misconceptions abt atheism
-
from about.com ; abit outdated... but i just paste it for u to read and decide how good its point are
Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith:
The most common misunderstanding about atheism is the definition. Many insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list "denial of God or gods" second; first comes "disbelief in god or Gods." Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism. Atheism is Not the Denial of God...
Atheists Choose to Disbelieve in God:
I frequently hear the claim that atheists choose atheism, usually for some morally blameworthy reason like a desire to avoid taking responsibility for their sins. My response is basically the same every time: You may not believe me, but I didn't choose any such thing, and I can't just 'choose' to start believing. Maybe you can, but I can't. I do not believe in any gods. Evidence would make me believe in some god, but all the playacting in the world isn't going to change that. It's arguable, in fact, that no beliefs are choices that people can simply change their minds about. Atheism is Not a Choice or Act of Will...
What is a "Real" Atheist? How Do "Real" Atheists Behave?:
One effective means for critiquing a belief system and/or its adherents is to point out significant contradictions between how believers behave and the ideals they espouse. These contradictions can suggest that they don't really believe what they say, that the ideals aren't taken seriously, that the system teaches worse things, etc. Atheists do this with religion frequently, but can religious theists do it with atheism? They try by presuming to say how "real" atheists would or would not behave. These arguments fail because atheism isn't a philosophy that compels any particular behavior. Who is a Real Atheist...
More People Have Been Killed in the Name of Atheism & Secularism than Religion:
A common criticism raised by atheists against religion is how violent religion and religious believers have been in the past. People have slaughtered each other in large numbers because of differences in religious beliefs or because of other differences which are justified and intensified through religious rhetoric. Either way, religion has a lot of blood on its hands. Can the same be said for atheists and atheism? Haven't atheists killed more people in the name of atheism than religious theists have killed in the name of their religion? No: atheism isn't a philosophy or ideology. Atheism Hasn't Killed Anyone...
Atheists Haven't Experienced the True God or True Religion:
Atheists have constructed many trenchant critiques of both religion and theism over the years. Some of these critiques can be responded to reasonably, but others are much more difficult to address in anything like an adequate manner. Sometimes, it may be easier to simply find a way to dismiss atheists entirely and thus avoid having to address any of their critiques in the first place. Common ways of doing this are to argue that atheists have never had any of the relevant and necessary experiences to teach them about God and religion. If they did, they would understand and believe. What Do Atheists Know of God...
Do Atheists Have No Reason to be Moral? Are There No Atheistic Moral Standards?:
For most religious theists, their religion and god provide the basis for their entire understanding of morality and values. Because of this, some find it inconceivable that atheists who donÂ’t' believe in any gods and who have no religion could possibly have a basis for morality or even understand what true moral behavior really is. Many go further and argue that this is a good reason to reject atheism, that it leads to immoral behavior, that it cannot account for the existence of morality, etc. None of these arguments hold up because they are based on false premises. Atheists Can Be Moral...
Atheists Lead Meaningless Lives of Despair Without Love or Beauty:
Some theists who cannot defend theism or criticize atheism through logic or evidence are left attacking the alleged implications of atheism. If they cannot prove that atheism unreasonable, they hope to prove that the consequences of atheism are so abhorrent that no one will want to take the chance. One popular target is to claim that atheism leads to hopelessness and despair, that atheism makes life meaningless, or that atheism eliminates reasons to be moral. None of this is true, but even if it were that wouldn't make their theism or religion more likely to be true. Atheists Don't Lead Meaningful Lives...
Atheists Worship Satan, Themselves, Money, or Some Other God:
The claim that atheists replace worship of God with worship of something else ranges over man possible objects for worship: Satan, themselves, humanity, etc. In addition to being wrong, these myths share the belief that worship is somehow fundamental to human existence such that it simply isn't possible for a person to live a decent life without worshipping something. This is false, though. No matter how important religion or theism is to someone, this isn't a good reason to conclude that they are also important to everyone else, even those who deny having any god or religion. Atheism Doesn't Involve Worship...
Atheism is a Product of Rebellion & Pride:
There are many myths about atheism and atheists which claim that people are atheists due to some sort of rebellion (against god, religion, church, families, fathers, etc.) or pride. These myths come primarily from Christians whose religious mythology gives an important place to rebellion against divine rules as the origin of evil in the world (Satan is depicted as having rebelled against God). At most, these myths might be true of some but not all or even most atheists; even if true, however, none of these myths would have any implications for the truth or reasonableness of atheism itself. Atheism Isn't Rebellion... -
Good article.
I was just listening to the latest Atheist Experience podcast where a Christian caller raised many of these points.
Ultimately, her argument boiled down to, "I know because I know, because I know."
She was totally unable to understand why this was not a convincing argument. In fact, it wasn't even an argument.
She trotted out the usual accusations:
1. Atheists cannot be moral because they have no moral compass.
2. Atheists don't want to acknowledge god because it is too hard and they don't want to face up to the consequences.
3. Atheists twist the truth to make Christianity look bad and intentionally ignore the real 'truth'. -
I agree that these accusations are unfounded and stupid.Originally posted by Phaze:1. Atheists cannot be moral because they have no moral compass.
2. Atheists don't want to acknowledge god because it is too hard and they don't want to face up to the consequences.
3. Atheists twist the truth to make Christianity look bad and intentionally ignore the real 'truth'.
1. A moral compass is mostly provided by culture, ethics and society these days. Gone are the days of old where people believe the Church was the only place of compassion.
2. People have their reasons for being atheists, and it's not because they don't want to go to God. It's just that they cannot see how there can be a God, and thus they don't go anywhere.
3. This is disputable; there are equally extremist atheists as religious bigots, but thankfully, I don't see any here. Except for a couple of trolls, of course.
The number of Christians speaking before they think nowadays, no wonder there are so many people angry with them. -
Too long...
-
i wonder if it is the same for atheists.. for isn't the argument this way?
i do not know therefore i do not believe? and because i do not believe that i say there isn't.Originally posted by Phaze:Ultimately, her argument boiled down to, "I know because I know, because I know." -
But certainly, it does not apply to you and I applaud you for that.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:The number of Christians speaking before they think nowadays, no wonder there are so many people angry with them.
And if I may sneak one more point in:
You are an atheist as well. You are an atheist with regards to Odin, Zeus and Jupiter. You are an atheist with regards to the tens of thousands of Gods that meant have created throughout history.
Perhaps in our discussion, I might encourage you to take your atheism one god further?
-
Welcome to our lively debate Bear.Originally posted by the Bear:i wonder if it is the same for atheists.. for isn't the argument this way?
i do not know therefore i do not believe? and because i do not believe that i say there isn't.
I don't quite understand what you mean but I think the answer is a qualified yes (based on further clarification).
"I do not know therefore I do not believe"
I agree with this. If I do not know, I simply do not know. I'm not going to simply make up an answer.
"Because I do not believe I say there isn't."
I have a problem with this statement though on the face of it, I would say yes as well. Obviously, if I don't believe something is there, I will say it isn't there.
The root of it seems to be related to the statement:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
From a philosophical viewpoint, this is true. Just because I can't find evidence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter, doesn't mean that a teapot isn't there. However, that hypothesis is so improbable that you can effectively conclude there is no teapot though once again, technically the answer would be "I don't know."
This is also related to another point that you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the postive claim. If you tell me there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter, the burden of proof is not for me to show you that it isn't there. The burden of proof is for you to show me that it IS there. -
Anyone want to reply to AEN's New Atheism complains?
-
Too cheem for me - especially the part about 'flat as a pancake'. I need more time to understand it. :pOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Anyone want to reply to AEN's New Atheism complains?
I do like pancakes though. With lots of maple syrup. -
Originally posted by Phaze:Good article.
I was just listening to the latest Atheist Experience podcast where a Christian caller raised many of these points.
Ultimately, her argument boiled down to, "I know because I know, because I know."
She was totally unable to understand why this was not a convincing argument. In fact, it wasn't even an argument.
She trotted out the usual accusations:
1. Atheists cannot be moral because they have no moral compass.
what is the yardstick of morality? to impose he understanding of morality thru certain books that one accept and deny the existence of others is exterme views
2. Atheists don't want to acknowledge god because it is too hard and they don't want to face up to the consequences.
that's a narrow view of the person who made this statement. Afterall everybody has to bear the consequence of his/her action. Imagine if one robbed a bank. no one can bear the responsibility of his action except the originator.
3. Atheists twist the truth to make Christianity look bad and intentionally ignore the real 'truth'.
If this being the view, what about the other faith, doesn't it put them in the same light? -
Evidence would make me believe in some god, but all the playacting in the world isn't going to change that.
Don't know about the rest, but this does sound like a blockhead to me.
If it's present, it's there. If it's not, then it's not.
So ultimately, something needs to be there, you need something to be seen, to be heard, to be felt to believe. Otherwise, it will make a disbeliever for a religion. -
Something like a police officer talking to a yet-to-be criminal?Originally posted by the Bear:i wonder if it is the same for atheists.. for isn't the argument this way?
i do not know therefore i do not believe? and because i do not believe that i say there isn't.
Police: You have no alibi to prove that you are not at the scene of the crime, so we can't believe you. -
*Agrees with pancakes and maple syrup and a hot cup of coffee.*Originally posted by Phaze:Too cheem for me - especially the part about 'flat as a pancake'. I need more time to understand it. :p
I do like pancakes though. With lots of maple syrup. -
Wah, mayi jie jie have a lot to say about atheism leh...Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Something like a police officer talking to a yet-to-be criminal?
Police: You have no alibi to prove that you are not at the scene of the crime, so we can't believe you. -
To me, atheism is simply choosing not to believe in God because you have no proof of his existence. It's a very pragmatic, yet narrow-minded view, in that you only believe what you perceive.
I'm not an atheist, my religious stance leans somewhat towards the Buddhist side. I don't exactly believe that the Buddha is the omniscient person made out in many stories, but I do think that a great number of his teachings are relevant to modern day life.
A great number of religious people think that atheists are misguided and immoral fools who dearly wish to rape, kill, maim, murder, steal, corrupt.... At the same time, many atheists think that religious people are primitive, dull and uneducated people who fail to see the logical flaws inherent in religion. Both these views ought to be met with the utmost contempt and derision by any intelligent atheist or religious person.
Religion is simply put, a man-made social construct that tries to explain all the things that science cannot. As we know, there are a great number of things that science cannot explain. Scientists meet claims of UFOs with undisguised contempt, yet they scramble to find evidence to disprove or prove their existence. They do the same when it comes to the afterlife.
Faith is blind, so open your ears. Be open to what others have to say. Don't be the Warhammer 40,000 kind of bigot ("An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unlocked."). -
Interesting points brought up there Xerxis.Originally posted by Xerxis:To me, atheism is simply choosing not to believe in God because you have no proof of his existence. It's a very pragmatic, yet narrow-minded view, in that you only believe what you perceive.
I'm not an atheist, my religious stance leans somewhat towards the Buddhist side. I don't exactly believe that the Buddha is the omniscient person made out in many stories, but I do think that a great number of his teachings are relevant to modern day life.
A great number of religious people think that atheists are misguided and immoral fools who dearly wish to rape, kill, maim, murder, steal, corrupt.... At the same time, many atheists think that religious people are primitive, dull and uneducated people who fail to see the logical flaws inherent in religion. Both these views ought to be met with the utmost contempt and derision by any intelligent atheist or religious person.
Religion is simply put, a man-made social construct that tries to explain all the things that science cannot. As we know, there are a great number of things that science cannot explain. Scientists meet claims of UFOs with undisguised contempt, yet they scramble to find evidence to disprove or prove their existence. They do the same when it comes to the afterlife.
Faith is blind, so open your ears. Be open to what others have to say. Don't be the Warhammer 40,000 kind of bigot ("An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unlocked.").
But I do like to clear a few points up. Most atheists do not think so lowly of believers. In fact there are some highly respected scientists who do somehow manage to retain their faith, like Francis Collins (Christianity), who heads the Human Genome Project; and Robert Winston (Judaism), a fertility expert, to name a few. But what most atheists do agree on is that believers do not apply sufficient reason when it comes to the subject of their beliefs. I personally feel that believing/disbelieving has nothing to do with intelligence level but degree of rationality.
Also, most scientists don't really scramble to disprove UFO or other paranormal claims. The same way that they don't really try to debunk ghosts, fairies, unicorns, and whatever the fad is. Mainly because it's just not that interesting, and there are greater things to spend your time on. Those scientists that do a lot of work dealing with paranormal subjects are usually in the parapsychology field. However, this field doesn't really get much respect from their peers mainly because there's just a whole lot of wishful thinking involved, and that their experimental methods leave much to be desired.
Suggesting that people believe in something that cannot be perceived isn't very rational. I can imagine many wondrous things that aren't perceivable like invisible pink unicorns, teapots in outer space and stacks of turtles holding up the universe. But if I were to ask you to believe in these things, would you?
Although we should always be open to new ideas that may be good, there's also another saying, "Don't be too open-minded that your brain falls out".
PS: I like your quote - "An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unlocked." Just wanna add that mine has a security guard inside.