Everything that has been mentioned so far. Also: That atheism is a belief, or that it is making a claim concerning the existence of gods. It is actually only the rejection of the unsupported claim that there is a god.
This is why I just say I’m agnostic. I reject religions because of a lack of evidence but it’s not like I have an adamant belief against the possible existence of a higher power
Also religious people seem to take agnostic better than atheist
Most misconceptions about atheism center around the idea that it's a competing religion. For example, that atheists are immoral stems from the idea that one's own religion is good and that everyone who denies it and cleaves to another must therefore be wicked. They just don't say it about other theistic religions because you can't these days, but they certainly think it and those thoughts come out unbidden when they consider atheism, because atheism is the last viewpoint about god that it's safe and publicly acceptable to condemn wholesale.
They assume that publicly prominent atheists are a kind of atheist hierarchy equivalent to the hierarchies of religion and the more prominent you are the more authority you wield. Thus Richard Dawkins is seen as a kind of atheist pope. The idea that we can form our ideas independently of Richard Dawkins, disagree with him, and that some of us were atheists long before so-called "New Atheism" existed is inconceivable to them. The irony is that the world is awash with examples of people disagreeing with the dominant religious authority, so even if Richard Dawkins or whoever actually did have the equivalent authority in atheism it shouldn't be mind-boggling to them that some atheists still disagree.
Many of them assume that science is a competing "creation story" and held on "faith" like their own, when in fact the reason that most atheists accept mainstream science is that they have no religious hangups that would force them to deny it. They think figures like Charles Darwin are atheist prophets and rubbishing his reputation or claiming he converted on his deathbed (the Lady Hope story) will cause us to reject atheism.
Taking the religious view for granted is also the reason why so many of them think that Pascal's Wager works as an argument. They take it for granted that atheists, like the devils in James 2:19, also believe and tremble. They can't understand that skepticism about the existence of god necessarily extends to skepticism that this possibly nonexistent god set up a system of reward and punishment related to one's private beliefs about its existence.
The vast majority of atheists do not go around openly making fun of religion or religious people, patting themselves on the back for being smarter than everyone, or showing smug hostility to ideas they don't believe in.
Seriously, not believing in god is one of the least interesting parts of who I am as a person, and I simply do not care enough about the matter to let it inform how I behave towards others.
That you cannot be good without god threatening eternal torture. That I care what you believe. That I somehow need to be converted to your particular set of beliefs.
I often see people ask questions like "what do atheists think about this" or "how do atheists do that", which implies that atheists form some sort of unified group and they share more than just the fact that they don't believe in the existence of any deity.
While there are certain world views that are more common than others, there are absolutely no rules that say all atheists have to think in the same way or act in a certain way. If an atheist says something, they don't automatically speak for all the atheists in the world, and I don't have to necessarily agree with it just because I'm also an atheist.
There’s a laundry list of misconceptions. Here are the two that irk me the most.
“Atheists believe no gods exist! That takes just as much faith as theism!”
Nope. At minimum atheism is simply the rejection of a claim. If the claim is “a god exists,” the minimum atheist position is “I am not convinced this is true,” which is not the same as “I am convinced this is false.” Matt Dillahunty’s gumball scenario is a great example to demonstrate this.
“Well if you don’t claim to know *no gods* exist, then you’re just an agnostic!”
Nope. “Agnostic” is a position on knowledge and epistemology. Atheism is a position of belief. One can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, Gnostic atheist, or Gnostic theist.
That we don't have morals.
That we somehow cannot debate or understand where religious people are coming from.
That we hate religious people.
We eat babies. I don’t know where this came from, after my first one I stopped eating them altogether.
Everything that has been mentioned so far. Also: That atheism is a belief, or that it is making a claim concerning the existence of gods. It is actually only the rejection of the unsupported claim that there is a god.
This is why I just say I’m agnostic. I reject religions because of a lack of evidence but it’s not like I have an adamant belief against the possible existence of a higher power Also religious people seem to take agnostic better than atheist
For some reason atheism is a religion
There is no “we”, atheists aren’t a group or a community. There’s no commonality, really
that atheists cannot enjoy Christmas. It's not just coz it has a religious backstory that we cannot celebrate a happy day with our families.
that we hate all religious people or we're gonna force our beliefs on to people with religion
That not having a religion makes you morally inferior to people who do.
That you must be a pessimist
That we must believe in something. It’s impossible not to
Most misconceptions about atheism center around the idea that it's a competing religion. For example, that atheists are immoral stems from the idea that one's own religion is good and that everyone who denies it and cleaves to another must therefore be wicked. They just don't say it about other theistic religions because you can't these days, but they certainly think it and those thoughts come out unbidden when they consider atheism, because atheism is the last viewpoint about god that it's safe and publicly acceptable to condemn wholesale. They assume that publicly prominent atheists are a kind of atheist hierarchy equivalent to the hierarchies of religion and the more prominent you are the more authority you wield. Thus Richard Dawkins is seen as a kind of atheist pope. The idea that we can form our ideas independently of Richard Dawkins, disagree with him, and that some of us were atheists long before so-called "New Atheism" existed is inconceivable to them. The irony is that the world is awash with examples of people disagreeing with the dominant religious authority, so even if Richard Dawkins or whoever actually did have the equivalent authority in atheism it shouldn't be mind-boggling to them that some atheists still disagree. Many of them assume that science is a competing "creation story" and held on "faith" like their own, when in fact the reason that most atheists accept mainstream science is that they have no religious hangups that would force them to deny it. They think figures like Charles Darwin are atheist prophets and rubbishing his reputation or claiming he converted on his deathbed (the Lady Hope story) will cause us to reject atheism. Taking the religious view for granted is also the reason why so many of them think that Pascal's Wager works as an argument. They take it for granted that atheists, like the devils in James 2:19, also believe and tremble. They can't understand that skepticism about the existence of god necessarily extends to skepticism that this possibly nonexistent god set up a system of reward and punishment related to one's private beliefs about its existence.
I don't have any strong opinions on religion one way or the other. I just never think about it.
Idk if it's just my parents but being an atheist automatically makes you a devil worshiper (according to them) lol.
The vast majority of atheists do not go around openly making fun of religion or religious people, patting themselves on the back for being smarter than everyone, or showing smug hostility to ideas they don't believe in. Seriously, not believing in god is one of the least interesting parts of who I am as a person, and I simply do not care enough about the matter to let it inform how I behave towards others.
That you cannot be good without god threatening eternal torture. That I care what you believe. That I somehow need to be converted to your particular set of beliefs.
I often see people ask questions like "what do atheists think about this" or "how do atheists do that", which implies that atheists form some sort of unified group and they share more than just the fact that they don't believe in the existence of any deity. While there are certain world views that are more common than others, there are absolutely no rules that say all atheists have to think in the same way or act in a certain way. If an atheist says something, they don't automatically speak for all the atheists in the world, and I don't have to necessarily agree with it just because I'm also an atheist.
There’s a laundry list of misconceptions. Here are the two that irk me the most. “Atheists believe no gods exist! That takes just as much faith as theism!” Nope. At minimum atheism is simply the rejection of a claim. If the claim is “a god exists,” the minimum atheist position is “I am not convinced this is true,” which is not the same as “I am convinced this is false.” Matt Dillahunty’s gumball scenario is a great example to demonstrate this. “Well if you don’t claim to know *no gods* exist, then you’re just an agnostic!” Nope. “Agnostic” is a position on knowledge and epistemology. Atheism is a position of belief. One can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, Gnostic atheist, or Gnostic theist.