Here are some comments about atheism that will make you think!
by Born-again Atheist on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 11:05pmThis 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?
