A ‘de-convert’ battle: the myths debunked
Photo credit:norjam8
I am a “misguided youth,” ignorant of “reality” and “the truth.” I am overflowing with hyper-liberal idealism. Perhaps most amusingly, I am an atheist because it conveniently fits with my selfish desire for sex without “consequences.” Clearly, my parents didn’t raise me right.
The religious critics that responded to my column “Religious favoritism can be taken elsewhere” (Feb. 18) Thanks so much- I really ap wrongly assumed those qualities about me.
The negative letters regarding my previous column on religious favoritism shared one common trait: They were rife with accusations and baseless stereotypes about my beliefs and background.
For one thing, these respondents assumed that I come from a secular vantage point. In fact, I grew up in a household that was, and still is, extremely religious and I attended church and a private Christian school for 12 years.
My approach to Christianity is from a perspective all too familiar with its concepts and values, not one of presumption and ignorance.
That is a common mistake that religious people make when addressing the nonreligious, but it is a dangerous one. It is especially disadvantageous when a convert is addressing someone like me - someone with a history of belief and experience in the church who has come to the conclusion that Christianity is simply false.
“De-converts” pose a particular problem because we go against the notion that belief is immutable and unchanging, and that those who argue against religion are ignorant of its realities.
Below is my refutation of some of the converts’ myths about atheists, “de-converts” and nonbelievers.
We claim to know there is no God
The concept of God is structured in such a way that it is impossible to concretely prove or disprove its existence. Both believers and nonbelievers debate about whether or not there is a higher power or deity of some kind, the nature of such a power and the existence and structure of an afterlife or heaven. Atheists simply assert they are so sure there is no God or afterlife that they are willing to bet their eternal soul.
We haven’t read the Bible
This ties into the notion that the Bible has all the answers, and that the Bible is a building block of belief - the implication being that lack of faith is a direct result of Biblical ignorance. In fact, the opposite is true: Biblical ignorance is just as likely to be associated with believers as nonbelievers. This is supported by scientific data, specifically the Bible Literacy Report, which notes that born-again and Evangelical teens are only slightly more likely to display Bible literacy. The notion of Biblical ignorance actually goes against my own personal experience, in which doubters tend to have more knowledge and experience reading the Bible than believers. Heck, actually sitting down and reading the Bible was one of the key reasons that I deconverted. It’s condescending to assume that the average layperson has less Bible knowledge than the converted.
We have no morals
On the contrary - as an atheist, I feel compelled to create an even stricter moral code because the lack of moral certainties or of punishment after death compels nonbelievers to hold themselves to a higher standard. The claim that you have to be religious to be moral is false and insulting to those of us who are nonreligious. You do not need to be religious to attribute value to human life or to attribute significance to human experiences. There are values that are virtually universal to all religions and socially conscious members of society - many of which actually coincide with Christian morals. For example, everyone agrees that murder is bad. Universal values and morals can be used to create laws by which we all agree to live.
Our disbelief is convenient
This is usually applied to lifestyle choices regarding sex, though it’s not limited to that. The argument is that we don’t believe in God because we’re selfish and dislike having “consequences” for our actions. This is patently untrue. If you speak with atheists, you’ll find we have a very strict moral code and definitions of right and wrong, and a stiff set of consequences for actions that cause harm to others, to ourselves and to the world in which we live. Bypassing the fact that, if there is a God, our disbelief does not absolve us of any consequences we might incur, this blatantly assumes that Christian morals represent a universal set of values and standards. This is especially ironic given the wide ranging and often conflicting set of standards adopted by various sects and denominations of Christianity. One could similarly argue that it is particularly convenient for overbearing males to recruit for a religion that gives them the social power to be invasive and judgmental. Somehow this does not devalue their choice of religion, so why does “convenience” devalue an atheist’s choice?
Atheism is a religion, just one with no God
This one is just ridiculous. Since when is “disbelief” considered a religion? Stating “I don’t believe this is true” is not on the same level as asserting the unconfirmed “truth” of a deity or afterlife that has no substantive evidence. Therefore it cannot justifiably be called “truth.” I suppose my lack of belief in aliens is also a religion - of “unalienism.”
There is no conclusive, substantive evidence for any God, much less the Christian incarnation. If religious proponents were simply up front about it, saying straight out, “We have no proof, we just feel this is true,” then nonreligious people would have much less of a problem with the concept. You can say and believe whatever you want. But it is unrealistic to expect that your particular strain of belief should get special treatment or be enshrined in law.
While some provide justifications that are historical, logical or even scientific, in the end, virtually all arguments that justify religion come down to only one thing that cannot be refuted or reasonably explained: Converts believe simply because they have faith.
Simple belief is perfectly valid on a personal level. So is disbelief.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists, take note: Dismissing the arguments of atheists because of fallacious stereotypes just leaves you preaching to the choir.
Read the original column online here.
