10 Myths About Atheism

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8 ) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.


The above was written by Sam Harris, one of my favorite authors at the moment.

I can’t say I’ve got a problem with what was written here.

But I’m just an atheist with no moral compass, so I can’t be sure that my own (subjective) values are worth discussing . . .

Life is meaningless without a divine eternal purpose for our lives… Camus, Nietzsche, we know these boys. The Overman? Rise above the meaninglessness? Where’d that Go?

Atheists are responsible for the greatest crimes in history. Nietzsche, highly responsible for Hitler. In fact Hitler passed out Nietzsche’s books for others to read. But, as well are the Religious responsible for crimes in history. Swings both ways. People are responsible. Normally though, religion is less. Usually anyone who finds religion believes they’ve found happiness. So crime usually doesn’t come into play. Perhaps it’s what atheism does. Nihilism. Take peoples hopes and dreams away even by persuading them into atheism they can go sour. Simple concept. Not saying Harris is wrong, but he’s not able to be fully correct.

Of course not.

The development is not random. The products however are in atheistic terms. Otherwise everything was meant to be here as it is, which is not so in atheistic terms yet again. Things came about random, we’re random, but we were created by natural selection.

Yep. Facts.

Not always. Many times I’ve heard that Scientists selectively select the questions they want to answer. Rarely does a scientist say “I dont know” but rather gives you his theory as a fact. If not, then there is no arrogance, Sam is right.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Sure it’s a base, but only a relative base. In effect it’s not really a good base at all, but will go along with it. What Harris misses, or would rather use a strawman, is that the belief that Atheists do not have the right to believe in an objective moral base. Sure they can have morals. Nobody’s arguing that. But there’s no anchor. An atheist cannot believe that a universe will respond in a personal connection that what the atheist did was wrong. If so it would be spiritual. Something like a God or Karma. In fact we all seem to believe there is some moral objective base on this earth, that we all seem to find at an early age and understand. But this base can only be objective if something greater holds it as objective for everything outiside of us. That is what objective means anyway. So of course any Atheist can have morals, have a relative base. This is perfectly fine. But when the argument I’ve presented comes about, the answer “But atheist can too have morals” is nothing but a complete misunderstanding of the point. If anything a way to dodge. Dawkins and Harris probably wouldn’t admit to that argument. Unlike Nietzsche, one of the most popular atheists of our time. “Beyond Good and Evil”

agnostics and theists are often closed to spiritual experience as well.

Just curious dOrkydOOd, why did you make this post. Do you feel a need to justify your position as an athiest? If so why, or did you have some epiphony after reading dawkins new book or what . . . Just curious.

Also, where you raised as a theist . . . I am just curious here.

SO, the myth is that Atheists ignore the fact that religion is beneficial to society, and Sam exposes it as a myth by arguing that religion is [i]not[/i] beneficial to society? Genius! No wonder these guys only succeed in preaching to the choir.

EDIT: Number 5 also gave me a laugh. Again, the dreaded “Ad Populum” rears it’s ugly head! I guess it’s ok when atheists do it, Dorky?

I thought we had a fruitful conversation back here about this, but it seems that you’ve forgotten. Do you imagine that because you’ve read Camus and Nietzsche that all or even most atheists identify with their way of thinking? I’ve never felt that life is meaningless and I don’t have any interest in being an ‘Overman’.

This “atheism = nihilism” belief reminds me of a passage from Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. When the animals are deciding if they are going to revolt, some of them ask “if the farmer is gone, who will feed us?” They are used to having the farmer feed them so they cannot imagine feeding themselves; they have made an irrational association between the farmer and being fed. They are too afraid to step back from their habitual lifestyle and imagine alternatives. So they oppose the animals’ revolution; but it turns out that after the revolution they are fed much better than before.

Similarly I think that many religious people are so used to getting meaning from a relationship with God that they are afraid to imagine anything else. My experience as a theist, for example, was like that. I also used the line that atheism = nihilism too. Now I can see that I was just expressing my fear that once God was gone, I really could not guess how my heart would change or who I would become. As it turns out, however, it’s not that big a change. I have mostly the same morals that I did as a theist, and mostly the same outlook on life

What on Earth has that got to do with the truth value of religous claims?

A complete red herring.

No, I just like Sam Harris, and I sometimes find these stereotypes popping up on the forums.

I was raised a theist, became a very fundamentalist Christian, was agnostic for about six years, and then became atheist to almost every God I’ve heard a definition for.

I thought Dawkins book was very well written, as was Sam Harris’, as was Michael Shermer’s, etc. etc.

The wording was confusing, so I could see where you’re a bit confused.

The argument / myth is that religion is extremely beneficial to society. He’s stating that it’s not in most cases.

It would only be “Ad Populum” if he was arguing you too should believe it because scientists believe it. He is only stating the connection between scientists and atheism, nothing more.

Let me clarify: if you read carefully back through that paragraph, you will find no mention that he is arguing for the “truth value” of religious claims. He is simply presenting the connection between scientists and atheism. You are presenting a straw man, one that could easily have been avoided had you taken the extra time to simply verify whether or not you were making a valid point.

Firstly, points cannot be valid. Only arguments are.

I can read all of Sam Harris’ points, understand them and say “so what?”. They don’t threaten religion at all.

Excuse my choice of diction, I haven’t taken a philosophy or logic course. In fact, I haven’t taken any college courses (I am keen on being an automath). But thank you for the correction.

Hrmm…good for you.

Of course. In one sense life is actually meaningless though. In other it is purposeful finitely. Harris should have said, not all atheists believe life is meaningless.

…What? I have no knowledge of theism, but I consider myself an agnostic. I’ll admit I’m not well read in philosophy, I just like listening to discussions of it in order to give me something to think about and a chance to learn something. But my understanding of what it means to be agnostic is that it is not about rejection of the spiritual, but about not accepting any spiritual path as unique or particularily “truer” than others.

Nice copy and past from google, why can’t you defend your beliefs on your own merit? Isn’t there some forum rules against that?

regardless of whether or not he did cut and paste from google, it is most definitely true.

I tend to believe that many religious persons are irksome towards atheism because they believe that atheists hate religion. This is just a bad generalization. Most of us just want to get away from the dogmatic rules and beliefs that would otherwise be forced on us. And it is not the fact that it is simply religion that atheists sometimes hate or despise, its the organized religions that leave no room for interperation. It is an "either you agree with us to the letter of our interperatation, or you are our enemy!’ kind of attitude that organized religions tend to have. And also, why should I pay you to get me into heaven?

But it’s an easy one to make if you spend any time on the internet. Plenty of atheists do hate religion, devote substantial time to expressing said hatred, and I am most irksome towards those people. Irksome to the utmost!

Just to be clear, are you an example of an atheist who doesn’t hate religion, or one who does? I’m suddenly confused on that point. I mean, saying “I don’t hate religion, I hate organized religion” is an empty distinction to 99.9% of your audience. So what then, you don’t hate wiccans and Quakers?

I agree. But I don’t know if there is a destinction. Religion, by defintion, is an organized set of beliefs.

Perhaps I am part of the 99.9%

A very interesting article, and I’ve no disagreement with it.

And for the person saying that atheists are responsible for the worst crimes in history …please, just go away. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of one god or another? Take a look at recent events lately? :wink: Or how about ancient history? Do some research and you will see that ‘religion’ is just as guilty of “great crimes” as a lack of religion.

I found this post useful, because many religious people equate the word ‘atheist’ with ‘anti-theist’ which isn’t necessarily the case. Many atheists choose not to believe for whatever reasons of their own, but they are not emphatically “anti-religion” - in fact, many keep to themselves and practice their own morality. I think that if people cooled their heads, read this, and understood it, then it would be a lot easier for us to all get along about this sort of thing, yes?

Actually, for the record, I was quoting sirswedishmike’s earlier post and don’t know BBcode, and the rest was written of my own merit. Although it would seem that a quick google run would have prevented sirswedishmike’s post, which was little more than a flame.

again I Butt my nose into where it dosent really belong but…How can someone who has never known anything outside of their own faith form an oppinion about something distinctly outside their own faith, Any oppinion formed would be strictly clouded by their own judgements.

Many athiests were once religious but decided to look beyond, just as there are a number of peoople who found religion after a lifetime without. And though this may simply be my own oppinion but i dont think you should form oppinions until you have at least tried it for yourself, otherwise you are just insulting the god or the ideals you follow.

I myself am no one to judge religion, having lived without it entirely and only recently opened up to spiritualism, But I am no stranger to the damage caused by fools with the best intentions but no desire to understand the other side.

and if you are to attach hitler to athiesm and his crimes to athiests, then I need only remind christians of the saint vladimere who baptized his country at sword point, or the countless crusades that formed an incredable rift between christianity and muslems that we are still trying to mend. not to mention the countless wars faught in the name of god allong with the deaths there to that exceed those killed by hitler and his concentration camps.

there are those amoungst all creeds who do such wrongs as well as a number who do incredible good, so before casting the stone look in the mirror.