Misconceptions

[StaggerLee]

What are the most incorrect ideas advanced by the other side? As an asectual person, I find myself irritated by the notion that the unpleasant implications of Christianity are what causes me to reject it. Certainly, there are indeed such problems, but this is no reason for disbelief. What are the false ideas applied to you which drive you most nuts?

[VickiRW]

The inability of atheists to have meaning and morality.

[StaggerLee]

That's a good one, Vicki. I find it a very strange concept that anything which doesn't last forever is pointless. If anything, to me, the opposite is true. Otherwise, why eat a nice meal? Why take the kids to the park? Why have sex? Why take a vacation? Things which end still have meaning for their own sake.

[StaggerLee]

Oh, and as for morality, a lot can be said for the difference in thoughtfulness between a Christian who says you have no morals and one who says you have no grounding for them.

[mitchellmckain]

The inability of atheists to have meaning and morality.

This infuriates me as well, for although I am a Christian, I was not always a Christian or a theist. I find that arguments of this sort are so ill considered that the premises which they adopt to support it provide ample ammunition to argue quite legitmately that their own morality is quite vacuuous.

[StaggerLee]

Yeah, Mitch, when I hear someone say "God is a bully," I think I'd rather not have them on my side.

[VickiRW]

Oh, and as for morality, a lot can be said for the difference in thoughtfulness between a Christian who says you have no morals and one who says you have no grounding for them.

I agree, though I do find both irritating. For the later, I think it is a poor argument because, as I see it, their problems with my grounding apply equally to god-based morality. This disagreement is "irritation worthy" for me because it plays into the hands of the former who would say I have no morals. In other words, I have a lot more tolerance for harmless disagreements than ones that support prejudice.

[StaggerLee]

Oh, and as for morality, a lot can be said for the difference in thoughtfulness between a Christian who says you have no morals and one who says you have no grounding for them.

I agree, though I do find both irritating. For the later, I think it is a poor argument because, as I see it, their problems with my grounding apply equally to god-based morality. This disagreement is "irritation worthy" for me because it plays into the hands of the former who would say I have no morals. In other words, I have a lot more tolerance for harmless disagreements than ones that support prejudice.

Obviously, I agree. And I do find both irritating as well. But here we have to parse the Christian apologists of the last varirety further. Some I have no quarrel with, these being the sort who recognize that cooperation is innate and forms the basis of morality. They only add that something transcendent is required in order to use the word objective. Others think that the atheist is either borrowing the morality of religion. Or worse, that the atheist may be moral, but this is because God installed this software in us. But I think what you're getting at is what Sam Harris means when he says "moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics."
Also the idea that all morality must stem from authority is a real problem. Non-authoritarian systems of ethics long predate Christianity. In fact, as soon as you have any kind of definition of the word morality, it becomes very much easier to ground your system, and works better than an authoritarian system too.

[VickiRW]

Yes, I completely agree. Sam Harris wants to claim objective morality, but his argument there seems a stretch to me. To be objective, it seems it has to be measured against some standard. I think shared human values is enough of a standard, but I appreciate the counterclaim that it isn't and Harris doesn't knock the counter claim out as far as I can see.

[mitchellmckain]

Yes, I completely agree. Sam Harris wants to claim objective morality, but his argument there seems a stretch to me. To be objective, it seems it has to be measured against some standard. I think shared human values is enough of a standard, but I appreciate the counterclaim that it isn't and Harris doesn't knock the counter claim out as far as I can see.

To be objective it must be demonstrable by anyone regardless of what they may want or believe and that just isn't possible. Measured against some standard? I am not sure what that means. I think that we can simply say that any morality has to stand upon some presumption as to what is valued, which is why the idea of an objective morality is nonsensical. If we value nothing at all then there is no basis for morality.

But.... every living thing generally (if not universally) values survival, at the very least, and so that is certainly a place to start. And then since community is the principle reason we have any interest in morality, not only do we add this value of community but also the dictates of logical consistency between these the two -- i.e. what makes a community advantageous to the survival of its members. With that we will only have the morality any herd species, and think that a lot of values that needs must be added to make human morality has to do with the needs of the human mind.

More generally, I should explain that I am a moral pluralist which is the median position between "absolute" morality and complete relativism, to say that although there are a great number of culturally relativistic aspects to morality (often because that there be some rule is more important than what the rule is exactly), there are also things that are right or wrong for very good reasons and I think that points to absolute elements of morality beneath the culturally relative aspects.

[gary_s]

The belief that atheists reject the notion of god because they wish to avoid the guilt of sin. The belief that atheists do not like the idea of a god who has power over them. These notions don't irritate me so much because they are so vacuous, but it is hard to understand why anyone would believe this. My only guess is that they were taught to believe it and have yet to have any evidence presented to them to the contrary. If they encounter such evidence and still reject it, then that is a clear sign of delusion.

Another would be that atheists reject god because it is comforting for them to do so. Huh? Again, just makes me wonder why anyone would have such an empty belief.

[MESkeptic]

Regarding misconceptions, I'll offer a couple I think the unbelieving side makes about believers.

The first error is that belief or unbelief is a matter of intelligence. As far as I know, there's no correlation between measures of intelligence and faith or unbelief. There may or may not be a relationship between education levels and likelihood of unbelief, but education has more to do with opportunity than intelligence, in my experience.

For some people, I think the only way they can remain Christians is that they're SMARTER than average. I'm not complimenting Christianity here, by a long shot, but the Christians? Not always idiots. Most Christian apologists are extremely intelligent, because it takes a lot of effort to provide intellectual arguments for a lot of Christianity's claims. William Lane Craig, for instance, is not a dummy. It takes a lot of brain power to come up with a persuasive-sounding argument that provides so few objectively verifiable claims. Probably one in a million people could create the kinds of mental riddles he creates, voicing baseless arguments that are so complex that most of his opponents can't keep track of where he went off the rails logically. Most apologists are more sincere than Craig is, so he may not be the best example.

The second misconception is that the world will automatically be a better place when religion finally fades away. Personally, I think the reason the world is screwed up is because human beings have huge cognitive weaknesses that get worse when we're scared. The instinct for cooperation that has allowed us to divide and specialize labor has made all of us more wealthy, but that same "come together" instinct, when we're scared, turns into hateful, greedy "us versus them" mob action. American Christianity and Middle Eastern Islam may be the best examples of that kind of fear and hatred now, but getting rid of religion won't change that and other core cognitive weaknesses. To put it more simply, if and when religion is gone, people will just find new excuses to behave like jerks.

[Dr. Pepper]

Hey everyone!

As a believer these two annoy me:

1) Faith is not logical - There are logical reasons for both sides to believe what they believe.

2) The world would be better without religion - Good things and bad things are done by atheists and christians.

[Rian]

Hey dp! Welcome! You're my favorite drink

I agree with your points, too - we're off to a good start

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Hey everyone!

As a believer these two annoy me:

1) Faith is not logical - There are logical reasons for both sides to believe what they believe.

2) The world would be better without religion - Good things and bad things are done by atheists and christians.

Hi! 'Both sides' is false dichotomy, because there is a third side - I just don't know - which is where I fall.