In centuries past, calling someone an atheist was an insult tantamount to the vilest evils. Still today the word can conjur up images of amorality and oppressive regimes like those of Stalin and Mao. A Gallup poll in 2007 reveals that the American people would elect any minority to the presidency, including homosexuals, before electing an atheist [1]. Clearly there is distrust of atheism in our world, fueled by a mountain of misunderstandings. The bible never teaches to 'know thine enemy' (not to say that atheism is the enemy of religion).

I lament having to write an article like this, because any small amount of research could uncover the fallacies in these assumptions and misconceptions. Even talking to an actual atheist could do the trick, and yet many people seem content to buy into whatever gossip has drifted their way or whatever garbage their holy books tell them about non-believers. Not all religious sources will be incorrect in their statements about atheists, but it is wise to examine both sides. Just as some anti-religious persons may have a tendency to vilify religionists unfairly, some religionists may have a tendency to vilify atheists unfairly.

These ten misconceptions will not be sourced, but you need not read a website or a book to encounter them. They are pretty easy to find among the general populace, in just about any demographic. Sadly, I have even met some self-proclaimed atheists who were unaware that they held some of these misconceptions. That is what this article exists for though, to spread awareness and inform those who care to learn.

I. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

This may seem like an innocent enough statement, but it expresses a fundamental misconception of the very definition of atheism. Some people embrace this definition in order to accuse atheists of having faith. You may have heard the tired old cliche, 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.' However, atheism involves no faith, just as it takes no faith to reject the existence of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, etc. Implying that the rejection of a belief is a belief unto itself is nonsense, like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s), it is the rejection of theism. This is supported by an understanding of the original Greek word, atheos: a- meaning 'without', and theos meaning 'god'. Other words in the English language, like amoral (lacking morality) and asexual (lacking sexual reproduction) also testify to this definition of atheism as the lack of belief in a god. This means that atheism is not faith, it is not belief, and it is certainly not religion. It is simply a response to theism, saying 'I don't believe you' or 'Where's your proof?' when a believer claims that god exists.

Take note that this definition says nothing about the reasons for disbelief or the strength of conviction behind them. Some atheists reject the notion of god for entirely personal reasons, while others have been persuaded by philosophical arguments, and still others found it after struggling through an honest examination of their religious beliefs. Likewise, some atheists may feel certain that there is no god, while others might say there probably is no god, and others may remain unsure or hold different opinions depending on the god in question. This is all extraneous though, relative to each individual's personal views. Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in god(s).

II. Science is the god of atheism.

Many have accused Richard Dawkins and the 'new atheists' of exalting science in place of god, making it the deity of atheism. This is a clear contradiction with the definition of atheism, but more significantly, I do not think it can reasonably be argued that any atheist, Dawkins included, venerates science or worships it on a level kin to religious faith. Science is wielded by modern atheists primarily to counter the claims of modern Christians and Muslims, who distort and twist the findings of science to provide support for the existence of their particular god. Science appears to be the central focus of many atheists because it is the playing field where questions of god's existence have been taken to these days.

Science is a very valuable endeavor though. It is currently the most practical means for understanding how things work in our universe. What other means for knowledge even comes close? Personal experience has proven to be unreliable time and time again, and it is extraordinarily difficult - perhaps even impossible - to communicate an experience flawlessly from the recipient to an outsider. Science strives to transcend subjectivity and give us working models of reality that are based on external facts which are verifiable by anyone. Of course, that does not mean science is all that is important in life. There will always be mystery and beauty, art and poetry, music and self-expression.

III. Atheism has killed more people through Stalin, Hitler and Mao than any religion has.

This statement betrays a hefty ignorance of the regimes it references. Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich were hardly atheist. In Mein Kampf and his public speeches, Hitler frequently invoked his belief in Jesus Christ to provoke outrage against the Jews who allegedly killed the savior of the world [2]. Dozens of Nazi artifacts also feature Christian iconography [3]. Nazi Germany was not built on atheism, but did seem to at least see the merit in claiming a Christian following.

Stalin and Mao were most assuredly atheists, but were their crimes against humanity really the result of their atheism? There is no evidence for such an assumption, and it seems much more likely that the atrocities they committed followed from their totalitarian style of leadership, which demanded obedience to the state almost as fanatically as religions demand obedience to a god. Stalin and Mao killed without mercy to consolidate their power, with little to no regard for the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) that the victims professed.

There is a much simpler answer to all of this though, and once again it has to do with the definition of atheism. As I noted above, atheism is the rejection of theism and nothing further. Anything to do with reasons for disbelief or the strength of conviction in disbelief is relative to each individual, by no means inherent to atheism. There is no logical progression that leads from the lack of belief in god(s) to totalitarianism and the slaughter of countless innocents. The atheism of Stalin and Mao is an unsubstantiated correlation with the mass-murder they committed, and it is just as coincidental as the fact that they were both men. Atheism can have no atrocities, because nothing can be done in its name. It is not an ideology, belief system, or anything of the sort.

IV. Without belief in god, atheists have no basis for morality.

I'm still amazed at how often this piece of religious propaganda is brought up in my discussions with believers. Many times it may be phrased as a question such as, 'if there is no god, why not just kill, rape, steal, and do whatever you want?' They seem to forget that local authorities would still exist, like police officers, but the point behind their claim is that in the absence of authority, there is no reason to be moral. I find this an apallingly cynical approach. Morality exists to facilitate our interactions with other human beings, so as long as there are humans on this planet, morality will be here too, whether or not a god is watching over us and threatening us with eternal torment for bad behavior.

A more intricate formulation of this misconception is that if we believe in good and bad, right and wrong, we are appealing to a moral standard, and the source for that moral standard can only be external - i.e. a god. This line of reasoning is undemonstrated though, and there is no reason for assuming a moral standard must be of divine origin. Moral standards have not usually been all they're made out to be either. The ten commandments have more than a few reasonable objections, because there are grey areas in morality that no absolute statements can reliably accommodate.

But if we're looking for any kind of morality that does not need a god to function, we can actually turn to the words of Jesus in the bible. In Matthew 7:12, Christ instructs us to "do to others what you would have them do to you." How about that! Atheist morality is advocated by Christian scripture. The Golden Rule is not perfect, but it is a decent and generalized standard for moral behavior that makes no appeal to a god. More consequentialist ethical theories have been proposed since the Golden Rule, and none of them require belief in god (or the existence of god).

V. Without belief in god, life has no meaning or purpose.

I would venture a guess that this is what most people are thinking when they ask why atheists don't just kill, rape, steal, and do whatever they want. If there is no cosmic judge watching us, and there is no promise of eternal reward or punishment after death, what is the point in life? Again, this is a very cynical perspective, in my opinion. The last person on Earth might have a struggle with the question, but we are not alone here. We have family, friends, and loved ones who care for us and who we care for in turn. Is there not a purpose or meaning to life with them?

We all decide what we stand for, what we fight for, what we live for and what we die for. We make our own purpose in life, and I see no poverty in that. What sort of entitlement do we think we have to some purpose of ultimate, cosmic significance? We all wish to be remembered when we're gone, and so some of us have chosen to believe that there is a higher purpose through which we may be immortalized. However, I think the only real way to know that we will be remembered is to live well, in a way that will impact and bless those around us. Over centuries most of us will be forgotten, but I can't imagine a more meaningful and fulfilling existence than one that touched those close to me, even if no one else. What more is necessary?

VI. There are no atheists in foxholes.

According to this claim, faced with the possibility of death, fear will transform all atheists into god-believers. I have personally met more than a few atheists that served in the military and put their lives at stake, never once crying out to god or revoking their disbelief in moments of distress. One example of an atheist in a foxhole is Philip Paulson, who published his story in the 1989 issue of The Humanist.

Paulson is far from the only atheist with such a story. Today there are even groups like the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers that work to assist non-believers in the service and promote awareness that there are actually many atheists in foxholes. The idea that life-threatening circumstances magically convert atheists to theists is simply wishful thinking on the part of religious believers who apparently have a hard time thinking of anything outside the context of their own religion.

VII. Atheists think that everything happened just by chance.

I consider this to be somewhat of an understandable misconception for those who have perhaps never really spoken to an atheist. It may seem only fair to assume that if someone does not believe an intelligent agent intentionally caused this universe to form, then they must believe it formed by unguided chance. The problem with this is that it is not a view adopted by many (if any) atheists. The truth is, we don't know what caused the big bang, no one does. Until further information comes in, it is reasonable to withhold judgment. Maybe a god is behind this and maybe not.

'Shouldn't that make you an agnostic though?' Well, not quite. What we do know about the diversity and complexity of lifeforms in our universe is that they evolve by a very orderly process known as natural selection. Organisms that are better suited to their environment will have better odds of survival. That is the opposite of random chance, and as it appears, no divine hand is guiding any of it. In the absence of evidence for something we should expect to see evidence for, such as a creator god that intimately designs his creation, the conclusion need not be total uncertainty. If we should expect to see evidence of something and we do not, it is reasonable to assume it does not exist. This is what we conclude for millions of mythical creatures like leprechauns and unicorns, even though we cannot absolutely prove their non-existence.

Yet I do not think the conversation stops there. What exactly would be so unbelievable about our universe arising by chance? The fact that billions of people have believed in a god who created it is not an argument for the actual existence of such an entity. On the contrary, science has shown the presumptions of humankind to be wrong on more than one occasion. For centuries, it seemed logical to assume the earth was flat, fixed and unmoving at the center of the universe. People used to believe disease was the work of demons or the judgment of god upon the disobedient. Just maybe our presumption about the universe requiring a creator is wrong too. Stranger things have been found true.

VIII. Atheists have lost their faith due to a traumatic experience, not for any rational reason.

Undoubtedly there are some atheists that do fit this description. Just as there are theists who believe in god for purely emotional reasons, there are probably also atheists who do not believe in god for purely emotional reasons. I have been asked several times by Christians about any events in my life that led me to 'reject god,' as though they expect to hear of a death in the family, an abusive parent, or the bad example of another Christian that may have influenced me at a young age. Perhaps something similar led them to faith, so they assume that only an equally life-changing event could lead a person away from faith.

I am pleased to say that no traumatic experience inspired my loss of faith. Fortunately I have loving parents that are still alive and most of the Christians I grew up with were wonderfully compassionate people to me. Of course I met a few fanatics, but my typical response was to shake my head and move on. No person influenced my decision to renounce Christianity, rather it was the result of studying the bible and witnessing to non-Christians that led me there. Eventually I started to see the problems and found that the ways I reconciled them in my mind were weak indeed. Many of the atheists I've known have expressed almost an identical path that led to their deconversion.

Many Christians do not like the idea that an atheist rejects belief in their god because the evidence compels such a conclusion. Even though the bible openly praises blind faith in passages like Hebrews 11:1 and John 20:29, some Christians still think there is good evidence for the truth of their beliefs. To them, the bible is so amazing that no one can read it in sincerity and not be moved to faith. This is, once again, wishful thinking on their part, and has nothing to do with the actual reasons why atheists have walked away from religion. And if an atheist claims that no traumatic event led them to lose faith, why should we doubt them?

IX. Atheists are angry, bitter people.

On numerous occasions, I've been quite surprised by the reactions I've received to articles that I've written or statements that I've made around religious believers. Tones of hostility and anger are detected where they never existed in the first place. Merely expressing strong opinions seems to give an impression of anger to some people. Few of the atheists that I have known are unpleasant people, and many of them have responded to crude ad hominem attacks in far more friendly a manner than I might. Of course, there are bitter and angry atheists around, just as there are bitter and angry religious believers around, but that does not mean either group is the norm. There is no real way to effectively disprove this misconception other than personally getting to know some atheists. You will find that they believe in kindness, peace, and beauty, just like the rest of the world.

X. Atheists just hate god and don't want to be accountable for their sin.

This statement is the last of the ten misconceptions because I have noticed it is generally the last ditch effort of theists who have run out of arguments and still wish to dismiss atheism in the harshest way, without a legitimate understanding of it. If anyone making this claim would stop to think about it for even a second, they would realize how incredibly absurd it is. What is the point in hating something that you don't believe exists? Why fear being judged for something you don't believe in? In making this statement, a person actually asserts that they have some extraordinary insight into the minds of atheists, and they have found that atheists DO believe in god after all, and they also believe in sin, but they are so scared of accountability and they so dislike god, that they pretend as if he does not exist. This is the height of arrogant, faith-based assumptions.

In my experience, there is simply no arguing with someone who exhibits this kind of willful ignorance. They are perfectly fine with imagining you in whatever way they want, no matter how inaccurate, so that they can pigeonhole you according to their faith or whatever prejudices they may hold, thus dismissing all your opinions off the bat. The equivalent would be an atheist telling a Christian that 'Christians don't really believe in god, they just lie and say they do, so that they can force their social views down the throats of society.' These tremendous presumptions forfeit all intelligent and civilized discussion.

Holy books often speak ill of non-believers in a number of ways, but why believe what they have to say on atheists? Every religion attempts to marginalize those outside of its congregation, because if they did not stress their own importance, there would be no reason to subscribe to it, thus it would probably not last very long. Christians don't seem too concerned with what the Qur'an says about them though, nor do Jews seem too concerned with what the bible says about them. It is therefore pointless to judge atheists based on what any holy book says of them, because all atheists reject the authority of those books. You might feel it is the proper thing to do according to your faith, but accusing an atheist with any one of these misconceptions will most likely get a laugh and little else. Why not listen to the atheist and then make your points, instead of going at him with finger pointed?

1. Joyner, J. (2007) Black President More Likely Than Mormon or Atheist. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2010.
2. Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1942) The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, p.19-20.
3. Walker, J. (2005) Nazi Artifacts. Nobeliefs.com. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2010.
4. Paulson, P. (1989) I was an atheist in a foxhole. The Humanist. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2010.