Misconceptions about theism and atheism

General question being thrown about here:

Depending on whether you’re a theist or atheist, what would you say is the largest misconception from people who disagree with you about your belief?

I am an atheist, and I would say that the largest misconception is that it is a belief.

There is no set of beliefs that I have about God.

It’s a null set.

You do the math.

as an atheist, I want to agree with faust…

I also want to add that people think I must hate or disagree with religion. Or want to disprove it. To be honest, I’m not really too worried about religion’s existence.

cheers,
gemty

Christians HATE atheists more than they hate buddhists or muslims… thats a fact.

Also as an atheist i agree with faust. I hear people saying that atheism is just another religion… which makes me sick. I guess thats what priests tell everyone in churches.

Another is that religious people think atheists can’t tell right from wrong and are immoral.

Hmm…

As an athiest wouldn’t you have to hold 1 belief at least?: God does not exist.

Faust, Carp, are you sure you’re not agnostic? Athiesm -is- a belief. For example, and this is pretty cliche, but the dude who loses the love of his life in a freak exploding nun bus accident, and boldy proclaims ‘There is no God!’

It’s an assertion, the null set metaphor came across as a non-statement… which is what I take Agnosticism to be.

gobbo you’re playing with words :slight_smile: please take 1 meaning of the word belief and work with that.

I know, fun eh?

Sure.

Belief: The assertion that something is or is not in a certain state as defined by the something’s attributes. In this case a god beyond the physical realm.

So this concept can be split into two sides:

  1. Assertion that a god beyond the physical realm is in a state of existence

  2. The negation of this, the assertion that there is -not- a god beyond the physical realm in a state of existence.

  3. Thiesm

  4. Athiesm

Agnosticism makes no claims, similar to Faust’s null set. The null set is just another way of saying, ‘This [argument] has no parts’

Well once you put it like that i guess you’re right at some level… i didn’t myself use the word belief, i used religion because thats the issue at hand.

On the other hand its still questionable wheater or not not having belief in something is a belief in itself.
And here’s my argument.
To have belief in something… something needs to be postulated in order for people to exercitate belief upon it; however if that postulated theory wouldn’t ever be raised in peoples minds you couldn’t say that people don’t believe in it because its just not there.
Do you understand or should i explain my view further ?

You are incorrect. You can not possible know the minds of all Christians so therefore you have no idea who Christians hate more than anyone.

As far as right and wrong are concerned, ALL people know it. Which is why NO ONE escapes judgement.

If follow the definition of religion as per Dictionary.com even Science is a religion. But in the general usuage of the term, Science and Atheism are faithless religions. People dont like to consider them religions because they want them seperate. Just read the definition of Religion… I will post it here.

By Dictionary.com
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As you can see in bold Science and Atheism are both religions. Both have either a cause, priciple OR activity they pursue with zeal or conscientious devotion.

So everyone has a religion… they just are not all the same.

Old_Gobbo is right. Atheism is no less a religion than any other religion. It holds a set of unprovable beliefs.

The issue is that in order for non-belivers to exist believers are a MUST…

In order to clarify the issue i i suggest we use the word post-atheist or post-theist to express people who neither believe or disbelieve something because the question never arises in their minds.

@ Astral

A recent study made in America shows they actually do… :slight_smile:.

You’ve failed to see just how the word religion is used.
It could mean an obsession or a legacy or a pursuit… alot of things which i got nothing against as long as they’re not superstitious and tied to the supernatural.

Here’s the synonims you can find for faith in the english lexicon:
faith, piety, religious belief

Thats it; and it is that way for a good reason. Because religion in the traditional sense and saying for example, Football is like a religion for Tom, these are completly different meanings.

His religious belief is christian.
He follows the news religiously.

In all these cases the word religion is used to express devotement for a particular activity; not religion in the real sense of the word.

Again you’re playing with words.

In its original intent yes Science and Atheism would not be religions. But like so many other words, even Religion has changed in meaning. We humans seek to change the meaning of words all the time to suit them for our purpose. And in many cases they are done for comparative reasoning. In this fashion many things can be made equal when people want them to be seperate!

Tell me this… I run around saying God exists and for you to get salvation you need to worship him. Am I proselytizing? Of Course!

And if you run around saying God does not exist and we are wasting our time worshiping him. Are you proselytizing? Of course!

So you see the common thing among us all is that we all have beliefs or system of beliefs and no matter the motivation they are our respective religions!

O yes and as far as studies go… you cant trust anything you dont do yourself! I can come up with many biased studies myself!

Oh yes i see Astral… however…

I condemn:

As i’ve already written in my little blog here:

coherent-assault.blogspot.com/

Yes i do see… however the fact that i run aroundd telling people there is no god is directly derived from your running around telling people they should believe in god.

You see that without you… the issue would never arise in my mind, thus i wouldn’t be running around being an anti-theist.

The notion of god is so common that not believing in God is considered a group in itself. Atheism is lack of fairytale beliefs. There’s no need to group everybody who doesn’t believe in something. You would have to classify everyone who doesn’t believe in Santa Clause, Bugs Bunny, and my imaginary friend, Armik.

Both the atheist and the theist are guilty of the same charge: they both make metaphysical claims about the existence or non-existence of God; that is, they both believe certain things. The realm of metaphysics is of course beyond science and thus enters into mere speculation which can only yield beliefs.

As a theist, I’d have to say that the biggest misconception I run into about theism is that the common uneducated church-goer is giving the most sophisticated versions of theistic claims and arguments. Too often, it seems like even pretty intelligent atheists are stuck in a rut arguing with the kind of theism there mothers taught them about in grade school.

Gobbo-

This is simply a case in point - my point, that is. I hold no such belief. Your statement is simply nonsensical to me. This truly is playing with words. Simple enough to do; simple-minded enough to think is meaningful. I can, and you can, make any number of assertions about what I do not believe, and can make them positively. But this is a child’s game.

The only difference is that children understand that make-believe is just that. You, Gobbo, have forgotten.

No offense to you personally Faust, but words in this situation become very delicate things. A non-belief in something is still a belief. As Standard pointed out, the concept of God can’t be objectively proved/disproved; so when someone makes a statement about such things, be it “I believe in God” or “I don’t believe in God”, they’re acting from their own subjective experience in the matter, their belief. The only true “non-believers” are agnostics, those who chose to abstain from the question.

You will probably accuse me, as Gobbo, of playing word games, but in cases like this, words make all the differance. In thinking of yourself as a non-believer, you’re misrepresenting yourself, to others and to, well, yourself. To attempt to distangle yourself from belief by simply saying, “I don’t believe” actually has the converse affect. By taking any kind of stance on the matter at all, you haven’t negated belief, you’re simply playing on the other team…

Question - no offense, but that’s just bullshit. This is an old game, an old question. I don’t believe that tables are porridge. This says something about my beliefs about tables and porridge. Sure.

This was not a sincere question. Everything is a matter of belief, okay -sure. If that is the case, then the differences in our beliefs mean nothing, and then so does your question.

I will bow out. I mistook this for a serious inquiry.

And that is exactly my point. You’re agnostic.