philosophy. In this case I think he is trying to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

[J.]

Blaise: Your logic is flawed, so I'll assume you're just being flippant as opposed to the alternative. Saying an orange isn't blue is an immediately verifiable belief. The non-existence of God is certainly not an immediately verifiable belief. In fact:

Blaise and Hazel, if you actually believe "there is no God," where's your proof? Unless you have some iron-clad, scientifically verifiable proof, you're just using your faith engine.

R.C., I apologize for being unclear. You're stating your position very clearly, and your description of how we decide things is perfect, but I seem to be failing to reciprocate in clarity. But maybe this will clarify what I'm saying--here's another way to deal with uncertain facts: anytime I've faced with something I don't know, I just flip a coin and believe if it's heads and disbelieve if it's tails. This is, of course, a silly and dangerous way to live, but why? I'm very aware that when I believe things on the basis of proof, I'm making a value judgement that belief with proof is better than random belief. But WHY is belief with proof better? I can't prove that's true; in fact, I don't even really have any evidence either way, other than the obviously dumb ones revolving around napping with tigers and such. But can I use my coin-flipping with (logically) undecidable propositions, like the existence of God, or the existence of free will, or even the existence of unicorns? If not, why not? It is just something that we like to think, and we really know it's true. But it's not logically true, or a priori true. It's a value judgement based on our wiring or culture or something. So it's essentially a matter of faith.

Actually, I would say it's a matter of "good faith," in both possible senses of the word, in that it seems to be the most socially responsible, and it seems a particularly unobjectionable statement to have faith in.

I should respond to a couple of your comments:

"I like this methodology, because even the most fervent believers, if they follow this protocol will get the same result." ------I think you're assuming here that everyone has the same subjective experiences. For instance, you mentioned that God appearing in the sky would seriously change the probability curve. What if someone had exactly that happen (either because God really did, or because they were hallucinating at the time)? They would have a different set of subjective evidence than you, and so wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusion. Of course, that evidence is no good for YOU--it's not objective evidence, but people's subjective experiences definitely weigh into their measurement of the probability.

"What I call "faith" is that these believers, even whilst staring at the curve, will deny the conclusion it clearly indicates. In other words, faith is belief in spite of the evidence." ----- I think this is probably true for many theists, but it seems like an unfair definition in general--it would imply, for instance, that every Christian who had "faith" is inherently intellectually dishonest. Is that really what you mean? Do you suppose that all people of religious persuasion must be lying to themselves (not uninformed, stupid, hopeful, or anything else?)

I think a less-objectionable way of phrasing faith would be to believe when there isn't really enough evidence to believe, like when Aunt Gertrude really believes she's going to win the lottery. She's not believing AGAINST evidence, just WITHOUT evidence. (Or, perhaps even better, without ENOUGH evidence.) Then we can at least discuss whether this kind of faith is any good--people of faith would generally say, "yeah, that's a valid definition." If you define it your way, no one's going to admit to having that kind of faith, so who are we talking about?

[Hazel]

J, I dont believe there is no god, I know there is no god. I base this on the evidence. Once you know something, you don't need faith in it, because it is apparent. Faith is needed to believe something that you can't prove, once it is revealed one way fo the other, faith is no longer required. If someone proved that god existed, I still would have no faith or belief, as he would be fact.

As the evidence shows that there is no god, I don't need faith or belief in the fact that there is no god, it is simply apparent.

[J.]

Hazel,

I guess we just require different levels of proof to assert a statement as fact. I certainly canNOT say that I KNOW god doesn't exist. I may have some probabilistic thinking, but I don't even think it's a logically decidable fact, so all I can say is "I believe, based on the evidence, that there is a 99% [or whatever] probability that God doesn't exist." I have to have something really proven to me before I "know" it's true--and even then, it has to be based on some underlying assumptions. But people are different; some people don't require nearly as much proof as others do.

[[deleted user]]

If I may interject...

I think that what Hazel and others are saying is not that they know that god doesn't exist in the way you're thinking, J. (that is to say, making a factual claim which necessitates evidence), but rather that they give the very idea of a god existing no more credence than the idea of unicorns or Santa existing. They're not just counter-claiming, they're saying the entire concept is so absurd, would require such extraordinary evidence, is so in opposition to every fact of nature, that it seems beneath contemplation by reasonable minds.

Have I got that right?

[Hazel]

J. wrote: "Hazel,

I guess we just require different levels of proof to assert a statement as fact. I certainly canNOT say that I KNOW god doesn't exist. I may have some probabilistic thinking, but I don't e..."

granted, I was being rather blasé with my reply to you, but then, someone was knocking on my front door at the time. But personally, I would say "based on the evidence, I reject the idea of a god, I reject the belief in a god". There is no belief or faith involved in my stance, it is me rejecting a belief or stance based on the evidence.

[J.]

R.C.,

I am a mathematician, but probability isn't really my area. I remember studying Bayesian inference in grad school, but I'm certainly not a probabilist by inclination. (I'm an algebraic geometer.) Let me review my Bayesian statistics and inference before I respond, so that I can phrase my position in that framework, where hopefully it will be clearer. (And also so I don't use my half-remembered facts to make myself look stupid. Ha!)

[MadgeUK]

J wrote: I am a mathematician

Are you also religious, a believer? Because the arguments you put are commonly put by believers who seem not to comprehend that there are those in the world who have no such beliefs. As the Atheist About points out:-

'Claiming that atheists “cannot prove that God does not exist” often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim “God does not exist” and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “God exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it — or even care much about the claim in the first place.'

You are being unreasonable.

[J.]

MadgeUK,

I am apparently making myself extremely unclear. I do NOT think atheists can disprove god(s) exist, nor that theists can prove god(s) exist. I am saying that both parties have some underlying should statement, like,

"I should only believe things that have [substantial] proof."

where [substantial] means different things for different parties. Most intelligent atheists take some sort of statistical argument, or an argument from lack of evidence. But my point is that, whatever level of proof you think is substantial, that statement itself is unprovable and so must be taken on faith. It's not a religious claim in any sense, but it is a faith statement.

(The only arguments for that claim are based upon how well it has worked in the past, which rests on the idea that we should use methods that have worked before, which ultimately rests back on this claim--the only valid reasoning for it is circular.)

This is a good claim--it's good to have faith in it. Our brains are wired that way, as pattern machines, where we think things will work the way they did before. That's why both science and superstition abound.

The problem is when atheists try to act like every belief they have is based completely on reason and not on faith statements--but that can't be done. Even mathematics can't be done in such a way, and sense human thought encompasses mathematics.....

Anyway, I'm just saying that if everyone could clearly delineate their underlying (unproven) axioms, a lot of arguments would be a lot clearer and/or unnecessary. (Not that I'm being very clear here, apparently.)

I hope that's clearer. Sorry for the confusion.

[David]

Wow! I just read the article and it was so true. The atheist does not lack faith but lacks religion. There is a difference.

[David]

R.C. wrote: "Harshman wrote: "Wow! I just read the article and it was so true. The atheist does not lack faith but lacks religion. There is a difference."

Ask a Christian (I have) if there is any positive ev..."

I guess I should have said "lack of faith in a false god". I do however have faith in people, or maybe it should be stated...hope, not sure.

I do NOT accept anyone's profession of faith as a demonstrable, measureable fact that a god exists, but my faith in people only changes on an individual basis, and always based on their actions.

[Hazel]

faith in people is based on evidence that those people will behave in a way you expect. You probably have very little faith in people you don't know, and plenty in people you are close too, as you've said in your last paragraph, but you have that faith because they have proved themselves worthy of it, it is based on evidence. That isn't faith as you find in beliefs that have no evidence to support them. Unfortunately, language is a bitch of a mistress.

A better way of describing what we think of the people we have "faith" in, is that we trust them. If they ever break that trust, you will have far less "faith" in them that you previously had.

"Faith" is an example of a word that has more than one definition being used to subvert what people are trying to say.

[David]

Hazel wrote: "faith in people is based on evidence that those people will behave in a way you expect. You probably have very little faith in people you don't know, and plenty in people you are close too, as you'..."

I will be the first to admit that I often times have trouble with words.

You said that I have little faith in people I don't know, but have lots of faith for those that I do. That is totally opposite for me. I have not one actuall friend that I can go to for moral support. I am a MTF (Male to Female)transsexual and have had my entire family abandon me. Yet, I still have faith in people.

[Hazel]

What about your friends? When I was growing up, my mams support network came from her friends, not her family. I'll not go into the reasons why, they're not mine to talk about.

Thats really harsh of your family, its a shame when that sort of thing happens, and I really feel for you. Someone I knew at uni was pre-op, and she was a really lovely person, but had lots of problems with her family, to the point that she would leave the family home to go to work dressed as a man, and get changed on the train. I always thought it was an awful situation to be in. But her group of friends, myself included, were there, we supported her.

In your case it may be faith, as you have no proof that the people you don't know aren't going to judge you the same way as your family.

However, its when people prove that they are worth your trust that it ceases to be imaginary or wishful and becomes real. I truly hope you do have at least one person you can talk to, who can hug you and make you tea when your down, or that at least, you'll find someone soon, because people on the other end of a computer are no substitute for real human contact.

[David]

Hazel wrote: "What about your friends? When I was growing up, my mams support network came from her friends, not her family. I'll not go into the reasons why, they're not mine to talk about.

Thats really harsh ..."

That is exactly what I meant. Like I say, "Love everyone until they give you a reason not too". I absolutely refuse to reciprocate the negative, often repulsive, actions that I have received.

[J.]

"Ask a Christian (I have) if there is any positive evidence that will make him/her change their mind about the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, or the resurrection of Jesus. They will always answer "no"."

This is an absolutely unbelievable statement. Surely there's a typo in that last sentence?

[Hazel]

Harshman wrote: " "Love everyone until they give you a reason not too""

And if you applied that to deities, so "Love all gods until they give you reason not to", then it would be a short love, because you'd get no answer to your questions or prayers from any deity, thus proving that trusting in any god is a waste of time. You can't place your trust in a non-entity.

Hence our trust in people is not the same as faith in god, because faith in god would ignore the fact that you get no response, it would continue despite evidence that it shouldn't.

[Hazel]

Harshman, I don't know if you'd be interested, or even close enough to be able to meet them, but there is an atheist group in Austin, Texas, they make the Atheist Experience programme (which, by the way, is awesome). But they'd no doubt be completely non-judgemental about who you are, and they have regular meetups for meals and stuff.

http://www.atheist-community.org/

[Tom]

At the risk of "resting on faith", I tried the following thought exercise. A man tells me that his fingernail is thirty-seven chocolate-covered infinite rainbows. I say I don't believe it. If my disbelief is equally as irrational as his assertion, then so be it. I'll take my chances!

[David]

Tom wrote: "At the risk of "resting on faith", I tried the following thought exercise. A man tells me that his fingernail is thirty-seven chocolate-covered infinite rainbows. I say I don't believe it. If my di..."

Thank you. As I am currently in Dallas, the commute is feasible but my availability would be limited. If I do get the opportunity to make it down there, I will try to get connected with them.

[David]

Harshman wrote: "Hazel wrote: "What about your friends? When I was growing up, my mams support network came from her friends, not her family. I'll not go into the reasons why, they're not mine to talk about.

Thats..."

Hazel,

I have found that for me, being able to give of myself in order to make others happy is my most valued gift. Not everybody gets to have friends or family. I do, however, have many acquaintances, mostly from my work in transportation. Funny thing, is that my initial exposure to truckers causes a brief period of jugement and doubt, but as soon as they realize my work ethic, integrity and focus on their success, they often overlook my physical incongruity and are tolerant and sometimes very supportive of me. Because of the way I am, I keep my house open for those in need and am always willing to give of myself whenever it is needed. I do not need a holiday as a reason to be kind or generous. Currently, I have a trucker staying at my home during his down time in order to get him out of his truck, even if it is only one day. This does put me in the position of being taken advantage of or even abused, but I will not change.

I find that I have oodles of love to give, and seeing others benefit from this more than compensates for the lack of friends/family.

[Hazel]

Harshman, You sound like a really lovely person. I'd consider myself lucky to have a friend like you.