Myth:
Atheists can't have close, loving relationships with their families.
Response:
The idea that there is anything about atheism which would prevent a person from being close to their family is bizarre, at least initially. Perhaps even most religious theists recognize that there is something strange about this position and that's why it doesn't come up too often; yet it does appear occasionally and is representative of other misconceptions that are more common. In particular, it relates to popular assumptions about atheism being incompatible with genuine love and kindness.
To put it simply, the assumption that atheists might have some problem with developing and maintaining close, loving relationships with their families relies on a more fundamental assumption that atheism doesn't provide a genuine basis for the experience of love. Because atheists don't have any reason to love others, then of course they won't even be able to love their own families.
Such an assertion may sound unbelievable, but there is a certain twisted logic behind it. Many people believe that all atheists are die-hard naturalists and materialists (and even that the two mean the exact same thing, which isn't the case). Although the existence of atheists who reject both means that this assumption isn't true, such atheists are in the minority and we can leave them aside for the moment and focus on an even more fundamental misunderstanding going on about materialism itself.
You see, the same people who assume the above also generally have in mind a very naive and restricted conception of what materialism is supposed to mean. For them, materialism only allows for belief in the existence of blind, unthinking, unfeeling, inanimate matter. Because matter cannot love, then presumably humans cannot love, and thus there need be no love for one's family.
Anyone familiar with logical fallacies will immediately recognize the Fallacy of Composition here: just because individual pieces of matter cannot experience emotions like love, that doesn't mean that all things made out of matter (like humans) also cannot love. Once we recognize that, it becomes easier to understand that materialism doesn't restrict us to accepting only the existence of properties that can be found in atoms.
Instead, we can also accept the existence of properties that only appear in certain configurations of matter — emergent properties that occur due to how different types of matter and energy interact. That in turn allows for the existence of things like thought and emotions which are not themselves obviously physical.
Sometimes this myth about atheists is not offered in all seriousness — the person doesn't really believe that atheists can't have loving relationships with family members. Instead, the person is trying to show that because the atheist can love, then the atheist believes in "non-material" things like love, and hence is not really a materialist. Once materialism is abandoned, then presumably all sorts of "spiritual" things like souls and gods might find their way in. The theist can be disabused of this notion by correcting them and pointing out the fallacy underlying their entire argument.
There is one aspect to the assumptions behind myth which is true: atheism, by itself, cannot provide any basis for things like love and kindness. This isn't a problem for atheism, though, and it isn't unique to atheism — theism also doesn't provide any basis for things like love and kindness. Mere atheism is just the absence of belief in gods; mere theism is just the presence of belief in at least one god of some sort. Neither of these say anything about love, morality, politics, relationships, etc.
Reasons or a basis for love, morality, kindness, etc., must come from a system of beliefs that constitute some philosophy, ideology, religion, or world view. Where religious theists are making a mistake is in trying to compare mere atheism with their religion, but that's comparing apples and oranges. They should either compare mere atheism and mere theism, thus forcing the conclusion that atheism isn't any worse off than theism, or they should compare an atheistic belief system (either a secular philosophy or a religion) with their own theistic religion.
In this latter case, they will have to deal with much more complex and substantive issues. Although they may not agree with the atheistic philosophy or religion which they are analyzing, and may reject the arguments offered for things like morality, it will be very difficult for them to claim that this belief system offer no basis whatsoever for things like morality of love.
