Misconceptions About Atheism

[kalt]

“And as for what I’m doing here, online discussions about belief and non-belief have interested me for years. I think it’s in the best interest of everyone to understand what it is that other people actually believe or don’t believe.”

I agree with you. If you hadn’t started this thread, I wouldn’t have realized that atheists ask the question of origins in a very limited way, and then claim that their answer (“I don’t know.”) is superior to a theist’s answer.

If you ask only questions that begin with “What is”, you’ll can avoid the tougher questions that begin with, “If this, then…”, which are much more difficult to answer with, “I don’t know.” without sounding like a dope.

Ask the question in the right way, and you can delude yourself into thinking that not asking the right question is actually smart.

Thanks! I’ve been informed.

PS: You did say that ridicule and sarcasm are intelligent ways to debate, right?

 

[MegaTherion]

How do atheists, based on your narrow description of what atheists believe, answer, “What about the first?”

How do the atheists who agree with your definition of themselves answer, “Is there a first?”.

Since atheism is all about logic, and atheists, by your account, have conceded that, not only was there something before the Big Bang, but that matter doesn’t come from nothing, there logically has to be something before the first particle (or whatever you want to call the first matter.) even if you can’t name that first matter.

Do atheists just ignore that ultimate question, “Can there be a first that comes from nothing, if we believe that everything comes from something?”

Hi, Kalt. Those are difficult questions for anyone to answer (Atheist or no) because we’re dealing with the unknown. We are currently incapable of looking back beyond what’s called planck time (the moments after the Big Bang).

I think many Atheists would be inclined to say that the universe may have always existed in some form. The Big Bang merely generated the current form of our universe. Of course, this is only speculative, but it is supported by the fact that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. It’s just an idea, until we get more data and confirm it, like we’ve done with the Big Bang.

The issue is actually much more complicated than you’ve made it seem. We don’t know, for example, whether causality operated in the same way before the Big Bang as it did after (if there was no time, it would be difficult to speak of “causes” and 'effects"); we don’t know if the laws of the universe were the same before as they were after.

Even if we accept that there had to be a “first cause,” we lack any information about this first cause. We don’t know if it was supernatural or something natural that we don’t understand. We don’t know if it still exists or not. We certainly can’t attribute any qualities to it.

The “first cause,” if it exists, could be one of the Hindu gods, it could be Jehovah, or it could be Cthulhu. Or it could be a natural force that we know nothing about. We’d have no way of knowing.

Now, you say:

IMO, it’s a cop out to answer, “I don’t know.” It’s intellecually lazy. It’s one thing to be an atheist. It’s another to claim that “I don’t know.” is a valid answer to the ultimate question of origins, when that question doesn’t require any special knowledge.

But it’s not intellectually lazy to say you don’t know something when you don’t. It’s honest. I’m not claiming that it’s a “valid” answer in that we should all accept it and stop looking into it. We are looking into it. But we’re not justified in pretending that we have an answer when we do not.

You presume that the universe didn’t always exist, when it might have. You presume that the laws of the universe and causality always existed or always operated in the same way, when we don’t know enough to say that.

In short, we’re all in the same boat when it comes to knowledge on the subject.

 

[Nepenthe]

I ought to clarify at least one reason why at least some atheists and nontheists (I make this distinction for the clarity of those with misconceptions about atheism - nontheists certainly don’t get all worked up over the existence of supernatural beings. It’s more that we find the whole idea irrelevant, extremely unlikely, and just don’t care.)

But both little-a atheists and nontheists often DO care quite a bit what and how theists think, and why. Sometimes it’s a matter of ‘knowing the enemy’. And if you have hung around this forum for more than 60 seconds, you bet there are a lot of theists who have appointed themselves our enemies, and the enemies of quite a few other flavors of theists too, for that matter. On the other hand, many of us genuinely like many theists, and grow very concerned, if we have some knowledge of the dictates and recommendations of their religion and its culture, about the behavior of those theists. All too often, they claim to ascribe to values like, love hope, and charity, but completely ignore those things in their unreasoning zeal. So in that case, it falls to us to try to more-or-less gently point out such behavior. So then some of us try to behave as consciences, hopefully without falling into the trap of hubris. This takes a great deal of education and observation, not to mention good will.

These are very general statements to be sure, but they are very often the case. Sure, there are some daft atheists, but once they are past their early teens (when most everyone is pretty kneejerk stupid), they often have to learn forbearance and kindness, and a sensitive antenna for hostility. I have heard on this forum people advocating the torture and burning of those who have no religion - you bet we have to be wary! I was beaten up quite often even in grade school for not being religious. Some people seem to need people to hate the way we all need food and oxygen, sigh, and since we aren’t an organized bunch in any way, we make such easy targets.

So please, give us a listen before throwing stones. I doubt we’ll try to ‘proselytize’ you, but remind you that we are every bit as human, and (gasp) moral as any given religious person.

 

[MegaTherion]

I’ve read your outside traits, but what is your view on God? Not to list buckets, but completely don’t believe, maybe believe, believe in another supreme being, don’t know, just don’t want to commit, etc? You’ve obviously thought on this a long time.

Hey, Leroy. Are you asking me personally about my beliefs? I don’t think that any of the god-claims that I’ve heard have met their burden of proof, so I don’t have a belief in any god.

There are hundreds of gods I don’t believe in because I’ve never seen any convincing evidence for any of them. I’ve read holy texts, and I’ve talked to people who have felt warm, fuzzy feelings when saying prayers, but I have not actually encountered evidence that would demonstrate that any of the gods that people have worshipped are real.

So my answer would be: don’t know and don’t believe.

There are a whole bunch of labels that go with Atheism that I could introduce to complicate this, but I don’t feel the need to because I don’t think such labels are helpful.

My observation of the universe leads me to believe that it is unlikely that anything supernatural exists. However, I’m quite open to the possibility if any evidence arises.

If you ask different Atheists, they’ll give you different answers, but I think my response would be fairly common.

While I’m at it, I wanted to thank Kellie for the warm welcome (I’m trying to respond to everyone here), and I wanted to express regret that CatsAndDogs does not wish to converse at all.

Let me just quickly address one of Kalt’s points:

You did say that ridicule and sarcasm are intelligent ways to debate, right?

Actually, what I said was that satire and ridicule have a place in public discourse. I didn’t mean to imply that they are necessarily appropriate in every debate.

The situation will usually dictate what is appropriate.

 

[kalt]

"Let me just quickly address one of Kalt’s points:
Quote:
You did say that ridicule and sarcasm are intelligent ways to debate, right?

Actually, what I said was that satire and ridicule have a place in public discourse. I didn’t mean to imply that they are necessarily appropriate in every debate.

The situation will usually dictate what is appropriate."

And I’m sure that you will inform the rest of us exactly when that is.

You are really good at non-answers.

 

[kalt]

“You presume that the universe didn’t always exist, when it might have.”

You said earlier that atheists don’t believe that the universe came from nothing. Well, if it “came from” something, it didn’t always exist. If it always existed, it came from nothing.

 

[MegaTherion]

“You presume that the universe didn’t always exist, when it might have.”

You said earlier that atheists don’t believe that the universe came from nothing. Well, if it “came from” something, it didn’t always exist. If it always existed, it came from nothing.

Well, first of all, I was using “come from nothing” to refer to an ex nihilo. Atheists don’t believe that the universe sprang from nothing.

There is not enough evidence for us to say what happened before the Big Bang. I know it might be difficult to grasp, but our position actually is one of not knowing – because that’s the boat that all humans are in.

It is possible that the universe always existed in some form (in somewhat the same way that Christians claim that their god always existed). Personally, I think that that is more likely than the universe being “created” or springing into being. But we can’t say for sure.

If you think you can say for sure, I’d be interested in hearing the evidence for it.

 

[survive]

I see the theism/atheism issue as manifold.
There are atheists who have known little else. I was one once.
There are theists who have known little else. There are far fewer of such than most atheists with whom I have discussed religion seem to believe there to be, however.
There are atheists who have lost their faith because of an emotional crisis – betrayal, attachment or some personal reason.
There are theists who have sought and found the Eternal because of betrayal, attachment or some personal reason.
There are atheists who abandoned supernatural beliefs because they were unable to find evidence for them.
There are theists who have gained supernatural beliefs because they were unable to explain away the mounting evidence for them, which they personally experienced. This is where I started searching, as a child, long ago.
There are atheists who are rebelling, rather than changing their inner beliefs, of which they were never sure in the first place; for these people, belief is a part of self-image and social leverage, not a genuine belief.
Among those who identify with beliefs without really believing either way, there are also theists who are rebelling.
There are atheists who are atheists to conform. I went through that in youth.
There are theists who are theists to conform.
There are atheists who have abandoned the rules of a childhood religious group to do what they want, and secretly just hope they’re right.
There are theists who have adopted a creed not out of real belief but to do what they want, and secretly just hope they’re right.
And there are theists who have jumped ship. These fit in every above category of motivation and possibly more. There are some who have made every imaginable jump – Catholic to Protestant, Hindu to atheist, Wiccan to agnostic, Christian Science to Zen Buddhist, on and on.

 

[iamme]

Heard it all before.

I don’t think I’ve had the pleasure of putting such a low-post-count poster (3) on my ignore list!

Hello, Bye-bye Megs!

:shamrock2:

wow, you take pleasure in being rude and callous… definitely a child of god.

for the main post, brilliantly worded and totally true.

 

[JMJ_coder]

1. Misconception: Atheists have no basis for morality.

Most Atheists appeal to reason as the source of moral judgments. In any given situation, it is possible to look at the spectrum of actions available to us and decide which of those actions are more likely to produce positive results and which are less likely. Remember, since this life is the only one that we are all certain that we will have, it’s in everyone’s best interest to build the best possible society in the here and now.

As social animals, humans have a natural drive to work together (we see similar behavior in many species), and through an application of reason guided by this natural empathy, we can behave in an ethical manner towards one another to build the kind of world we would all like to live in.

For what basis do you determine a “positive” outcome? How do you know that the outcome is positive and not negative?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Well, first of all, I was using “come from nothing” to refer to an ex nihilo. Atheists don’t believe that the universe sprang from nothing.

There is not enough evidence for us to say what happened before the Big Bang. I know it might be difficult to grasp, but our position actually is one of not knowing – because that’s the boat that all humans are in.

It is possible that the universe always existed in some form (in somewhat the same way that Christians claim that their god always existed). Personally, I think that that is more likely than the universe being “created” or springing into being. But we can’t say for sure.

If you think you can say for sure, I’d be interested in hearing the evidence for it.

If there is no evidence either way, would you say that it is then at least possible that God did create the universe ex nihilo?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Ahh, I see where the confusion is. You and I are using different definitions of “removing God from the public sphere.”

What I mean when I say that Atheists don’t want to remove God from the public sphere is that Atheists, for the most part, don’t want to ban or obstruct people from expressing their belief in God in public. Naturally, we do want people to agree with us. Of course most of us would prefer it if everyone gave up their belief in gods tomorrow (just as most religious people would be happy if everyone embraced a belief in [their] god tomorrow). But the vast, vast majority of Atheists would not want to mandate that and forcibly remove religious discourse from our public life.

In other words, Atheists aren’t advertising “There is probably no god” because they want to prevent people from talking about god. They want people to talk about it…to think about it…to rationally look at the evidence. And naturally, they would prefer it if everyone came to the same conclusion that they did, but that is obviously not going to happen any time soon.

And since you brought it up, I actually don’t think that respect for the beliefs of others is necessary to have a public debate. We should respect people, certainly. But we should be under no impetus to respect their beliefs. The beliefs stand or fall on their own (or, rather, on the weight of the evidence). And certainly, there is a place in public discourse for satire and ridicule.

Free speech is meaningless unless we have the freedom to say something that someone else might find offensive.

If it isn’t the majority, then it is definitely a very vocal minority. For example, there is a strong push to disallow even private prayer in schools. In some schools, the Declaration of Independence has been banned from the history curriculum because it mentions God. Politicians are pressured to feel that they must disavow any religious convictions to be elected. Catholic hospitals are bullied into provided care that goes against Church teaching. I could go on.

 

[iamme]

If it isn’t the majority, then it is definitely a very vocal minority. For example, there is a strong push to disallow even private prayer in schools. In some schools, the Declaration of Independence has been banned from the history curriculum because it mentions God. Politicians are pressured to feel that they must disavow any religious convictions to be elected. Catholic hospitals are bullied into provided care that goes against Church teaching. I could go on.

none of that is true. i have a 9 year old niece in public school who says the pledge every day, and it mentions god. how would it even be possible to ban private prayer? most prayer that i use is silent anyway, so how would they even know? catholic hospitals are bullied into nothing. theyre required to give the same treatment as any other hospital if they want to get the public benefits of being a public institution. if a catholic hospital wants to offer only what is in line with their religious beliefs, thats fine, they just dotn get the funding from the public sector, which i could never see as unreasonable, and dont think any normal person could, either. as for the history bit, i have no idea what youre talking about so i cant comment.

some people just like to play the victim, even when they are the majority…

 

[JMJ_coder]

i have a 9 year old niece in public school who says the pledge every day, and it mentions god.

There was a lawsuit that tried to have it removed – by the same atheist who is currently suing over the inaugural ceremonies. It was thrown out because he lacked standing – but how long until someone who does have standing refiles the lawsuit.

how would it even be possible to ban private prayer? most prayer that i use is silent anyway, so how would they even know?

There is no way to tell if a person is praying silently. But, many school districts prohibit groups of students from gathering together in the school to pray or hold, say, a Bible study, etc. These are generally in the form of a student association akin to say the Latin Club or Drama Guild.

I think that courts generally rule that voluntary prayer as described here is not prohibited, but school districts are still pressured to deny this right to students.

catholic hospitals are bullied into nothing. theyre required to give the same treatment as any other hospital if they want to get the public benefits of being a public institution. if a catholic hospital wants to offer only what is in line with their religious beliefs, thats fine, they just dotn get the funding from the public sector, which i could never see as unreasonable, and dont think any normal person could, either.

If you want to receive government aid, you must kill babies. Yeah, that’s not bullying.

I do think we need more Bishops who tell the government that they can go you know where.

as for the history bit, i have no idea what youre talking about so i cant comment.

Teacher sues for right to use documents that reference God

NOVEMBER 24–A California teacher who teaches his fifth-grade students with the aid of primary source documents like the Declaration of Independence has been ordered by school administrators to stop using such artifacts of American history because the material contains references to God. In the below federal discrimination lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Steven Williams contends that brass at Cupertino’s Stevens Creek School have recently rejected his use of “curriculum-related handouts” like the Declaration, various state constitutions, George Washington’s journal, John Adams’s diary, and writings by William Penn. Williams alleges that the San Francisco-area school’s principal, Patricia Vidmar, banned the use of these handouts because “many original source documents from the founding era contain references to God and Christianity.” Williams alleges that Vidmar cracked down on his lesson plans in May, shortly after he distributed an example of a presidential proclamation. The document he chose was one issued by President George W. Bush dealing with a National Day of Prayer. Williams, who describes himself as an “orthodox Christian,” states in his complaint that he “understands and admits that he is not permitted to ‘proselytize’ or seek to convert his students to Christian beliefs during instructional time.” (8 pages)

There was a similar story that came from Oregon or Washington State. (I think around Portland, Ore., but I can’t remember exactly).

some people just like to play the victim, even when they are the majority…

Whatever.

 

[iamme]

There was a lawsuit that tried to have it removed – by the same atheist who is currently suing over the inaugural ceremonies. It was thrown out because he lacked standing – but how long until someone who does have standing refiles the lawsuit.

if someone has a standing, then it should go on, thats kind of the point of the judicial system. its no more ridiculous than people trying to get creationism in a science class, or having a disclaimer about the theory of evolution stamped on the inside of a textbook, intentionally misleading the reader.

There is no way to tell if a person is praying silently. But, many school districts prohibit groups of students from gathering together in the school to pray or hold, say, a Bible study, etc. These are generally in the form of a student association akin to say the Latin Club or Drama Guild.

I think that courts generally rule that voluntary prayer as described here is not prohibited, but school districts are still pressured to deny this right to students.

what you describe above is not private prayer, and its group prayer, and in some settings, such as a club where several faiths could be represented, it is inappropriate, not because its prayer, but because its exclusionary. if it were something like the fca or something, then its totally different, but just a random group? id hope anyone could see the difference and reasoning behind that.

If you want to receive government aid, you must kill babies. Yeah, that’s not bullying.

I do think we need more Bishops who tell the government that they can go you know where.

no, if you want government aid, you will perform the same services all hospitals do, if you do not want to do that, then you dont get funding. how would you feel about the kkk starting a hospital, that refused to treat blacks, but demanded funding? i dont understand how or why this needs explaining. either normalize, or privatize, you cant have both.

Teacher sues for right to use documents that reference God

NOVEMBER 24–A California teacher who teaches his fifth-grade students with the aid of primary source documents like the Declaration of Independence has been ordered by school administrators to stop using such artifacts of American history because the material contains references to God. In the below federal discrimination lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Steven Williams contends that brass at Cupertino’s Stevens Creek School have recently rejected his use of “curriculum-related handouts” like the Declaration, various state constitutions, George Washington’s journal, John Adams’s diary, and writings by William Penn. Williams alleges that the San Francisco-area school’s principal, Patricia Vidmar, banned the use of these handouts because “many original source documents from the founding era contain references to God and Christianity.” Williams alleges that Vidmar cracked down on his lesson plans in May, shortly after he distributed an example of a presidential proclamation. The document he chose was one issued by President George W. Bush dealing with a National Day of Prayer. Williams, who describes himself as an “orthodox Christian,” states in his complaint that he “understands and admits that he is not permitted to ‘proselytize’ or seek to convert his students to Christian beliefs during instructional time.” (8 pages)

There was a similar story that came from Oregon or Washington State. (I think around Portland, Ore., but I can’t remember exactly). i was ready to concede how ridiculous that decision sound until the bolded part.
1)george w bush is not a part of history (unless you count how hell go down in history, which wont be favorably)
2) in that same quote, he admits to promoting christianity, which is wholly inappropriate and out of line for a HISTORY CLASS.

if it were just the incedental things in historical documents as the article started out, that would be the dumbest thing i heard, but it wasnt, he admits to actively trying to push religion on kids in school.

Whatever.

thats my sentiment to those who play the victim when their rights arent actually being infringed upon.

 

[MegaTherion]

Hi, JMJ_coder. I’m going to address your points out of order:

If there is no evidence either way, would you say that it is then at least possible that God did create the universe ex nihilo?

Yes. But then again, I think it’s equally as possible that the world was created by the Hindu gods or by Cthulhu.

Virtually anything is possible, but what we have to do is deal with questions of likelihood. I said earlier that, to me at least, the idea that the universe always existed in some form makes more sense than the idea that it was created – the reason I say this is because we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed. That’s not strong proof that the universe always existed, and I don’t hold that position as an absolute truth, but I do think it more likely than the existence of any god.

For what basis do you determine a “positive” outcome? How do you know that the outcome is positive and not negative?

I certainly didn’t mean to simplify moral questions in the OP – I was just trying to be concise. I acknowledge that there is room to weigh various criteria for what constitutes a “positive” outcome.

Personally, I try to make choices that I decide are in accord with my nature and the nature of those around me while simultaneously not unnecessarily restricting the free will of others or causing unnecessary harm to others (physical/mental/emotional).

In general, I personally am more interested in developing a virtuous character that can evaluate and react to situations, rather than following a set of rules. This is because every situation is different, and I think moral imperatives are dictated by the situation. However, it is possible to extrapolate certain general rules of behavior. For example: not killing, not stealing, not enslaving, etc. These are all good rules that meet my criteria, respect the individual, and produce the kind of society that we all want to live in.

Your other point about various atheist activists is rather vast and could be the subject of its own thread, so I’ll just say this: most atheists do not want to remove religion forcibly from the public sphere.

Some instances of atheist activism I support (we should remove religious references on currency and in the pledge), and some I don’t (I think a lawsuit over the presidential oath of office is silly). Every situation needs to be judged on its own merits.

 

[JMJ_coder]

if someone has a standing, then it should go on, thats kind of the point of the judicial system. its no more ridiculous than people trying to get creationism in a science class, or having a disclaimer about the theory of evolution stamped on the inside of a textbook, intentionally misleading the reader.

Creationism/Evolution in the classroom is a whole topic (or several) unto itself.

what you describe above is not private prayer, and its group prayer, and in some settings, such as a club where several faiths could be represented, it is inappropriate, not because its prayer, but because its exclusionary. if it were something like the fca or something, then its totally different, but just a random group? id hope anyone could see the difference and reasoning behind that.

So is Latin Club exclusionary because those who don’t speaka the lingua aren’t going to fit in? Is the Drama Club exclusionary towards bad actors? Is Gleet Club exclusionary to the tone deaf? Someone who doesn’t share the interests or beliefs that define a club can’t hold the club to be discriminatory for that fact alone.

no, if you want government aid, you will perform the same services all hospitals do, if you do not want to do that, then you dont get funding. how would you feel about the kkk starting a hospital, that refused to treat blacks, but demanded funding? i dont understand how or why this needs explaining. either normalize, or privatize, you cant have both.

How can you even equate not wanting to murder innocent babies to racism.

if it were just the incedental things in historical documents as the article started out, that would be the dumbest thing i heard, but it wasnt, he admits to actively trying to push religion on kids in school.

I didn’t read that into it at all. I read it as “I know I’m not supposed to do that – but I wasn’t, I was teaching history”.

 

[iamme]

Creationism/Evolution in the classroom is a whole topic (or several) unto itself.

and it wasnt my point, either. its that both the religious and anti-religious both make lawsuits for ridiculous things, that fail…

So is Latin Club exclusionary because those who don’t speaka the lingua aren’t going to fit in? Is the Drama Club exclusionary towards bad actors? Is Gleet Club exclusionary to the tone deaf? Someone who doesn’t share the interests or beliefs that define a club can’t hold the club to be discriminatory for that fact alone.

a club centers on a common interest, not ability. are these clubs prayer clubs? or christian clubs? if not, then they should not include church services or group prayer.

How can you even equate not wanting to murder innocent babies to racism.

how can you not equate equal service to funding by the government? maybe it wasnt the best analogy, but it was apt.

I didn’t read that into it at all. I read it as “I know I’m not supposed to do that – but I wasn’t, I was teaching history”.

then maybe you should read it again, because it literally spells it out for you.

 

[swariffin]

1. Misconception: Atheists have no basis for morality.

Most Atheists appeal to reason as the source of moral judgments. In any given situation, it is possible to look at the spectrum of actions available to us and decide which of those actions are more likely to produce positive results and which are less likely. Remember, since this life is the only one that we are all certain that we will have, it’s in everyone’s best interest to build the best possible society in the here and now.

As social animals, humans have a natural drive to work together (we see similar behavior in many species), and through an application of reason guided by this natural empathy, we can behave in an ethical manner towards one another to build the kind of world we would all like to live in.

I agree for this point.

 

[abucs]

Most atheists i have met have a deep belief that matter and the laws that govern matter is the fundamental basis of reality.

They do not know where these came from and tend to have faith that science will work it out, and when it does it will agree with them.

It is from this belief that tend to derive all sorts of other beliefs.

I think they are wrong on their central belief and so it is difficult for them to view reality a different way.

It’s hard to talk about atheists as a homogenous group but other beliefs they tend to have are :

They don’t have beliefs.
There is only mechanical matter.
The practice of spirituality is a mixture of genes and memes.
Science is on their side.
Religion is anti science and anti intellectual.
Religion is a delusion and bad for the condition of man.
History shows that man would be better off without religion.

I think that a thorough investigation of these held beliefs shows that they are untenable. It is why i moved from agnosticism to Christianity.

I found that i could easily be a luke warm agnostic, and not think about things too much but simply reject others. But when i became interested in what actually was the truth historically and scientifically i could no longer hold the beliefs of secular agnosticism which in some instances leads to atheism.