Myth: Atheism Fails to Provide the Comforts of Religion, Theism, God
Myth:
Atheism has never dried a tearful eye. It has never tried to take away the pain and suffering of people.
Response:
Technically speaking, these statements are true: atheism does not dry any tearful eyes and it does not relieve anyone's suffering. So if it's true, why is it treated here as a myth? The "myth" part comes in because whoever is saying this is inappropriately categorizing atheism as something which should be expected to dry tears and relieve pain.
This is thus a myth because of the incorrect perception of what atheism is, what atheists believe, and what atheism should be doing.
People who imagine that atheism is in the category of things which should be drying tears usually try to treat atheism as a philosophy, religion, ideology, or something similar. This is all massively incorrect ? atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in gods. By itself, that mere disbelief is not only incapable of anything like drying tears or relieving suffering, but it shouldn't be expected to perform such functions in the first place.
Does anyone try to criticize disbelief in elves because it has never dried a tearful eye? Does anyone try to criticize disbelief in UFOs because it doesn't take away pain and suffering of people? Of course not ? and anyone who tried would probably be laughed at. By the same token, of course, theism by itself also shouldn't be expected to dry tears or relieve suffering. The mere existence of some god doesn?t necessarily offer any sort of comfort or relief; for that, a person would have to believe in some particular god in the context of some particular theology.
In other words, people looking for something that will dry tears or offer comfort have to look for particular belief systems which offer solace in times of difficulty. Religions, whether theistic or atheistic, are a popular choice, but there are also secular philosophies which will fit the bill just as well. Instead of looking at atheism and theism, which are merely elements of such belief systems, people need to look at the systems as wholes.
One fact which this reveals is that the person repeating this myth is inappropriately comparing apples and oranges: the apple of mere atheism with the orange of a complex theistic religion. Technically, this is an example of the Straw Man logical fallacy because theists are setting up a Straw Man out of atheism. The correct comparison should be some atheistic belief system (whether religious or secular) against a theistic belief system (probably religious, but a secular one would be acceptable). This would be a much more difficult comparison to make and it almost certainly wouldn?t lead to the facile conclusion that atheism has nothing to offer.
I wonder if this might be why it's so rare to see any religious theists ? almost always Christians ? actually making such comparisons. I can't remember ever seeing a Christian try to make a serious comparison between Christianity and atheistic Buddhism or between Christianity and Secular Humanism in order to demonstrate that such atheist belief systems are unable to provide comfort or solace. I'm sure that someone must have, but it's a rarity. Instead, they try to compare atheism with Christianity even though it should be clear that atheism is not a full-fledged belief system, rendering the entire comparison baseless.
Atheism has never dried a tearful eye. It has never tried to take away the pain and suffering of people.
Response:
Technically speaking, these statements are true: atheism does not dry any tearful eyes and it does not relieve anyone's suffering. So if it's true, why is it treated here as a myth? The "myth" part comes in because whoever is saying this is inappropriately categorizing atheism as something which should be expected to dry tears and relieve pain.
This is thus a myth because of the incorrect perception of what atheism is, what atheists believe, and what atheism should be doing.
People who imagine that atheism is in the category of things which should be drying tears usually try to treat atheism as a philosophy, religion, ideology, or something similar. This is all massively incorrect ? atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in gods. By itself, that mere disbelief is not only incapable of anything like drying tears or relieving suffering, but it shouldn't be expected to perform such functions in the first place.
Does anyone try to criticize disbelief in elves because it has never dried a tearful eye? Does anyone try to criticize disbelief in UFOs because it doesn't take away pain and suffering of people? Of course not ? and anyone who tried would probably be laughed at. By the same token, of course, theism by itself also shouldn't be expected to dry tears or relieve suffering. The mere existence of some god doesn?t necessarily offer any sort of comfort or relief; for that, a person would have to believe in some particular god in the context of some particular theology.
In other words, people looking for something that will dry tears or offer comfort have to look for particular belief systems which offer solace in times of difficulty. Religions, whether theistic or atheistic, are a popular choice, but there are also secular philosophies which will fit the bill just as well. Instead of looking at atheism and theism, which are merely elements of such belief systems, people need to look at the systems as wholes.
One fact which this reveals is that the person repeating this myth is inappropriately comparing apples and oranges: the apple of mere atheism with the orange of a complex theistic religion. Technically, this is an example of the Straw Man logical fallacy because theists are setting up a Straw Man out of atheism. The correct comparison should be some atheistic belief system (whether religious or secular) against a theistic belief system (probably religious, but a secular one would be acceptable). This would be a much more difficult comparison to make and it almost certainly wouldn?t lead to the facile conclusion that atheism has nothing to offer.
I wonder if this might be why it's so rare to see any religious theists ? almost always Christians ? actually making such comparisons. I can't remember ever seeing a Christian try to make a serious comparison between Christianity and atheistic Buddhism or between Christianity and Secular Humanism in order to demonstrate that such atheist belief systems are unable to provide comfort or solace. I'm sure that someone must have, but it's a rarity. Instead, they try to compare atheism with Christianity even though it should be clear that atheism is not a full-fledged belief system, rendering the entire comparison baseless.
Source...