Myth:
Atheism is due to bad childhood experiences with false religions.
Response:
Religious theists sometimes try to dismiss atheism and atheists by claiming that people only become atheists due to bad experiences as kids with false or bad religions. This myth allows theists to imagine that atheists' experiences with "false" religion has nothing to do with their own "true" religion, that atheistic critiques of religion don't really impact their own religion, and that if atheists only learned about "true" religion then they would abandon their atheism.
None of these beliefs are true — at least in the sense that there is a necessary logical progression involved. We must, however, grant that there are some strong correlations involved. People who grow up in a very positive religious environment are probably less likely to question the religious beliefs they are taught and abandon their religion, much less theism itself. Such an event is possible, but it is less likely.
Similarly, a person who grows up in a home where religion is used as a tool for abuse and control may be a bit more likely to question the foundations of that religion. This, then, can more readily lead them to give up the religious beliefs taught to them and perhaps even belief in God as well. Once again, such a result is not guaranteed because there are many who do not follow that path, but it isn't uncommon either.
One problem with this myth is that it presumes that anyone and everyone who has abandoned the religious beliefs of their family must have experienced some form of religious abuse or problems — something that would never have happened if they had been raised with True Religion. The negative experiences might be an understandable reason to give up on religion and God, but because they were experiences with a False Religion, the atheist is regarded as having given up too quickly — and it is the job of the theist to help them see the light and return to the fold.
This isn't true because not everyone who does have such bad experiences ends up being an atheist and not every atheist has had bad experiences with religion. Indeed, some atheists grew up in nonreligious homes, so such an assumption is wildly off the mark for them. But even with those who were religious when they were young, there is no good basis for assuming from the outset that their experiences with religion were terrible.
Granted, it's unlikely that their experiences with religion were completely and unambiguously positive; but then again, just about every currently religious person has had problems at some point in time as well. The question is, were the experiences generally positive or generally negative? It's possible that the latter is the case, but it isn't appropriate to assume so. Instead, the only justified course of action is to ask the person what their experiences were like.
This is actually a very common problem which atheists face entirely too often: theists and religionists who assume that they already know all that they need to know about atheism generally — and even worse, any individual atheist as well. As a consequence, they don't take the time to ask questions and get to know the atheist as an individual and as a person; instead, they start out with all sorts of assumptions which they then apply to the atheist without regard for whether they might be mistaken.
This myth is a good example of the Genetic Fallacy, a type of ad hominem logical fallacy. Where an idea comes from and why a person believes it has no bearing on whether the idea is true, reasonable, or justified.. Whether a person was started on the road towards atheism due to the type of parenting they received, the type of religion they had, or through a curiosity in philosophy, this has no bearing on whether or not atheism is, itself, a reasonable position.
In order to critique atheism, it is necessary to deal with atheism itself, not an atheist's parents or religious background. Unfortunately, the latter is much easier than the former, which is perhaps why we end up seeing more of it. A good example of this tactic can be seen in the writings of Paul Vitz, someone who seems very interested in trying to dismiss atheism through the study of the "psychology" of atheism. For example:
"...for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding and compassion."
Such claims should simply be ignored and labeled for what they are: ad hominem fallacies, not logical or rational arguments.
