An Unkillable Myth About Atheists

[Sunstone]

McGrath understands the foundational atheist perspective to be this: "Since science discloses no meaning to the universe, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no meaning to find."

Here, yet again, is the unkillable myth, the persistent blind spot about atheism that apparently no amount of explaining can make go away. No matter how lucidly atheists explain in books, essays and blog posts that, yes, life can and does for us have meaning without God, the tsunami of claims about atheists' arid existence rolls on and on.

Where does this persistent (is it also willful?) misunderstanding come from?

[Source]

(1) Where indeed does the myth that atheists have no meaning in their lives come from?

(2) Is the myth that atheists have no meaning in their lives a product of willful misunderstanding? Why or why not

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

[Source]

(1) Where indeed does the myth that atheists have no meaning in their lives come from?

(2) Is the myth that atheists have no meaning in their lives a product of willful misunderstanding? Why or why not

Not at all sure what you mean by 'willful misunderstanding'.
Surely a misunderstanding is accidental?

I think that the problem you mention is that
the atheist is said to have no meaning to his life beyond his own ego.
Even when doing seemingly benevolent acts, its always to gain
the favor, of some seemingly influential person.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would say that it is "willful" (a very astute way to put it, I thought) and is willed to be this way by perpetrators out of a lack of wanting to understand at all where an atheist is coming from. Or rather, I should say a "fear" of not wanting there to be "valid" reasons to adopt or propagate atheism for anyone in the populace. Therefore, the more negative attributes that can be adhered to the term "atheism" (such as the claim that you're adopting a "meaningless" existence when you decide to no longer believe in God), the better, from a believer's perspective. And so, if it takes remaining ignorant as to the actual state of an atheist in order to be able to hold-up and put on display these negative attributes, I believe the believer will, indeed, purposefully maintain the ignorance required.

Unfortunately (and I, myself am entirely guilty of this), atheists tend to attempt to adhere the same sorts of negative attributes to theism when in debate against theists/believers. Though I don't feel that many of them are as misguided and assuming as the one about atheists living meaningless lives.

 

[Nietzsche]

Not at all sure what you mean by 'willful misunderstanding'.
Surely a misunderstanding is accidental?

I think that the problem you mention is that
the atheist is said to have no meaning to his life beyond his own ego.
Even when doing seemingly benevolent acts, its always to gain
the favor, of some seemingly influential person.

That's not quite how the brain works. What you're describing is someone wth anti-social personality disorder(popular name being psychopath), and atheists aren't any more likely than any other group of people to be psychopaths. People generally do altruistic things because in the average human brain there's a release of endorphins when you do. We're social creatures, and the endorphin release is to encourage that manner of behaviour.

 

[Sunstone]

Not at all sure what you mean by 'willful misunderstanding'.
Surely a misunderstanding is accidental?

Willful misunderstanding, like willful ignorance, is misunderstanding something purposely or intentionally.

I think that the problem you mention is that
the atheist is said to have no meaning to his life beyond his own ego.
Even when doing seemingly benevolent acts, its always to gain
the favor, of some seemingly influential person.

Can you demonstrate that theists are any different? By "demonstrate" I do not mean spout theory (such as the theory that Christians have been transformed by their faith in such a way as allows them to behave altruistically), I mean provide actual evidence that theists are different in possessing meaning to life that goes beyond their own ego. For instance, are theists willing to renounce their God and go to hell to altruistically protest that souls have been condemned there to eternal torment?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Willful misunderstanding, like willful ignorance, is misunderstanding something purposely or intentionally.



Can you demonstrate that theists are any different? By "demonstrate" I do not mean spout theory (such as the theory that Christians have been transformed by their faith in such a way as allows them to behave altruistically), I mean provide actual evidence that theists are different in possessing meaning to life that goes beyond their own ego. For instance, are theists willing to renounce their God and go to hell to altruistically protest that souls have been condemned there to eternal torment?

I did not say I agreed with it.

the atheist is said to have no meaning to his life beyond his own ego.

'is said to have', not the same as 'has'

For instance, are theists willing to renounce their God and go to hell to altruistically protest that souls have been condemned there to eternal torment?

But that is a really interesting question.
I think Lazarus had such an idea until it was shown to him that it was not a good idea.

Let me put it into a less loaded example.
Do you think that Sisyphus is being treated unfairly?

 

[Desert Snake]

I voted no.

I studied this quite a bit before reaching this conclusion. Now, of course, this question has a bunch of variables. I'm answering it, in the context of how I'm reading it, ie in the context of the word ''atheism'', which compares itself, //by necessity/, to theism.

 

[Sunstone]

I
Do you think that Sisyphus is being treated unfairly?

So far as I know, Sisyphus symbolizes all of humanity. He's an essentially tragic character. Fair or not fair, his condition is ours -- or at least, what is an aspect of it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Theism=1
Agnostic non-knowing without ''atheism''=0
atheism=-1

We notice a clear negative affectation to the atheist position.

Now, this equation, is meant in an ''logical'' format of how we would attribute value to the positions.

The arguments that atheism is somehow not a position, I find bemusing, but I will not entertain them.



~q.

 

[McBell]

Not at all sure what you mean by 'willful misunderstanding'.
Surely a misunderstanding is accidental?

I think that the problem you mention is that
the atheist is said to have no meaning to his life beyond his own ego.
Even when doing seemingly benevolent acts, its always to gain
the favor, of some seemingly influential person.

seems to me you have it backwards.
Is it not the theist who does everything in hope for reward or fear of punishment?

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <no>.
The whole idea of "willful" misunderstanding seems largely implausible.
While it might be possible for someone to decide to believe something one knows wrong,
I'd say this would be a rare individual. Instead, people are more passively drawn to
unsupportable beliefs. Reasons might be complacency, compelling interest or other.
But I don't believe it's conscious enuf a process to call "willful".

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So far as I know, Sisyphus symbolizes all of humanity. He's an essentially tragic character. Fair or not fair, his condition is ours -- or at least, what is an aspect of it.

All of us?
Me too!
Nay, I say, nay not I.

Have you never had a really 'false friend' (sibling or lover perhaps) who kept stabbing you in the back,
and eventually the punishment (whether by your hand or not), left you smirking.
She deserved that. Horrible as it is.
Bad as I feel about it.
And how I wish none of the bad had happened.
But it was her doing after all.

 

[McBell]

Theism=1
Agnostic non-knowing without ''atheism''=0
atheism=-1

We notice a clear negative affectation to the atheist position.

Now, this equation, is meant in an ''logical'' format of how we would attribute value to the positions.

The arguments that atheism is somehow not a position, I find bemusing, but I will not entertain them.



~q.

Yes, you are well versed in stacking the deck, poisoning the well, and other such fallacies.
Comes as no surprise when you refuse to discuss anything other than your strawmen

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

seems to me you have it backwards.
Is it not the theist who does everything in hope for reward or fear of punishment?

Fair question.

I think there are many who call themselves theists, who do just as you say.
But the difference is quite marked.
Doing the right thing even though you suffer here on Earth,
is very different to hurting others in order to gain something here on Earth.

The realization that 'a better world for all' is its own reward
is also quite different from
exploiting many people for a few meager material gains.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Theism=1
Agnostic non-knowing without ''atheism''=0
atheism=-1

We notice a clear negative affectation to the atheist position.

Now, this equation, is meant in an ''logical'' format of how we would attribute value to the positions.

The arguments that atheism is somehow not a position, I find bemusing, but I will not entertain them.



~q.

theism = 1
agnostic = 0
atheism = -1

 

[leibowde84]

Not at all sure what you mean by 'willful misunderstanding'.
Surely a misunderstanding is accidental?

I think that the problem you mention is that
the atheist is said to have no meaning to his life beyond his own ego.
Even when doing seemingly benevolent acts, its always to gain
the favor, of some seemingly influential person.

You don't actually believe this, though, right? This is utterly ignorant, unsubstantiated, prejudiced, and facially absurd, so I certainly hope not.

 

[Sunstone]

All of us?
Me too!
Nay, I say, nay not I.

Have you never had a really 'false friend' (sibling or lover perhaps) who kept stabbing you in the back,
and eventually the punishment (whether by your hand or not), left you smirking.
She deserved that. Horrible as it is.
Bad as I feel about it.
And how I wish none of the bad had happened.
But it was her doing after all.

This is an observation, not a condemnation, but I think the Christian sense that cosmic punishment is deserved ruined the Greek sensitivity to the essential tragedy of the human condition.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, you are well versed in stacking the deck, poisoning the well, and other such fallacies.
Comes as no surprise when you refuse to discuss anything other than your strawmen

You can present any argument from the OP.

It seems that you don't have one.

 

[leibowde84]

Theism=1
Agnostic non-knowing without ''atheism''=0
atheism=-1

We notice a clear negative affectation to the atheist position.

Now, this equation, is meant in an ''logical'' format of how we would attribute value to the positions.

The arguments that atheism is somehow not a position, I find bemusing, but I will not entertain them.



~q.

It is due to your confusion as to what agnosticism and atheism actually mean, rather than how they are commonly misused in this context. "Agnosticism" is the belief that knowledge of God is unknown and perhaps unknowable, so it isn't mutually exclusive to "atheism" or "theism". "Atheism" is merely the "lack of belief in the existence of God". So, those who you mistakenly identify as "agnostic" who are "on the fense, so to speak" are, in actuality, "atheists", as they "lack a belief in the existence of God". So, only a lack of belief is required for atheism, which is an extremely general term, like "theism".

 

[columbus]

I think there are many who call themselves theists, who do just as you say.

Are you suggesting that they are not "True Theists"?
This is exactly how most* theists are taught to behave, in my experience.
The problem with that is that are easily swayed to evil, if they can convince themselves that God really wants something.
Tom
*not you @Quintessence