10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked

Oh its not ALL based on religion. I agree with you. But religion plays a major role in all of these things as well. Yes if Bin Laden was simply all about religion he would have been on one of those airplanes on 9/11 or he would have been a suicide bomber. His aims were political as well. BUT.......Religion played a major role. He took angry young men, used religion to harness their anger and turned them into terrorists willing to kill and to die in the name of their religion.

Obviously the Israeli/Palestinian issue has plenty of religious tension in it.

Going back as far as the Holocaust, the Crusades etc. Salem Witch Trials, and even the first Iraq War. Bin Laden was upset that the Saudi King allowed "infidels" onto their lands instead of calling on Bin Laden and his troops.

Even now with Iraq and Afghanistan religion plays a role. Many people view our presence there as another sort of Crusade.

Obviously in all of these issues there are political undertones as well. No doubt about it.

 

Gay marriage? You do realize the opposing view is that homosexuals are using the government to force acceptance of their lifestyle. Not too mention, how do you explain churches that support homosexual rights - clearly, as someone who is not even gay, you are oppressed.

Stem cell research deal with life, you don't have to be religious to be squeamish about ripping cells out of an embryo that would otherwise be a valid life - and a human life too boot. But I am glad you think the government only represents YOUR point of view ans must force it upon others. Clearly you are oppressed.

And finally, the old false canard of atheism: creationism. Taught almost no where, and certainly not forced on anyone, often defeated by coalitions including vast numbers of secular Christians, somehow, even though the largest Christian denominations accept evolution as fact, you are oppressed ny a government that is not forcing this concept on anyone?

Yep, that is atheism, finding punting menaces every where to rail against in futility.

Perhaps a night light will also keep the monster away from under your bed?

Notice once again the utter inability of an atheist to see anything but his own point of view?

 

I read the whole thing

And you know I have t say I felt heavily stereotyped as an atheist. Before I found out I was really agnostic by definition. People stereotype athiests all the time, same as they stereotype any faith. There is a thread called 'arrogant athiests' around here i believe and that is most definitly a stereotype.

Though I do have to admit stereotypes DO come from somewhere. I have often seen both atheists and theists being complete (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags to one another while both seem to think they being the reasonable and right one.

On another note I agree with the fact most of the stereotypes listed are untrue and simply stereotyped at least in my regard.


Just throwing this out there. Athiesm is a religion. Just not by standard definition. It is not uniform with guidelines in that sense but it IS a form of belief which is what a religion/faith is. A firm belief/conviction that can be on any matter whatsoever.

 

Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive. Since "atheist" only means lacking faith in a deity, you can be an agnostic atheist. (which I am)

 

And that is a load of crap.

Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. An agnostic believes the evidence for God is inconclusive and fully acknowledges that there may be a God. An atheist is some who does not believe there is a God. In short, they have looked at the available evidence and concluded that there is no God. The evidence cannot be both inconclusive an yet suggestive in a conclusive manner.

The real problem is that often very aggressive atheist use agnostic atheism as cop out. While demanding evidence for God, then pull agnostic atheism out of the hat and claim there is no evidence for God, having just ignored the entirety of every preponderance of he evidence case presented with a total absolute - no evidence at all.

When asked to detail their investigation that lead them to conclude that there was absolutely no evidence for God, and thus only a rational choice to not believe (once again totally ignoring all presented evidence, we get nothing.


I think agnostic atheism is intellectually bankrupt, and rests upon the same fallacious logic as fundamentalist creationism.

After all, fundamentalist creationists ignore fossils that clearly demonstrate transitional species even after asking for it, thus claiming there is no evidence for evolution and agnostic atheists do the exact same thing with evidence for God.

I gains it interesting that the two opposing fundamentalist he the same logic al argumentation, but absolutely dispise one another.

 

Ask any self-described agnostic whether they worship a god or not. You'll most likely always get "no" as an answer. However, they will not explicitly deny that there is a God. Yet, they are still atheists in the broad sense of the word because they do not worship a deity.

If someone makes a claim that there is a giant teapot that revolves around the sun, would you consider yourself strictly "agnostic" regarding it's existence? Or would you demand that the person who makes such a claim give proof before you just dismiss it right away and say that you "don't believe in it"?

 

Oh, I quite agree that AQ took a warped view of religion an brain washed to vulnerable to commit heinous acts of violence.

I am also fully aware that Marxist rebels in Columbia, Nepal, and even India, use Marxism to do they same thing.

I am also.aware that drug gangs use tend allure of.money to dupe hound men into committing horrible acts of violence, that gangs like MS13 kidnap and rape young women and use them sexual rewards to their followers who commit horrific acts of violence in their name.

I am aware of social dawinism being use to dupe young men to first beat other men and then, having achieved the real goal of political power, launched a genocidal campaign that killed millions.

I am very much aware o the tools of.manipulation and thebplying of ill intent by the charismatic but dishonorable, and behind every one is thebdesire for political power.

There is indeed multicultural religious aspect who Al Qaeda, but everyone from the Grand Mufti in SA to Dr. Qadri in Pakistan has pointed out the flawed religious basis of Al Qaeda. AQ still exists.

As we look for root causes, we should be mindful of the political aspects of these struggles, and the danger in terms of policy is running afoul these aspects and doing more harm then good by resting inappropriate policy responses that do not address root causes.

For manyatheists this is a particular challenge, because the re is already the inherent bias that religion causes violence, so when they look and see religion in any manner they think theater see the root cause.

The reality of conflict does not fit so neatly into our preconceptions.

 

I do not believe that I claimed agnostic atheists worship a God, I believe I claimed that they are actually strong atheists copping out on the burden of proof for their conclusion there is no God.

Russel's tea pot is oftenthe thrown out andbeen debunked numerous times. If it is beyond the intellectual purview or ability of atheists to discern the implausibility of a man made object not normally made to withstand the rigors of space, being made at incredible expense and then shot into interplanetary orbit at horrific expense, and then completely ignore the fact that we have inventories of rocket cargos shot into interplantery orbit with no listed tea pots, then perhaps we can conclude that there is a tea pot magically floating inspace.

However, using available evidence and testing we find Russels tea pot to be extraordinarily unlikely and this is known as a preponderance of the evidence assessment.

Agh, what about aliens and magic? Well we call these arguements from absurdity, and that is the only method by which russels tea pot or agnostic atheism survives.

In sharp contrast, God also makes testable claims - like miracles. Are there no miracles out there?

True, they could be something else, which is why faith is the final.determiner. and it is for atheism as well. To deny in ththe e face of inconclusive evidence is every bit thebleap of gain that affirmation is in the face of inconclusive evidence.

All agnostic atheism is, is an excuse to avoid acknowledging that simple truth. Because atheism is objective and rational, and no atheist out there wants to acknowledged that their atheism is intellectually no different than any religion.

So we get the emotion rationalization of agnostic atheism, just a we get rationalization fromardent Creationists to avoid analysis that contradicts their preconceptions.

Agnostic atheism and fundamentalist creationism are two peas from the same intellectual pod.

 

I never claimed that you said that agnostic atheists worshiped a God.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say. Fundamentalist creationism and agnostic atheism are similar? I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Furthermore, what makes fundamentalist creationism any less credible then regular creationism in your eyes? After all, isn't fundamentalism the only logical position in religion? Otherwise, you're just cherry picking whichever aspects haven't been disproved by science.

It seems that you just have a phobia of the term "atheism". It's okay, I realize that there's a stigma out there. Most agnostics are atheists who simply want to appear more respectable, because the theists have convinced everybody that all atheists are "militant" and dogmatic. (No doubt some of them are, but putting them all in the same boat makes about as much sense as putting fundamentalists in with moderate Christians) The result is that there's a huge disconnect between what "atheist" really means and what most Christians think it means.

Here, I suggest you read this. I have a feeling that atheism and agnosticism are not entirely what you think they are.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

You say that agnostic atheism is the denial of the "simple truth", yet agnostic atheism is the same exact thing as agnosticism, just with a different (and more appropriate) label.

Likewise, you're assertion that agnostic atheists are the same as "strong" atheists is without merit. I suspect that this particular belief has something to do with the negative connotations of the word "atheist".

 

Well, someone didn't read anything I wrote, and appears absolutely flumuxed that some challenged the basis of his faith in nothing. And it is a faith.

Number one, you specifically mentioned Russell's tea pot, and then exactly as claimed and as all the other agnostic atheists on this forum do, have studiously avoided the case presented that demolishes the claim of Russell's tea pot.

It is known as an argument from absurdity, in that it deal with something deliberately untestable and ignores testable methodologies.

The adherents to Russell's tea pot are identical in logical application to fundamentalist creationists.

Number two, you fundamentally ignored evidence. An agnostic looks at the available evidence and finds it to be inconclusive. And atheist finds it to be strongly suggestive or conclusive in the finding of no God. How can the same investigation result in two opposite conclusions? Logically it can't.

Of course agnostic atheist claim there ia no evidence at all! Only that would require them to look and present a case about where we should expect to find evidence but see none.

The only problem is that such an examination is support for atheism not agnosticism, as an agnostic finds in that investigation inconclusive evidence rather than no evidence.

Agnostic atheism is simply not a logical my supportable position, and it is why none of the multiple agnostic atheists have ever produced an intellectual case to support their faith, they simply can't.

Number three, I hope you do not think you are thefirst agnosticatheist I have encountered? I assure Josyou that your peers have more than shown me multiple definitions of agnostic atheist, ignoring the fact that I am a former atheist and am emmentally familiar with it.

I will also share with you that what rally raised my heckles about agnostic atheists was watching them start one thread after anotherbashing creationism, totally ignoring multiple religious people attempng to share non - literal interpretations, to basically deride the lot of us a idiots.

Well, what does it mean when said obstinate accusers utilize the exact same logical argumentation?

The simple fact of the matter is that agnostic atheism sound nice, but it falls apart on even cursory examination. Indeed, its very premise is a logical contradiction.

 

Well, you can substitute Russel's teapot analogy with any other argument from absurdity if you would like. The point is that the burden of proof lies on someone to prove a positive, not on the dissenter to prove a negative. The existence of God is also a "deliberately untestable" hypothesis as well. However, that was not my main point. The point overall is that agnostic atheism is hardly different then the commonly understood definition of "agnosticism". But you don't seem to have too much of a problem with agnostics.

What do you define as atheism? Because if theism means simply a belief in a deity, then atheism, to me, simply means no belief in a deity. It does not mean knowing with absolute certainty that there is no deity.

As for the fellows posting threads bashing creationism, please don't guilt me by association. I have absolutely no quarrels with religion as long as it is peaceful and separate from politics. I'm just a bit put off by your hostility towards atheists.

 

Are you reading anything I write?

Russell's tea pot IS an argument from absurdity. Please go back and read before you toss out a rebuttal to your preconceptions of our arguments.

Did you notice tell part where I state that agnostic atheists ignore argumentation?
Two if I am presenting the differences between agnosticism and atheism and hownthey are incompatible, and then demonstrating how agnostic atheism takes the premise or bothnto sheer contradictory absurdity is not rebutted by pretending I am a total moron who needs to be informed of what the definitions are?

Please go back and read and then offer an actual rebuttal. Again, just as you atheists claim to be familiar with our faith, some of us are extremely familar with yours as well.

Three, there is no artificial category in you vs. The other agnostic atheists. Thus far, you are behaving exactly as they do.

 

A reminder, there are several preppnderanceof evidence cases for God that have been presented and are easily accessible on the internet, try godandscience.org for example.

Now.logically, the counter would then have to rebut. Never happens, its just silt reasoning to reject presented evidence.

And finally, the rules.ofnogic do not change based on our faith choice. A person making ANY claim must back it up. So why do you think there is no God or no evidence for God?

Because your faith tells you so.

See Russell's tea pot or fundamentalist creationism and see the same logic that goes into agnostic atheism atheism.

 

Indeed. Where did I say otherwise? Either way, it is not a negative thing. It's simply taking things to their logical end. If something is not falsifiable (as is the case with the existence of a deity) then in the context of this argument it can be compared with other things that are not yet falsifiable or evidence based (such as Leprechauns or monsters)

I did not mean to portray you as a moron, and I am not sure how I did so, but I apologize if I did. However, that does not mean that I cannot disagree with your premise that it is "sheer contradictory absurdity" and bring my own reasoning to back it up. That's how debates work.

Okay then...

 

Well, because, the Christian God is almost inseparable from the events in the Bible. And since many of the (inconsistent) events in the Bible haven't really been proved to actually have happened and some to be outright false, that would lead me to cast doubt on the existence of God. That and the fact that God has not made himself visible for us to see. I guess there's the argument that he works in "mysterious ways", but that would lead me to question his own rationale behind designing a such a complicated and painful test.

 

The idea that there is no God is not falsifiable is it? Yet your position must be accepted as valid?

Reducio ad absurdum, that is the problem, and why the discussion must focus in what we can look at. It involves preponderance rather than conclusive result.

God claims miracles, callings, answered prayers, and has sent prophets. True, this is not conclusive, as there are alternate explanations, but the more claimed things are verified the greater the probability of truth. I mean Jesus could have just been a really nice guy who bamboozled the world with the help of a few good writers in a giant co piracy to place evidence all over the historical record, ut that is pretty rambling unlikely.

What is clear, and in a problem for agnostic atheism, is that there is a lot of evidence for God.

Ergo, when the only rebuttal to this evidential reality is an argument from absurdity in Russell's tea pot, what you are really telling us is that you think there issue no more evidence for God then thee is for magic space tea pots (which do not claim miracles or answer prayers). That is just the guilt by association fallacy, as, like I said, there is no actual examination of the evidence for God and comparison to the thing you just made up. As I said, the total absence of intellectual rigor which false apart when examined.

Are there relatively strong preponderance of the evidence cases for atheism? You bet. There existence belies the validity of agnostic atheism and the fact that none of these presentations are conclusive and contain the same if not more, weaknesses as any regarding proof of God.

In the end the faith that there is no God is just that: a faith.

If you do not think so, then let's see the proof that there is no God or that there is no evidence for God. Both claims require support. Agnostic atheists never give such support.

The only difference between fundamentalist creationism and agnostic atheism is that one says, "because God says so,"or and the other says, "because I say so."

Indeed, in the end if you never look for evidence or bother to acknowledged it, then there is indeed no evidence. That is not an intellectually valid position, it ia a cop out.

Now you do not think atheism requires faith, that claim requires proof. That means there should be a rock solid case for there being no God. Good luck.

Do not say I did not warn you.

 

It's much simpler than that. Gods only exist when faith in them is relevant. No faith means no relevance, which practically means no existence.

Christians know this very well. Their faith builds on it. In fact, all monotheisms expel all but one god. In practice, this means that no god exists except one.

 

Okay, I went there and found absolute nonsense. It's a typical "if you can dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with BS" as it makes illogical conclusions based upon misrepresentations of facts. The idiot could be fooled by the statements made but not an informed person.

 

Even if there was some "evidence" for God, that evidence would have to add up to concluding that God was true with scientific certainty.

Again, the burden is on you to prove the positive. Nowhere have I said that it is absolutely certain that there is no God. You think that's a "cop out" yet you don't seem to have a problem with people who call themselves "agnostics"?

 

Since "BELIEVING", theists must either suspend common sense or be intentionally ignorant, why would you expect anything different? Theists that accept a religion because of what they feel is the "philosophy" behind it I can understand. Theists that believe the myths and superstitions in the religious works of the world are just (to me) nuts).

 

Those terrible, evil, world conquering 6 million Jews in Israel, out to rape and pillage 1 billion Muslims...those evil Zionists.

Lets see, during the 6 day war, after being illegally attacked by 6 nations, and defeating them, and conquering tens of thousands of square miles of land, cities and resources, those evil Zionists who had just increased their land area by more than three times, in a war of DEFENSE, just up and gave 99 percent of everything they took away from the aggressors, back---out of the nasty evilness of their black hearts.

 

I am an atheist, I am certain, beyond the possibility of any doubt that no god or gods exist. In fact, I am certain that all nonsense of anything supernatural is just that, claptrap!
By the way, there is NO doctrine for atheists, and there are many general forms of it, the two largest being Strong atheists (like myself KNOW no gods exist) and Weak Atheists (who have no belief in the existence of any gods).
The simple fact is, that there are no rules about what an atheist must of must not believe. Very few atheists have exactly the same views on their belief. In my case, I am positive that the 50,000 years of human existence, without ONE IOTA of evidence to support the existence of anything supernatural at all, is all PROOF I need to KNOW there are no gods.

 

At my last check, 92 wars were going on around the world, with Muslims against some other religion, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and about a dozen other minor ones. Hmm, yes, lets stop all religious nuts from fighting.

 

The first part of OP or OT was too much of a blanket statement. Some of the myths may be generally true. (with extreme emphasis on 'generally'). Still as far as this religious person is concerned those myths belong in the era of the scopes monkey trial (which BTW the creationists won!). Too many activist atheists and others that would belittle religion or its cousin metaphysics, have an outdated model of the typical christian and what he or she believes. Even though I hold a degree in comparative religions I can not speak fully for the other major religions much less the minor ones. So you might want to read a little Craig, Koon, and other PhD, enabled or modern leaders of Christianity apologists before making such a general statement.

Rev A

 

I live in VA and have had my care trashed (and a nasty note left) because I had a Darwin bumper sticker on it. A little walking fist with a wrench caused 5000 dollars worth of damage to my vehicle. So, yes, I guess in one way you could say I live in "Barefoot, Alabama". Many Christians in this nation are hateful, bigoted and stupid people, who believe in "My way or die demon!".