Myths of atheism

Knight
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Myths of atheism

Hi all!

 I can't believe I'm still participating in this Catholic Website (DCF). They just posted "Six Atheist Myths." I've tried to refute them...but it's gone down the shithole. Here are the myths:

 

Quote:
Myth: Atheists are more logical than believers.

A myth that is kin to this one is the myth that believers are more logical than atheists. In fact, the reasons people become believers or become atheists are rarely reducible to logic. Rather, a number of experiences, observations and emotional states together push someone toward belief or unbelief. The idea that there is an almighty God is terrifying to many people. Rather than be in the power of such a being, they flee him. Others, perhaps, have been so wounded by believers that they reject their beliefs and not just their behavior. Logic is brought in to comfort the atheist with rationalizations. On the other hand, the way we come to believe in God isn’t through a syllogism, either. It’s through a personal encounter with Christ, or with one of his proxies: beauty, truth and goodness.

Myth: The burden of proof is on the religious.

Atheists often say that the default position of mankind should be lack of belief, since there is “no proof” of God’s existence. Others say agnosticism should be the default position of mankind: We should start out by saying “We’re not sure,” and work from there. Anthony Flew, the prominent atheist who recently converted to a position of belief in “the God of Aristotle” said that the default position of mankind should be belief, since, after all, the universe and its complicated laws exists, and you have to deny the obvious to say that there is no creator. Flew saw three irrefutable proofs that there must be a god in the laws of nature, life with its singular organization and the existence of the universe.

Myth: Science makes God obsolete.


There is a widespread assumption that somehow the progress of science has challenged, or will challenge, the reasons that previous generations had for believing in God. But why should it? Imagine if human beings were the size of microbes and lived on a tuna noodle casserole instead of our current size on the earth. Imagine we became so scientifically advanced, we identified all the different constituent parts of the casserole we lived on, and even started to explore the vast kitchen outside the casserole. It would be ridiculous for us to claim that, since we know the ingredients so well, there must not have been a cook.

Myth: Science is a reliable guide for us.

In fact, if you look at the history of science, you don’t see the history of an infallible learning method slowly but surely widening our understanding of the universe. Science is an excellent instrument for fact-finding, but one that has been wrong about fundamental things at every point in its history. Theories of spontaneous generation seemed entirely reasonable at the dawn of science. Paul Ehrlich’s theories expecting mass famine due to overpopulation seemed plausible at the beginning of the 1970s. What theories of today will prove just as false? Scientific knowledge at any stage of its history is merely tentative, and new discoveries are continually refining or discarding previous theories.

Myth: Religion and science are incompatible.

Often, fans of this myth will cite Galileo as proof that religion and science are opponents in a contest that often appears to be a death match. The Galileo incident is actually a good example of the real relationship between science and religion. Search for Galileo at Catholic.com, to learn how the incident is widely misunderstood. Galileo’s theory that the earth travels around the sun and not vice versa was not unique to Galileo. Others held it, and the Church didn’t suppress the idea. Instead, Galileo’s personal animus toward the Pope forced the two into a showdown. The moral of the story? Real religion and honest science are certainly compatible: Religious people and scientists, however, sometimes fail to be.

Myth: Religion has led to violent intolerance.

Undoubtedly, far too many religious people have been violent and intolerant. But if you look at the facts about such notorious incidents as the Inquisition and the witch hunts (look them up at Catholic.com), you’ll find that the crimes of the Church have been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, atheist communists in the 20th century killed more people than the Church was ever even accused of killing. Killed were some 65 million (and counting) in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million (and counting) in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam, 1 million in communist Eastern Europe and 150,000 in Latin America.

Catholics should be aware of the threats to faith posed by movies like The Golden Compass, but we shouldn’t be afraid of them. The Church has faced far fiercer and cleverer opponents for more than 2,000 years, and we’re still here to tell the tale.

How are we able to come out ahead so consistently? That’s easy. It’s because there really is a God.

 

Don't some of these make you want to choke some sense into these people?

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?mode=ignore&t=80910&ignoree_id=101722

I've tried to refute them...but in vein.  

 

You just can't reason with lunatics like that. However, I would like you guys to comment on some of these myths. You can read my response at the link. Or, I'll post it below:

Knight wrote:
Quote:
Myth: Atheists are more logical than believers.

A myth that is kin to this one is the myth that believers are more logical than atheists. In fact, the reasons people become believers or become atheists are rarely reducible to logic. Rather, a number of experiences, observations and emotional states together push someone toward belief or unbelief. The idea that there is an almighty God is terrifying to many people. Rather than be in the power of such a being, they flee him. Others, perhaps, have been so wounded by believers that they reject their beliefs and not just their behavior. Logic is brought in to comfort the atheist with rationalizations. On the other hand, the way we come to believe in God isn’t through a syllogism, either. It’s through a personal encounter with Christ, or with one of his proxies: beauty, truth and goodness.


This does not describe me. I actually arrived at my atheist position by being logical. Now, I don't think that atheists are necessarily more logical than believers. In fact, some atheists are not logical at all.

The idea of an Almighty God is in no way terrifying. Maybe to a Satanist...however, I would not mind if some God existed. If I end up being wrong, which I don't think I am, I can accept that just fine. It's my choice, but fear wasn't a factor.

Now, there is a contradiction in this first "myth." Here:

Quote:
In fact, the reasons people become believers or become atheists are rarely reducible to logic. Rather, a number of experiences, observations and emotional states together push someone toward belief or unbelief.


Okay...I gather from this that it is NOT logical to believe or not believe in something because of a number of experiences, observations & emotional states (experiences). That seems like a fair statement. Then:

Quote:
On the other hand, the way we come to believe in God isn’t through a syllogism, either. It’s through a personal encounter with Christ, or with one of his proxies: beauty, truth and goodness.


A personal encounter...wouldn't this be an emotional experience (or state)? And by the same logic only a few sentences before, isn't this not logical?

Quote:
Atheists often say that the default position of mankind should be lack of belief, since there is “no proof” of God’s existence.


WRONG. You should really visit http://www.Rationalresponsesquad.com

Though part of this is correct. I believe that the "default" position means absolutely nothing. If you have no knowledge, how can you possible make a decision on what you believe? How do you know what you believe before you believe anything? That's why it is a default. The "no proof" thing comes after. If you have no knowledge, and you cannot attain proof for God's existence after attempting to gain knowledge, then you have made the decision to be a non-believer. That's not a default state. It's a state that happens when a person arrives there logically.

And then the 2nd myth claims that there is some undeniable laws in the universe that just prove God exists...(actually, proves there was a creator). Um, no support? If they know something that cosmologists don't, they should really contact a scientist immediately. I'm serious, too.
Quote:

There is a widespread assumption that somehow the progress of science has challenged, or will challenge, the reasons that previous generations had for believing in God. But why should it? Imagine if human beings were the size of microbes and lived on a tuna noodle casserole instead of our current size on the earth. Imagine we became so scientifically advanced, we identified all the different constituent parts of the casserole we lived on, and even started to explore the vast kitchen outside the casserole. It would be ridiculous for us to claim that, since we know the ingredients so well, there must not have been a cook.


Hold up a second. This is comparing stuff that can't be compared. No one I know would ever claim that a casserole cooked itself. That would be an absurd claim to make without any evidence to prove it.

Why should it challenge the belief in a God? Well, for starters we know that the Earth revolves around the sun, the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands, and we can provide theories and provide evidence as to how we became as we are now (via Big Bang & Evolution). When the Holy Books supposedly written by divine beings miss obvious science, it sort of leaves one to doubt. That's entirely logical. Now, a supreme being may exist. However, they were WRONG about how they said our universe works. That doesn't sound so divine to me...

Quote:
In fact, if you look at the history of science, you don’t see the history of an infallible learning method slowly but surely widening our understanding of the universe. Science is an excellent instrument for fact-finding, but one that has been wrong about fundamental things at every point in its history. Theories of spontaneous generation seemed entirely reasonable at the dawn of science. Paul Ehrlich’s theories expecting mass famine due to overpopulation seemed plausible at the beginning of the 1970s. What theories of today will prove just as false? Scientific knowledge at any stage of its history is merely tentative, and new discoveries are continually refining or discarding previous theories.


Science is a reliable guide for us. Maybe it doesn't provide all of the answers (at least YET...and I doubt all the answers will ever be found), but it provides ALL of the answers we have. Science is more than "fact-finding." Science is not just facts. It is a way of thinking.

And when theories are proven wrong, it's great! It means we're making progress! And that means more connections can be made, solving more questions (maybe making more)! Now, changes aren't usually THAT drastic anymore, with modern technology. However, I would be very arrogant if I said that science will never change. Maybe someday we will learn that we are all really little bugs on the planet Krypton, floating inside a giant pumpkin filled with water. However, should such a discovery be made, it is praised, not dreaded.

Quote:
Often, fans of this myth will cite Galileo as proof that religion and science are opponents in a contest that often appears to be a death match. The Galileo incident is actually a good example of the real relationship between science and religion. Search for Galileo at Catholic.com, to learn how the incident is widely misunderstood. Galileo’s theory that the earth travels around the sun and not vice versa was not unique to Galileo. Others held it, and the Church didn’t suppress the idea. Instead, Galileo’s personal animus toward the Pope forced the two into a showdown. The moral of the story? Real religion and honest science are certainly compatible: Religious people and scientists, however, sometimes fail to be.


Where did they get THEIR facts? I learned that the Pope condemned Galileo when he refuse to recant his scientific findings. *sigh* I should have known the Church would make a cover-up story.
Quote:

Undoubtedly, far too many religious people have been violent and intolerant. But if you look at the facts about such notorious incidents as the Inquisition and the witch hunts (look them up at Catholic.com), you’ll find that the crimes of the Church have been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, atheist communists in the 20th century killed more people than the Church was ever even accused of killing. Killed were some 65 million (and counting) in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million (and counting) in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam, 1 million in communist Eastern Europe and 150,000 in Latin America.


So atheist communists killed millions of people. (Hey, you know what, I can link this to my moral topic...remember how people invent their own morality? *Gasp* this fits what I've been saying all along.) Communism is different than atheism. One is a type of totalitarian government, the other is a lack of belief in God. Just because these people were atheists doesn't mean anything. If you're pointing fingers, Hitler was a Christian. Maybe not a practicing one, but he was very much so a Christian. He killed millions of people. However, I would never make the absurd claim that because Hitler was a Christian, and he killed millions of people, that Hitler killed millions of people because he was a Christian. No, it was because he was a fascist dictator. It is a serious logical fallacy. As is saying that because an atheist kills millions of people, this atheists killed the millions because he was an atheist.

Now, with the witch huntings and all of that...I'm sure that many more killings would have happened if they had been put in control of the government like the communists. They would have issues laws and murdered many people, just like the totalitarian dictators in the WWII era, and just like all of the other killings committed by communists. Only absolutely everyone would live in fear of being turned in by their neighbor for...looking at him the wrong way (and being accused of casting a spell or something).

Quote:
How are we able to come out ahead so consistently? That’s easy. It’s because there really is a God.


Actually, it's because of rationalizations, half-truths, and propaganda. Now, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have all survived over time. (Yes, there are still people who still believe in Greek Mythology...and that's lasted a lot longer) How long a belief has been around has no effect on it's value or truthfulness.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: In fact, the reasons

Quote:
In fact, the reasons people become believers or become atheists are rarely reducible to logic.

Bullshit.  Where'd they get this supposed fact?   I want to see numbers -- peer reviewed.

The part about theists is true.  It has to be because, as I will address in a minute, atheism is more rational than theism.  However, almost all the atheists I've ever met "converted" to atheism after using logic.

 I'm going to ignore the rest of the first paragraph because it's too stupid to refute.

 

Quote:

Myth: The burden of proof is on the religious.

Atheists often say that the default position of mankind should be lack of belief, since there is “no proof” of God’s existence. Others say agnosticism should be the default position of mankind: We should start out by saying “We’re not sure,” and work from there. Anthony Flew, the prominent atheist who recently converted to a position of belief in “the God of Aristotle” said that the default position of mankind should be belief, since, after all, the universe and its complicated laws exists, and you have to deny the obvious to say that there is no creator. Flew saw three irrefutable proofs that there must be a god in the laws of nature, life with its singular organization and the existence of the universe.

Flew is a senile old man who's being used by unscrupulous men.  Citing him as an authority is both dishonest, and an appeal to authority.  Notice that there's no philosophy or logic in this "rebuttal."  Just a bunch of rhetoric. 

This is extraordinarily simple.  Any claim must be positive.  In order to prove your claim, you must provide evidence.  Without evidence, the status quo (negative) remains.

I've written a series of essays dealing with this.

 

Quote:
Myth: Science makes God obsolete.

There is a widespread assumption that somehow the progress of science has challenged, or will challenge, the reasons that previous generations had for believing in God. But why should it? Imagine if human beings were the size of microbes and lived on a tuna noodle casserole instead of our current size on the earth. Imagine we became so scientifically advanced, we identified all the different constituent parts of the casserole we lived on, and even started to explore the vast kitchen outside the casserole. It would be ridiculous for us to claim that, since we know the ingredients so well, there must not have been a cook.

If the moon was made of cheese, would you eat it?

Geez.  I was going to respond to all of these "rebuttals," but they're just too stupid.  Someone else with a stronger stomach is going to have to do it.  I just threw up in my mouth a little.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Myths about religion. 1.

Myths about religion.

1. Superstition can be backed up by science.

2. Religious people are moral and atheists are not.

3.Religion unites everyone.

4. Religion has no alpha male mentality

5. Religion explains the origins of the universe

6. God(s)/Diety/Supernatural, is not the same as Santa

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37