
Itās 2021 and most humanoids still donāt truly understand what atheism is, and honestly, Iām not all that surprised considering half the fucking world right now is debating whether or not to save themselves from a potentially fatal virus. I mean, as far as positions on the existence of gods go, atheism has got to be the least complicated as simply a lack of belief, but people just canāt seem to grasp it. Itās as if the more straightforward something is, the more difficult people insist it has to be and refuse to see what it truly is. I get these misconceptions constantly and itās boring and tiring and Iām over it. Like, Iād honestly rather listen to Ben Shapiroās spoken-word, censored rendition of WAP for 3 days straight than address these asinine myths yet again, but here we are. Here we fucking go.
Atheism is a belief
A thought experiment if you will. Letās, for a moment, imagine beliefs were physical objects that we stored in an old milk crate under the stairs, like your VHS collection or maybe your old sports trading cards. In my belief box, there is my faith that I will one day see the Cleveland Browns at the Super Bowl. Thereās also the belief that ice cream is overrated and that one of the greatest lyricists of our time is Michael Stipe from R.E.M. Now, in the old belief crate stored under the stairs of a Christian, there would be a belief that Jesus is our saviour, God is real and weāre all headed to either Heaven or Hell depending on whether or not we chose to eat shellfish. If you looked in my belief crate for that belief, you wouldnāt find it. There is no belief in its place. The god belief has never been in my belief box, not even for a brief moment, in all 44 years Iāve been on this earth. Thereās no blank spot in my crate where my god belief used to be. My worldview as a lifer atheist has no space for god. That means I have no beliefs one way or another in relation to the existence of gods. I donāt consider god a worthwhile thing to have beliefs about, like faeries or el chupacabra or Suto'vo'qor. When the day comes that I see compelling evidence to consider a godās existence, that may change, but until then, there are no beliefs regarding the existence of gods in my belief crate under the stairs. My atheism describes a lack of belief. It is nonsensical to assert that this lack of a specific belief is in itself a belief.
All atheists have the same worldview

There is only one common thread in all atheists and that is the lack of belief in any gods. There are some atheists who assert they know there are no gods, and there are others who believe in ghosts and psychics and woo. Some atheists believe you can stir up demons with an Ouija board and others believe you can transcend this ārealmā with a fistful of peyote. There are atheists who think this is all a simulation and others still whoāve fallen into Qanon. Atheist conservatives exist at the same time as atheist leftists and atheist centrists. There are atheists who love science and math and nerdy things, and others who are more artsy and whimsical. Some atheists could listen to Wu-Tang for hours while others might prefer to line dance to Billy Ray. While you might be hard-pressed to find an atheist who wonāt play air guitar along with Slayerās South of Heaven, those types of nonbelievers do exist. The point of all this rambling is that the sole, singular, solitary thing we all have in common is that we lack a belief in a god. That one position on one claim is not enough to constitute an entire worldview, so while atheists do indeed have worldviews, atheism itself is not one, and each of us has a worldview that is different from the others.
Atheists claim there is no god
Hereās the thing: there are atheists who do claim to know there is no god, thatās true. Whatās not true is that this applies to all atheists. This is a subset of atheists. I donāt belong to this subset. Despite having lived my entire life lacking any belief in deities, I do not claim to know there are zero. In some ways, itās a technicality: I canāt have this knowledge so I donāt claim to. In other ways, itās about the absurdity of the claim. If someone calls me up to tell me their arm is made of cauliflower, this claim isnāt something I am then going to assess. Iām not going to weigh the evidence for or against. I will merely dismiss the claim as absurd until I see any evidence that supports it. This is how I feel about the god claim. Itās absurd. The idea doesnāt survive the slightest amount of rational thought, and, though technically I cannot prove there are no gods like I canāt prove the mystery callerās arm is not made of cauliflower, there is no need for me to assess its truthfulness until I see something that makes me consider there is a possibility the claim is true. Until then, I make no claims about gods, just like I make no claims about Plutoās south pole smelling like ass. It could. Who knows? Maybe? But until there exists anything at all to suggest one way or the other, Iāll shelve that idea right next to the claim that absorbing sunlight through your butthole prevents the leakage of life force energy.
Atheists hate religious people
The funny thing about this common myth is that it stems from religious people hating those who hold differing views - while not all religious people are like this, the ones who are like this assume that because they hate people with other worldviews, we must also hate people with different worldviews. This just isnāt the case. Donāt get me wrong, Iām sure there are some atheists who do, but most of us donāt. Most of us come from religious families and religious communities and are surrounded by religious folks in every direction. Our brothers and sisters are religious. Our mothers and fathers are religious. While few of my family are religious, my mom and I donāt see eye to eye on our worldviews and I still love her more than life itself. When you assert that atheists hate religious people, all I hear is that you hate people who donāt share your worldview and canāt wrap your mind around others not behaving the same way. Your inability to comprehend my love for people who donāt see things the same way as I do is your shortcoming and has nothing to do with me, though, hun. There are so many religious people that I love and adore and respect and admire. You know who I love so much? My Pagan cousins. I love my Catholic uncle and my Christian grandparents. I love my religious neighbours, religious authors and religious YouTubers. I love religious artists and religious thinkers and religious politicians. Iāve even voted for them and plan to again. Donāt project your inability to love someone with a different set of ideas on me. Thatās all you, Churchy McGee.
Atheists are angry

Just like itās silly for me to say religious people all love the grifter Peter Popoff, itās goofy as fuck to insist all atheists are angry. Indeed there are atheists who are angry and they have every right to be. In recovering from religion, one might realize how one has been victimized and that can cause a great deal of anger. However, there are also atheists like me who have never believed and donāt harbour any anger towards a previous belief system we held. Though many things have made me angry about religion, like the kidnapping, murder and discarding of human children in mass graves by the Catholic church at residential schools, I donāt consider myself an angry person, inherently. I am happy most days and most of the atheists I know are the same. It comes down to getting to know people. Treating each human being as a unique individual despite falling under the āatheistā label. If you find that someone is, indeed, angry, itās about finding out why they might seem angry, empathizing with them, hearing them out. This is how secular morality works. Do you really want us to think your religious morality has room for sweeping generalizations of groups of people? I mean, Iām fine with that. Itās irrefutable proof secular morality is superior, but I just thought you might want to reconsider how that makes your morality look.
Atheists have been traumatized by religion
I mean, sure, there are plenty of atheists who suffer from religious trauma syndrome, but trauma alone doesnāt make someone dismiss their worldview. You canāt force yourself to stop believing because something bad happened. You have to become unconvinced. What is more likely, and what I have heard from so many who do suffer from religious trauma syndrome is that the trauma triggered deeper exploration. It didnāt cause disbelief itself. Even then, this applies to a small number of atheists and completely ignores the atheists like me, who have no personal experiences with religion, good or bad. By saying this, youāre not just dismissing people like me and ignoring our existence, but youāre also poo-pooing the trauma that some people, believers included, have experienced as a result of their religion. This isnāt kind. This isnāt compassionate. This isnāt the way someone who wants us to believe their morality is superior ought to behave. Each atheist came to identify as an atheist on a different path. Get to know us. Try being nice. Prove to us that your morality is something to be admired.
Atheists want to end religion
Something you have to be able to accept about atheists is that a lot of us arrived at our position on gods through rational thought. Though some of us donāt, many of us value facts, evidence and reality. Wiping religion off this earth is none of those things. Itās not something that could happen anywhere near our lifetimes and is a silly thing to wish for. Iām sure you could find one or two of us who think theyāre working to rid the world of faith, but they are few and far between. What most atheist activists are advocating for is the separation of church and state, the freedom to be an atheist without discrimination anywhere in the world and the ability to go about our days without being accosted by believers trying to shove their ideas down our throats. Thatās all most of us want and we donāt think itās too much to ask. Maybe some of us are looking for a religious trauma syndrome support group, too. Have your religion, just donāt force it on us, k?
Atheists want to take your right to practice your religion away
Again, I think this is a little bit about projection. You donāt like the existence of atheists. You come knocking at our doors trying to convert us. You lobby to have our laws reflect your beliefs, forcing all of us to abide by them. You are the ones who want to take our right to be atheists away and because you are this way, you assume we must also be this way. We are not. Practice your religion as much as you want, but as soon as it steps on my rights, my privacy, my ability to raise my kids as I see fit, then you have to stop. That means taking religion out of politics. It means no religion in public schools. It means stop, the fuck, knocking on my door for the love of all things good. Then go to your church and speak in as many tongues as you like. I donāt care.
Atheists are obsessed with religion
Iām gonna go ahead and give you the fact that there are some atheist activists out there who are obsessed with religion, for sure. But something you canāt know is how many atheists there are in the world who havenāt even told anyone theyāre atheists. There are godless folks who never say it out loud, and others who maybe have once or twice. You also have to keep in mind that when you come across a vocal atheist on the internet like me, that they have a whole other life off the internet. Speaking only for me, I pop in and out of Twitter much of my workday, but in total, I would say Iām on Twitter maybe half an hour a day. I barely spend a minute on other platforms. Some days, I write posts like this and it can take anywhere from an hour to three. Outside of that, Iām working, raising my babies, taking care of my dog, swimming, hiking, cleaning my house or watering my plants. Iām also watching television with my husband or renovating parts of our home. Sometimes weāre out for date night or sitting on the lakeshore enjoying the view. I love to read books that have nothing to do with religion and religion barely comes up in my day-to-day life offline. So, while I am sure there are some atheists who are obsessed, I am not one of them and that leads me to believe there are more like me. Especially considering there are plenty who rarely talk about religion ever.
Atheists are always trying to debate

Fuck I hate this. The image of the edgelord atheist in a fedora, wearing a shirt that says, āIām an atheist. Debate me.ā This makes less sense than Marjorie Taylor Greene at a science fair. I hate debating religion. Again, it comes down to the fact that I have never been religious and for me, the claim that a god exists is as valid a topic for debate as which language mermaids speak. Itās sheer absurdity. I donāt know the Bible and asking me to debate you on it makes as much sense as asking me to debate you on the moral implications of Dr. Seussā opus, Green Eggs and Ham. I donāt want to debate asinine assertions. Iām not a debating atheist and I wish people would stop assuming that I want to debate my position on godās existence just because Iām an outspoken atheist. I donāt. I wonāt debate absurdities.
Listen, I donāt expect this post to end the mischaracterization of atheists any time soon, but these myths are less coherent than Tucker Carlsonās understanding of vaccines. If you want to come off as smart, or you want people to believe you have a superior morality, drop these myths and find new ways to make your point.
Which myths about atheism did I miss? Let me know in the comments!
If you like what I do here and want to support my work, you can chip in here or become a patron here.




Comments
Join the conversation. New comments are reviewed before appearing.
I think one thing that many atheists are frustrated when political discourse is phrased in religious terms or public policy is determined based on religious ideas rather than science.
5 likes
Agreed
I believe that belief in God is unwarranted, and that's just one of my many beliefs on the subject. I'm sure you have such beliefs too. What theists have, and we lack, are beliefs about facts pertaining to God, such as whether God is omniscient, took the form of a burning bush, created the universe, etc., because these are beliefs that only apply to things that one believes exist. It's like having beliefs about the length of a unicorn's horn or what a unicorn's diet consists of when one lacks a belief that there are unicorns. I neither believe that unicorn horns are longer than 5 inches nor that they are shorter than 5 inches, and I neither believe that God is omniscient nor do I believe that God is not omniscient, because both of those beliefs entail a belief that there is a God, and I don't have that belief.
Also, all the things that you mention do and don't apply to atheists also do and don't apply to theists. The only thing that all theists share is a belief in a deity. However, the statistics on how many atheists and how many theists fall in various categories are not the same.
"I do not claim to know there are zero."
Claiming that there is no god is not the same as claiming to *know* that there is no god, especially under the strawman epistemological view of knowledge being absolute certainty--almost all hard/strong atheists--people who claim that there is no god--do not claim that they are absolutely certain of this.
I could go on and on.
Yes, I have loads of beliefs. But the one thing all atheists share, which then must be the one thing that makes us all atheists, is a lack of belief in a god. We can't make the definition of atheist someone who believes there is no god, because not all of us do. We can't make the definition of atheist someone who feels god is nonsensical, because not all of us do. If we are to include everyone who identifies as an atheist with the definition, it must be the one thing we all, for sure, share.
You're repeating yourself and saying things that are obvious and that I don't dispute, rather than addressing any of my points. My overarching point is that a lot of my fellow atheists who present themselves as great reasoners and even go so far as to create blogs where they publish their reasoning that they apparently think so highly of aren't very good reasoners themselves. (They are generally far better reasoners than theists who write blogs or otherwise engage in public discussion about these topics, but that's not saying much at all.)
I won't comment here further.
You must have a good reason for believing there is no God so how is claiming there is no God not the same thing as claiming to know there is no God?
what he wrote was not well stated. He was only saying that believing there is no God is not the same thing as knowing there is no God. As I said, itās all about your beliefs or you not beliefs. Either case, they are simply beliefs
Thank you very much for writing this. I just discovered your blog via your anti-anti-VAX column. Youāre pretty much covered in it in this.
What reason do you have for believing there is no God?
There is a world of difference between these two statements: āI believe there is no godā and āI have no belief in a God, any god, or any godsā. The first statement has no more validity than āI believe there is a Godā. The two are basically the equivalent of each other.
The second statement describes the vast majority of atheists that I have known. I have no belief in God because I have no reason to think that there is. The evidence is sketchy at best, and I have the evidence of every religion X that every religion that is not X is incorrect.
for myself, I donāt think the question has much meaning, nor do I think that the answer matters.I donāt see any evidence that it does have either meaning or matters. I realize that most religious people would disagree with that. Thatās simply what makes them religious people. That doesnāt make them right.
When you say "I have no belief in God" aren't you allowing for the possibility that God does exist but that you're just not convinced by the evidence versus definitively declaring that no God exists?
How is saying "I have no belief in God" any different than saying "I have no belief that God exists"?
Not at all. as I said, the question doesnāt have much meaning, nor do I think the answer matters all that much. all of these are equivalent statements.
I have no belief in god.
I have no belief in the Christian god.
I have no belief in the Jewish god. he is not the same as the Christian god, despite the presskit.
I have no belief in the Muslim god. he is not the same as the Christian god, despite the presskit.
I have no belief in Zeus. Neither do you, most likely.
I have no belief in Odin. Neither do you, most likely.
I have no belief in fairies, banshees, pookas, leprechauns, elves, fairies, hobgoblins, menehune, kobolds, trolls, or āthe lordly ones who dwell in the hollow hills.ā Neother do you, most likely.
What is the difference between the belief in Odin and the belief in the Christian god? What is the difference between the lack of belief inZeus and the lack of belief in the Christian god.
show me some real, valid, useful evidence for any of these things, and I will reconsider my lack of belief. But then, it will not be beliefs any more, it will be facts. The bible does not count as evidence, because it is THE CLAIM, not the evidence for the claim.
I hope this answers your question.
3 likes
<There is a world of difference between these two statements: āI believe there is no godā and āI have no belief in a God, any god, or any godsā. >
No, there isnāt. First of all these arenāt only statements of belief theyāre conclusions and conclusions are based on premises. In this case the same premise can be the basis for either conclusion which is a lack of convincing evidence.
<show me some real, valid, useful evidence for any of these things, and I will reconsider my lack of belief. But then, it will not be beliefs any more, it will be facts.>
Convincing evidence would simply change your unbelief in God to a belief in God because the evidence has proven He exists so you could also say I believe God exists. It really is two different ways of saying the same thing. The only remaining question I have is why you go to such lengths to emphasize a false distinction.
Because you simply domāt understand it. as i pointed out, I have no belief in ANY of thevgods of men, and my lack of belief applies to any of them.
As i said, youāre a believer. That is the end of the story as far as youāre concerned. Iām not a believer. Iām willing to be convinced, but not on your say so. You have some evidence, produce it.
as I also said, i donāt believe in pookahs. Do you? Pookah, or god, There is simply no difference. My lack of belief is not a belief about anything. I also said I donāt think the question has much meaning, or even matters. Again, youāre a believer, and you do. Itās truth is your apriori assumption. My lack of belief is my a posteriori conclusion.
world of difference.
<Because you simply domāt understand it.>
I think I do.
<as i pointed out, I have no belief in ANY of thevgods of men, and my lack of belief applies to any of them.>
I got that. But simply stating that you have no beliefs in any God is just an expression of your current state of mind. It makes no positive or negative statements about the nature of reality which both theism and atheism necessarily do because they are still both systems of belief and or worldviews.
<As i said, youāre a believer. That is the end of the story as far as youāre concerned.>
No it isnāt. Not by a long shot.
<Iām not a believer. Iām willing to be convinced, but not on your say so. You have some evidence, produce it.>
Thatās beside the point. The point of the OP is that atheism isnāt a belief or a belief system which I clearly disagree with. My counterpoint is that stating you have no beliefs in Gods doesnāt support the underlying claim made in the OP. Atheism is still a system of beliefs that logically follow the belief/conclusion that there is no god and/or the lack of belief in God. Attempting to redefine atheism through semantics wonāt work.
<My lack of belief is not a belief about anything.>
The lack of belief in anything necessitates the affirmation of the belief that the object of the lack of belief does not exist. Your semantics donāt hold up.
<I also said I donāt think the question has much meaning, or even matters.>
Then why do you go to such lengths to avoid making a positive belief statement?
<Again, youāre a believer, and you do. Itās truth is your apriori assumption. My lack of belief is my a posteriori conclusion.>
So we agree that your statement is indeed a conclusion that is based on some premises. Those premises must necessarily be derived from the nature of observed reality we all exist in. Every one of the premises that make up your beliefs must be subjected to the same level of scrutiny you demand the premises that make up everyone elseās beliefs should be subjected to. The only reason anyone could have for going to such pains to attempt to redefine belief to non belief is because they think it absolves them from ever having to defend their beliefs which, of course, it doesnāt.
You can disagree with the idea that atheism is not a belief system, and if you stretch the idea ofbelief system far enough then I suppose you can call it that.
But as I said, I simply have no belief in any of the gods of men, no less than having any beliefs in pookahs or banshees. Show me one, I will be happy to reconsider. From my point of view, you keep insisting something that I am telling you isnāt true.
You donāt really understand. if you truly understood why you donāt believe in any of the gods of men but the one you do, you would understand why I donāt believe in that one, either. I just have one more god than you that I donāt believe in.
<You donāt really understand. if you truly understood why you donāt believe in any of the gods of men but the one you do, you would understand why I donāt believe in that one, either. I just have one more god than you that I donāt believe in. >
I understand that you do not believe in any gods but thatās not the issue. What is the issue is the difference between claiming no belief in God and claiming there is no God. You claim thereās is a difference and I disagree for the reasons I listed earlier.
youāre entitled to believe it. I explained it to you as best as I could. Iāll just leave it at that