This
note is dedicated to Christians and theists who wish to argue, debate
or discuss religion with Atheists. I am going to help you do that by
addressing a few fundamental errors many Christians make in their
assumptions about Atheism:
1. "ATHEISM IS JUST ANOTHER KIND OF FAITH." False.
"Theism" means belief in at least one god or deity, and the prefix "a-"
means "lack of." That's it. All "atheism" means, and has ever meant, is
a lack of faith in all gods. To argue to the contrary demonstrates an
ignorance of the English language and merely damages one's own
credibility.
2. "ATHEISTS ARE 'DARWINISTS' (I.E. EVOLUTIONISTS) AND VICE VERSA."
False, on multiple levels. Firstly, "Darwinist" used in this way is
merely an insult (like calling a Christian a "Jesus Freak" or
"Bible-Thumper.") Secondly, Atheism and Evolution have nothing to do with each other.
There are many people who believe in Evolution who also believe in a
god, including many Christians. Most Atheists do believe in Evolution,
but not because of their atheism. Again, Atheism is merely the lack of a
certain kind of belief, and does not imply a belief in anything else.
Science, Evolution and Atheism are not all one in the same, and
insisting on such things is merely ignorant and insulting.
3. "ALL ATHEISTS ACTUALLY DO HAVE FAITH." True. Yes, I said true! In fact, generally speaking, all people have some kind of "faith," just not necessarily a religious faith. One definition of faith is simply confidence in a person or thing. I have faith that when I sit down, my chair will hold me. This is usually a reasonable faith because it is based on prior experience that can be objectively confirmed (i.e.
my chair is holding me as I type this.) Another definition is a general
belief in something without evidence for that belief. That is not
necessarily religious, either. It is, however, against reason.
As anyone can know, not all Atheists are reasonable people, as some
merely hate religion out of personal feelings. It is not Atheism but reason that is, by its nature, generally opposed to any belief without evidence (religious or otherwise).
4. "I HAVE PROOF/EVIDENCE THAT MY FAITH IS TRUE." False. If you did have objectively verifiable proof, your belief would no longer be "faith;" rather, it would be a reasonable, evidence-based belief.
If you refuse to accept even that fact, then you're functioning on your
own personal definitions of words, which only serves to prevent others
from understanding you.
5. "ATHEISTS JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE OF GOD." Maybe. Again, Atheism is merely the lack of religious faith. It is reason that
is against forming beliefs solely on faith (religious or otherwise.) If
you believe you have actual evidence of a god's existence, most
reasonable people will be skeptical, but should want to hear
you out. The problem is that you probably don't. Most people who claim
to have evidence of a god don't know what "evidence" means. It is not a challenge to Evolution or any other beliefs, because even if you proved all other beliefs wrong, you still haven't even addressed your own belief,
let alone proven it correct. This is why reasonable people insist that
you "stay on-point." Anecdotes of personal experiences are also not
evidence. Even if your story is 100% true, if there's nothing for you to
hold in your hand and show for it, then there's no way for anyone else
to evaluate the validity of it. No matter how convincing it may feel, a story is not evidence that another story
is true. This is also why going back to Scripture to "prove" its
validity is also not evidence. Can I prove Odin is real just by using
logical-sounding rhetoric to make his story sound reasonable? Or Paul
Bunyan? Or even people that did exist, like Abraham Lincoln? Citing a book, telling stories, or quoting other people isn't evidence of anything.
6. "ATHEISTS ACCUSE ME OF BEING IGNORANT/UNREASONABLE OUT OF PREJUDICE." Maybe.
All people are given to stereotyping. We're all human and fallible. But
these words are not always prejorative (meant to insult). "Ignorant"
merely means "without knowledge." We are all ignorant of most
things. A reasonable person will agree to that fact. Part of the problem
with "reasonable" is that "reason" has many definitions. In the context
of a debate on religion, the commonly accepted understanding is that
"reason" means forming beliefs based on objective evidence. Claiming
that having a religious faith makes one "unreasonable" in the sense that
"smart people can't believe in a god" is prejorative, and easy
to confuse with simply stating that a religious faith is "beyond
reason," that is to say, not based on objective evidence. It's always
easy to assume one knows what another person is saying without really
listening to him or her, and we are all susceptible to this human flaw.
But "assume" makes an "ass" out of both "u" and "me." You can be "reasonable" in all other ways and still maintain a personal faith in your god, which is your human right; and
unless you are acting in an unreasonable manner, no one has any
standing to claim otherwise. Stand on that fact when dealing with
reasonable people, because they should at least be open to it as a
possibility, lest they forfeit any right to call themselves "reasonable."
I
hope this is of help to anyone who reads it. Some things need to be
agreed upon and set aside in this, arguably the most important, debate.
If we cannot agree on any of these foundational concepts, then what hope
have we for agreeing on anything at all?