The Myths of Atheism - There is No God

I am not certain what your point is. You began your article with a title: "The Myths of Atheism." You appear to conflate belief in "UFOs, gravity, Big Foot, Nessie, souls, ghosts, freedom or evolution" with an atheistic viewpoint, but none of these are predicated on, or necessarily consistent with, atheism.

What are these "myths of atheism" of which you purport to discourse?

Jonathan, Tristan has clearly stated that he will talk about the rest of the myths in later articles.

Thank you, Tristan, for pointing out that we Buddhists can be atheists or agnostics as well.

The Buddha made it quite clear that he was not a god, although I suspect that some people nevertheless consider him to be one.

Well Jonathan, if you'll read the article, you'll see that I'm going to be producing ten articles (two a day) for this week. Each article will deal with a misconception that many people have concerning atheism.

This first article covers the myth (it's in bold) that atheism means 'there is no god'. All atheism means is a lack of god belief. After that, anything is fair game, including believing in "UFOs, gravity, Big Foot, Nessie, souls, ghosts, freedom or evolution". Atheists aren't tied down to accepting or rejecting these topics or any other. Therefore, some atheists think there is no god, or that god is an impossibility. Still others can leave the question open and still be atheists.

I look forward to your series, Tristan. I like the quote, I think it was from Richard Dawkins - that giving a name to someone who simply did not believe in a myth is akin to giving a name to someone who does not believe in witches. Do we have such a name? No. I don't label myself as an "atheist" to people, but I do not believe in the concept of a "god" or "gods". I just don't believe in something that is not true or real. That should not have a name, other than "sane".

After conversing with theists for some time and doind some investigation, I am slowly arriving at a freshly-stated point of view:

There is a god!

Indeed, it would be trite to exclaim that this 'god' is the God of heads. Although the current evidence suggest it (see Andrew Newberg's recent research), it's a bit under-descriptive to say so.

This 'god' is extraordinarily ubiquitous and profound and oh so very 'vivid.' It seems to 'reside' deep within the limbic system of it's creators - my biological brethren, our species of humans on the third planet from the sun. It fills a real need within humans and so it 'is.'

Perhaps I need to remove my moniker as atheist. Whatschathink?

Interestingly, someone named Huston Smith has commented that a mystic is one who believes there is "only God." That made me stop and think!

Ken,

Have you read the book called The God Gene?

(By Dean Hamer, available at Amazon).

Huston Smith is a prominent religious scholar, but that's all I know about him.

Sheryl (I don't know why people insist on using such long as names, and putting cute little things in quotes or parenthesis - though I hope I'm not offending you; I'm just trying to make a point) O.: I agree with you. I hate the fact that I have to use a label to define something I'm NOT, but you have look at reality on the whole.

If you believed in witches, and claimed that witches were talking to you, I wouldn't have a problem per se (I'd stay the hell away from you, but I wouldn't try to argue with you...I don't think). But if you started trying to get laws passed based on what the witches were saying and trying to force these witch regulations on the rest of us who don't hear any witches -- and have no way to verify that you really do -- then that's when I'm going to start questioning you a bit more and holding you accountable for what you say and do. And if you and your ilk become powerful and numerous, I'm sure I'll have a label to disassociate myself from you.

Ann >

I am aware of it and once tried to purchase it - but it wasn't carried by a small bookstore in the bible-belt town of Canton, Georgia. I bought instead Dawkins' tome, "The God Delusion." Fortuitous move. In can be fairly said that Richard Dawkins changed my life.

Recently, here on Gather, I participated in a dialogue where Dean Hamer was cited by a well-spoken Christian. The ensuing argumentative scuffle revealed that Hamer also professed some 'questionable' research into a 'gay' gene before touting his "god' gene.

I've gotten to the point of doing my basic wiki on this author and finding the famous "Time" article on Hamer.

Can you illuminate me and us?

Did you read it?

I'd like the perspectives, please, of a scientist and a Buddhist. That's a thrilling combo.

I'm too skeptical to be an atheist so I'm an open minded agnostic - waiting for something fantastic to happen. In the meantime I can write about it in fiction.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

"With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.
As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.



The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.

You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."



If it isn't a religion then why is there a church?....atheism is cop out. Just an excuse to be vicious in the guise of "critical thinking".

Peter, agnosticism and atheism address two separate questions. One of knowledge, the other of belief. I too am an agnostic...I don't know if there is or is not a god. But I don't believe in such a thing, thus I'm an atheist.

Cheryl B: I've actually never heard of this FCA. But you do realize that you don't need religion to have marriages, right? Marriages are a legal issue, not a religious one.

Just because a group of like-minded people want to get together does not make a religion. Religions are built on strict sets of dogma and tenets -- atheism has no such thing. It's not a religion, philosophy, or even a world-view. It's just an answer to a question.

Concerning your "critical thinking" remark...did you even read the article?

Ken,

I've only just purchased The God Gene, and you should never look to me for illumination.

That said, I believe the argument for a "God gene" runs along these lines:

1. People who believe in God have been shown in more than one study to fair better than their non-believing counterparts in times of crisis, such as health issues, family problems, etc.

2. Therefore, natural selection has favored people who believe in God. This argument only works, or course, if belief in God has some genetic correlate.

Dean Hamer's book is an attempt to show a possible mechanism for the genetic basis of belief in God. Hamer is a geneticist, but this book is more speculation than science. I might be able to offer a better review when I have finished the book.

LOL, Tristan. Point taken. I should remove my anti-Google-esque nomiker.

Also a good point about having to differentiate yourself from people whose belief in the mythical influence social and political processes. But, I still prefer not to name myself, despite your arguments. It would be giving into their insistence of validity. Why should I validate something I know to be wrong by naming myself as a non-believer? No names for me, but I do see your point.

Sorry about saying "fair" above, when I meant "fare."

Tristan - consider my earlier comment retracted. I look forward to reading more in this series.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations, and check out our Triple Trouble Special Feature!

By "myths" I think Tristan means the beliefs non-atheists hold about atheist.

Tristan could you be anymore condescending - I live in a country that went for same sex marriage while your country is still trying to sort it out. There have been Civil Unions for centuries - actually a marriage in a church isn't sanctioned as a legal marriage until the state registers it and you have to have the proper license. Marriage is a sacrament, a funeral service is a sacrament, no one can own a sacrament. They are very much part of a religious life and spiritual practice but still everything has to be registered with the government to be legal.

Like I said, atheists just like to be vicious and call it critical thinking. Your answer is exactly what I am talking about. This church is offering spiritual practice - sacraments and ordination. Do you even really know what atheism is - are you a weak or a strong atheist? Do you even know the difference? Oh yeah and there is a dragon in my garage - want to come and see it...

Read my work if you want to know what I think.

Tristan, I've been trying to explain this idea of simply lacking a belief in X to people who complain about the arrogance of claiming to know there is no X, but it seems hopeless. It's perfectly clear to them when X is Bigfoot, or, in fact, the dragon in Cheryl's garage, but as usual, there are special rules for a God.

Science and Religion

Science is different from religion. It does not pretend that it knows everything. There are even now deep questions about the origins of the universe that we don't have answers to now though it is possible we may be able to answer some of them in the future.

But the inability of science to provide answers to these questions does not prove that religious faith, tradition, or an ancient holy text has the ability to answer them. Science cannot prove that God does not exist, but this in no way establishes that God exists. There are millions of things whose lack of existence cannot be established.

The philosopher Bertrand Russel had an analogy. Imagine that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. It is impossible to prove that the teapot does not exist be-cause it is too small to be detected by our telescopes. Nobody but a crazy person would say "Well, I'm prepared to believe in the teapot because I cannot establish that it doesn't exist." This means that maybe we have to be technically agnostics, but really we are all atheists about teapots with orbits around the sun.

But now let us suppose that everybody in our society including our teachers and the sages of our tribes all had faith in a teapot that orbits the sun. Let us also suppose that stories of the teapot have come down to us for many generations as one of the traditions of our own society and there are ancient holy texts about the teapot. In this case people would say that a person who did not believe in the teapot is eccentric or mad.

There are infinite numbers of things like celestial teapots whose lack of existence we are unable to establish. There are fairies, for example, and there are unicorns and goblins. We cannot prove that any of these creatures of the imagination do not exist in reality. But we don't believe they exist, just as we don't believe that the gods of the Scandinavians, for example, have any true existence.

We are all atheists about almost all of the gods created by societies in the past. Some of us, however, take the ultimate step of believing that the god of the Jews and the Christians, like the gods of the Greeks and the Egyptians, also does not exist.

---

Now here’s a version of this text in Interlingua. (For more information about Interlingua, use a search enging to search on the title “Interlingua in interlingua” or go to http://www.interlingua.com.

Le scientia es differente del religion. Illo non pretende que illo sape toto. Il ha etiam nunc questiones profunde sur le origines del universo al quales nos nunc non ha responsas ben que il es possible que nos potera responder a alicunes de illos in le futuro.

Ma le incapacitate del scientia de provider responsas a iste questiones non proba que le fide religiose, le tradition, o un texto sancte e ancian pote responder a illos. Le scientia non pote probar que Deo non existe, ma isto non establi de ulle maniera que Deo existe. Il ha milliones de cosas cuje existentia non pote esser establite.

Le philosopho Bertrand Russell habeva un analogia. Imagina que il ha un theiera in orbita circum le sol. Il es impossibile probar que le theiera non existe proque illo es troppo parve pro esser detegite per nostre telescopios. Nemo excepte un folle dicerea, "Multo ben, io es preparate a creder in le theiera proque io non pote establir que illo non existe." Isto significa que forsan nos debe esser technicamente agnosticos, ma vermente nos es omnes atheistas sur theieras con orbitas circum le sol.

Ma que nos nunc suppone que omnes in nostre societate includente nostre professores e le sagios de nostre tribos habeva fide in un theiera que orbita le sol. Que nos anque suppone que historias del theiera ha venite usque nos trans multe generationes como un del traditiones de nostre proprie societate e que il ha textos sancte ancian sur le theiera. In iste caso le gente dicerea que un persona qui non credeva in le theiera es eccentric o folle.

Il ha numeros infinite de cosas como theieras celestial cuje manco de existentia nos non pote establir. Il ha fees, pro exemplo, e il ha unicornios e gnomos. Nos non pote probar que iste creaturas del imagination non existe in le realitate. Ma nos non crede que illos existe exactamente como nos non crede que le deos del Scandinavos, pro exemplo, ha ulle existentia ver.

Nos es omnes atheistas sur quasi omne le deos create per societates in le passato. Alicunes de nos tamen prende le ultime passo de creder que le deo del judaeos e del christianos, como le deos del grecos e le egyptianos, anque non existe.

In the book "God's Debris: A Thought Experiment," the author (Scott Adams) pointed out that if there was in fact a great spirit in the sky who could alter our lives with the wave of his hand (I'm paraphrasing) then wouldn't his (her?) followers live a different life? Help the poor and needy, etc. It seems like believers pretend to believe, and just go through the motions. They don't ACTUALLY believe.

It's been a while since I read this book, but this is what struck me as a truth.

Would the person who is "pro-life" support war or the death penalty? I think not.