Frequent Misunderstandings

[robvalue]

I'm not sure if there is already a thread like this somewhere, if so feel free to delete this one

I thought it would be useful to put together a list of terms and arguments which I have frequently experienced which either misuse expressions, or use faulty logic. If people think this is a good idea, feel free to suggest more for me to add to it. These are in regard to generally discussing the existence or not of some sort of god. I've put a bunch of stuff to get started, I can add more at a later date.

You should choose to believe in god

---

Belief is a state of mind. Your mind comes to a belief based on what seems to be the most likely explanation. You cannot choose to believe something, you can only pretend that you believe it. A belief isn't about what you know to be true, it's about the conclusion you have drawn internally. This belief could be true, it could be false.

---

You might as well believe in god as you have nothing to lose if you are wrong

---

This has two problems, the first of which is that you cannot choose to believe something, as discussed above. The second problem is that whatever religion or set of beliefs you "pick", it is only one choice in a possible infinite number of choices. There are already huge numbers of different forms of Christianity for example, and when you consider every religion and god mentioned worldwide this number grows greater. Then consider that the "true" religion may not be one anyone has ever yet thought of. There are an infinite number of possible belief systems and versions of gods you could worship. So your chances of being right is 1 in infinity, otherwise known as zero. This is commonly called Pascal's Wager. Without any evidence as to which one to pick, you have one ticket in an infinite lottery.

---

Evolution is only a theory

---

The word theory has two uses.

Casual (technically incorrect) use: An idea, a suggestion, a hypothesis

Scientific/accurate: A hypothesis that has been tested and proven to be true given the available evidence (or that it is statistically highly improbable that the theory is not true).

When people say evolution is only a theory, they are referring to the first usage of the word theory above. This suggests evolution is only an untested idea. But the "theory of evolution" refers to the second usage, in that there is mountains of evidence from all kinds of scientific areas that all point to this being the best model we currently have.

---

Evolution/atheism/science is a religion or requires faith

---

A religion is necessarily some sort of belief system which extends to the supernatural. Science and evolution are quite the opposite, giving perfectly natural explanations for what we observe. Atheism is simply the lack of belief, or lack of acceptance due to insufficient evidence, that a god exists. This has nothing to do with what you do believe, and certainly nothing to do with the supernatural.

None of the above require faith either, because faith means accepting something without evidence. Science and evolution are founded entirely on evidence, and atheism is dismissing the claim of godly creatures because there is no evidence. If evidence were provided, most atheists would change their mind. No faith is required.

---

You can't prove god doesn't exist

---

This is a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If someone is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. If they cannot prove it, then the claim can be dismissed. Otherwise, we would have to accept any random statement made by anyone as fact. The more extraordinary the claim being made, the more evidence is required to convince someone to believe.

For example, if I claim "I had dinner yesterday", most people would accept that as being a natural occurrence and probably wouldn't press me for evidence. If I claim, "I ate fifty pizzas yesterday!" this is getting a bit more extraordinary, so the willingness to believe gets less. You probably wouldn't believe this unless there was some proof. If I claim, "I saw a dragon yesterday!" then my claim is so extraordinary, and contrary to what we know and experience, that virtually no one would believe this without significant evidence.

If someone is claiming a god exists, this is just as extraordinary (maybe more so) than the last claim about a dragon. Therefor, for anyone to take this seriously, compelling evidence must be shown or else the claim can be dismissed as going against everything we know and experience.

It is true that no one can know for sure that there isn't a god. No one can actually know anything for sure. But this does not logically lead to god existing. For example, I can just as easily say "you can't prove there is a god, therefor there isn't a god." I don't need evidence to dismiss a claim that has been made without evidence; there is nothing to disprove.

---

I'm an agnostic not an atheist

---

These two terms are not mutually exclusive. Being agnostic is to do with what you know. If you're agnostic about the existence of god, it means you don't know for sure whether or not there is a god. Being an atheist or theist is about what you believe. So most atheists would also be agnostics, as they would concede that they don't know 100% there is no god. Some theists would also be agnostic, if they admitted they could not be 100% sure there is a god.

---

[Minimalist]

Stick around long enough and you'll find real-world examples of this sort of thing on a weekly basis.

[robvalue]

I'm sure I will I thought it may be useful for people to have a thread to refer to to point out what the problem is, rather than have to repeat the same stuff endlessly.

[Jenny A]

No one with the above problems every really listens anyway. We fight the good fight, but nothing changes.

[LivingNumbers6.626]

Nailed it.