10 Myths about atheists debunked

[SillyWabbit]

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

No, I can't. But I would love to se it. Care to share?

I have no evidence of anything. I am making no claim other than that. My position is based upon a single proposition. So tell me why you disagree.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.

See, I AM right! Agnostics 1, Everyone Else 0 !

 

[G.T.]

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

No, I can't. But I would love to se it. Care to share?

I have no evidence of anything. I am making no claim other than that. My position is based upon a single proposition. So tell me why you disagree.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.

See, I AM right! Agnostics 1, Everyone Else 0 !

Yypp

 

[SillyWabbit]

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you.

But you were telling me that in the absence of evidence neutrality is correct. Neutrality implies equality. If you are neutral between two propositions then you are treating them as equally likely. As my absurd ghost of Nixon example was meant to demonstrate: this is not always true. These are hardly irrelevant issues.

I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

Yes and no. A belief that something does not exist (due to insufficient evidence or definition) is NOT the same as the belief that something does exist. Rejection of a claim is not the assertion of a new claim.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Because if it did exist, it could be defined.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.


Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you. I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Here's an audacious idea: the nonexistence of something defines its nonexistence.

So it doesn't exist because you say so. That is the evidence you want to go on?

It works for me: Everytime I eat too much chocolate I tell myself "I don't really have diabetes." Then I don't feel so guilty.

Of course, later, when I check my BG I realise I was wrong.

BUT, then, later, my poor short term memory jumps in and I'm allowed once again to over indulge.

It all balances out.

 

[amrchaos]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

 

[PratchettFan]

The ONLY factual position is that we simply don't know, i.e. agnosticism.

So therefore if someone claims that s/he does know, then we can reject that proposition as being non-factual.

Unless that person can present the evidence to support the claim, yes. That does not mean the person doesn't know, but without supporting evidence the claim cannot be accepted as valid.

 

[PratchettFan]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

 

[amrchaos]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

But we can make the same observation of Heaven not floating in the sky nor existing in a realm between the Sun and Earth.

Can I use that argument, which has been presented as the realm for the Judaic God, as proof that the Judaic God does not exist?

 

[PratchettFan]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

But we can make the same observation of Heaven not floating in the sky nor existing in a realm between the Sun and Earth.

Can I use that argument, which has been presented as the realm for the Judaic God, as proof that the Judaic God does not exist?

No, you can't. All that proves is there is no heaven floating in the sky or existing in the realm between the Sun and Earth. It might prove that what some people believe isn't true. I can show that what some people believed about George Washington isn't true, but that does not prove he never existed. Reality does not depend upon what human beings do or do not believe.

If you believe this god does not exist, that is perfectly acceptable. I believe that god does not exist. Just don't attempt to pretend it is something more than that. It's just a belief. Atheism is just another god-based belief.

 

[Hollie]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

What truly silly, confused rambling. Do you somehow look at the moon and see evidence of the gods? Why do you not see Zeus when you look at pictures of Mt. Olympus?

Pretending you know Zeus is not actually on My. Olympus is just your religious belief. Where is your evidence?

 

[Hollie]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

But we can make the same observation of Heaven not floating in the sky nor existing in a realm between the Sun and Earth.

Can I use that argument, which has been presented as the realm for the Judaic God, as proof that the Judaic God does not exist?

No, you can't. All that proves is there is no heaven floating in the sky or existing in the realm between the Sun and Earth. It might prove that what some people believe isn't true. I can show that what some people believed about George Washington isn't true, but that does not prove he never existed. Reality does not depend upon what human beings do or do not believe.

If you believe this god does not exist, that is perfectly acceptable. I believe that god does not exist. Just don't attempt to pretend it is something more than that. It's just a belief. Atheism is just another god-based belief.

How is Atheism a "god based belief" when the conclusion is that gods don't exist?

On the other hand, your belief that Zeus doesn't exist is the true god based belief system/religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

What truly silly, confused rambling. Do you somehow look at the moon and see evidence of the gods? Why do you not see Zeus when you look at pictures of Mt. Olympus?

Pretending you know Zeus is not actually on My. Olympus is just your religious belief. Where is your evidence?

Download google earth and take a look. Or, if you have the cash, go to Greece and climb to the top.

 

[PratchettFan]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

But we can make the same observation of Heaven not floating in the sky nor existing in a realm between the Sun and Earth.

Can I use that argument, which has been presented as the realm for the Judaic God, as proof that the Judaic God does not exist?

No, you can't. All that proves is there is no heaven floating in the sky or existing in the realm between the Sun and Earth. It might prove that what some people believe isn't true. I can show that what some people believed about George Washington isn't true, but that does not prove he never existed. Reality does not depend upon what human beings do or do not believe.

If you believe this god does not exist, that is perfectly acceptable. I believe that god does not exist. Just don't attempt to pretend it is something more than that. It's just a belief. Atheism is just another god-based belief.

How is Atheism a "god based belief" when the conclusion is that gods don't exist?

On the other hand, your belief that Zeus doesn't exist is the true god based belief system/religion.

It is a belief system about gods. That it is negative does not change that.

You are going to have to explain to me why a belief that no god exists (without even defining what "god" is) is not a belief system but saying Zeus does not exist is.

 

[Hollie]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

What truly silly, confused rambling. Do you somehow look at the moon and see evidence of the gods? Why do you not see Zeus when you look at pictures of Mt. Olympus?

Pretending you know Zeus is not actually on My. Olympus is just your religious belief. Where is your evidence?

Download google earth and take a look. Or, if you have the cash, go to Greece and climb to the top.

So you admit you have no evidence. You're entitled to your religious belief but that's all it is. Your Atheism is just a religious belief.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Atheists are moral, loving and multicultural.”

True.

Those free from faith live joyful, fulfilling lives of meaning and significance, with the correct understanding that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, where 'god' and religion are creations of man.

And no, being free from faith is not a 'religion.'

 

[PratchettFan]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

What truly silly, confused rambling. Do you somehow look at the moon and see evidence of the gods? Why do you not see Zeus when you look at pictures of Mt. Olympus?

Pretending you know Zeus is not actually on My. Olympus is just your religious belief. Where is your evidence?

Download google earth and take a look. Or, if you have the cash, go to Greece and climb to the top.

So you admit you have no evidence. You're entitled to your religious belief but that's all it is. Your Atheism is just a religious belief.

Ok. It's a belief. No problem. My Atheism is just a religious belief, like all Atheism. I'm glad we finally agree.

 

[Hollie]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

But we can make the same observation of Heaven not floating in the sky nor existing in a realm between the Sun and Earth.

Can I use that argument, which has been presented as the realm for the Judaic God, as proof that the Judaic God does not exist?

No, you can't. All that proves is there is no heaven floating in the sky or existing in the realm between the Sun and Earth. It might prove that what some people believe isn't true. I can show that what some people believed about George Washington isn't true, but that does not prove he never existed. Reality does not depend upon what human beings do or do not believe.

If you believe this god does not exist, that is perfectly acceptable. I believe that god does not exist. Just don't attempt to pretend it is something more than that. It's just a belief. Atheism is just another god-based belief.

How is Atheism a "god based belief" when the conclusion is that gods don't exist?

On the other hand, your belief that Zeus doesn't exist is the true god based belief system/religion.

It is a belief system about gods. That it is negative does not change that.

You are going to have to explain to me why a belief that no god exists (without even defining what "god" is) is not a belief system but saying Zeus does not exist is.

You need to explain how your belief that Zeus is not living on My. Olympus is not a religious belief as you have applied it to other gods. And exactly right, you need to identify the properties that defines Zeus as a god? What are the properties of god-hood that defined your Atheism relative to Zeus as opposed to other gods?

Still waiting for your evidence that Zeus is not currently on My. Olympus. You religion of "Zeus is not on My. Olympus" is just a religious belief.

 

[Hollie]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

What truly silly, confused rambling. Do you somehow look at the moon and see evidence of the gods? Why do you not see Zeus when you look at pictures of Mt. Olympus?

Pretending you know Zeus is not actually on My. Olympus is just your religious belief. Where is your evidence?

Download google earth and take a look. Or, if you have the cash, go to Greece and climb to the top.

So you admit you have no evidence. You're entitled to your religious belief but that's all it is. Your Atheism is just a religious belief.

Ok. It's a belief. No problem. My Atheism is just a religious belief, like all Atheism. I'm glad we finally agree.

How does an Atheist hold a religious belief?

You're not well thought out on your various religions.

 

[Muhammed]

I don't think number 6 is really a myth.

I think it applies to the majority of American atheists. Most of them are ex-Christians who's moral code was tied to ther religion since early childhood. When they lose their religion their moral code goes with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know, I really want to know the opinions of an ardent agnostic on the existence of Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster and Santa Claus.

I want to determine for myself if their arguments are really based on healthy skepticism or troubling Solipsism.

Understand, Solipsism is fine and fundamentally correct--the problem is you can't get anywhere with it.

I am an agnostic.

You can look at pictures of Mt. Olympus and there is no indication of any habitation as described in the Greek myths, and I can explain how lighting in not thrown and that the sun is not a chariot. This is based upon evidence.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up and I can trace the origins of it to support that position. Again, evidence based.
Santa Claus is likewise a construct, the current model being a creation of the Coca Cola company. Evidence based.

Getting somewhere is fine. But pretending you know what you do not know in order to do it is less than honest. Just say I believe there is no god and accept the fact that it is a belief.

But we can make the same observation of Heaven not floating in the sky nor existing in a realm between the Sun and Earth.

Can I use that argument, which has been presented as the realm for the Judaic God, as proof that the Judaic God does not exist?

No, you can't. All that proves is there is no heaven floating in the sky or existing in the realm between the Sun and Earth. It might prove that what some people believe isn't true. I can show that what some people believed about George Washington isn't true, but that does not prove he never existed. Reality does not depend upon what human beings do or do not believe.

If you believe this god does not exist, that is perfectly acceptable. I believe that god does not exist. Just don't attempt to pretend it is something more than that. It's just a belief. Atheism is just another god-based belief.

How is Atheism a "god based belief" when the conclusion is that gods don't exist?

On the other hand, your belief that Zeus doesn't exist is the true god based belief system/religion.

It is a belief system about gods. That it is negative does not change that.

You are going to have to explain to me why a belief that no god exists (without even defining what "god" is) is not a belief system but saying Zeus does not exist is.

Incorrect.

'Belief' plays no role in acknowledging the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, as 'god' and religion are creations of man.

'God' does exist as a human contrivance, the 'collective goodness of all mankind,' for example.

But there is no omnipotent extraterrestrial deity that intercedes on the behalf of mortals, listens and responds to prayers, and issues religious edicts that must be obeyed lest the transgressors suffer some sort of postmortem 'punishment' – that requires no 'belief' to acknowledge to be in fact false.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think number 6 is really a myth.

I think it applies to the majority of American atheists. Most of them are ex-Christians who's moral code was tied to ther religion since early childhood. When they lose their religion their moral code goes with it.

This is ignorant and wrong.

All the items listed in the linked article are in fact myths, including 5 and 6.

Those free from faith do in fact have a moral code, a moral code which is just as valid as theists' moral codes, as all moral codes come from the same place.