globexl:

I have repeated myself so many times. I am tired. These people are deaf.Atheism(dont mind the ism) is neither a  belief nor a philosphy, so asking what it is based on is silly (sorry to say that).
I think atheism is about taking a norman rational and sceptic aproach at the religous narrative as espoused by the multitudes of the competing religious bodies. Besides not believing in god, I also dont believe that 1+1+1=1, I aslo dont beleive that you can turn N1m into N10m in one month with any legitimate business, I also dont believe in Mami water, I dont believe that the earth is the center of the universe, I dont believe that witches and wizards are the causes sickness and death .etc. etc.

davidylan:

Permit me to quote too just like our dear resident skeptics like to do.  
It really isnt that hard to figure out the fraudulent game our dear atheists like to play . . .

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and[u] like to think that they have no "beliefs."[/u] However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book,  Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth.

See example of this very common game here . . .

The game

1. The atheist is a pretty slick con man. Note his FIRST approach is to quickly tell you that atheism is NOT a belief or philosophy . . . this automatically blocks you from asking him ANY question which places the deist 100% on the defensive. Should you "dare" ask the atheist to clarify his position, you are automatically viewed as "silly".  
Note also that this claim that atheism is neither a belief or philosophy already violates scientific fact on how our brains are wired. We dont exist in a vacuum so when the atheists tells you all he is interested in is what? who? why? or when? . . . while claiming not to have a preconceived idea what the answers may likely be and why, he is lying and just playing his typical craven game.

ramalot:

You may view it as you wish, however, heres an explanation that may help you.
side note: i do not term myself anything; i am me and that is where it ends. Now,

[size=14pt]The person termed "atheist" by default does not believe in any thing.[/size] However, with a universally provable set of factors pointing to the plausibility of that "thing" he inclines himself to recognize this "thing" as fact. Hence, he can always confidently tell u that 1+1 is 2. Not coz he was told or "indoctrinated" into believing this,  but because whenever he personally takes one item and puts it next to another item, there are 2 items there.

Similarly, when a random stranger hands you a jacket and tells you to have "faith" that it is bulletproof, but that in 2 minutes he will be spraying multiple rounds of lead into your chest. The "atheist" is inclined to ask "how" do i know this is bulletproof? "what" is this jacket made of? "why" am i about to be shot?

On the other hand, since the institution of religion is based entirely on "faith," you are expected in this situation to say "well, since u say it is bulletproof, i believe and have faith that it is, so take your best shot." faith is not to be questioned remember?
"

"Evangelical atheism": Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news." I believe that strong atheism, the belief that there is no god, is not only true but is also good news. I also believe that the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. Unless you already are one, I believe you would be happier and the world would be a better place if you were an atheist.

There are already a number of resources on atheism: books, web sites, movies, you name it. Most of them patiently deal with the rational. This is as it should be; atheism is the only rational response to the question of whether there is a god. What I want to focus on, though, is the emotional. I believe that emotion, not reason, is the moat between the fantasy of religion and the reality (Edit: really?) of atheism.

Life is hard, and religionists take comfort in "knowing" that it's all according to God's purpose. But, if true, would it really be comforting? That a benevolent, loving god could think of no better way to do what he needs to do by causing so much suffering along with joy?

Life ends in death, but wouldn't eternal life be worse?

Many people go to religious services to reinforce their love of God, but isn't that palpable feeling really the love of each other?

We all are lonely, but aren't six billion of us, most of whom are really fine people, enough?

globexl:

I have repeated myself so many times. I am tired. These people are deaf.Atheism(dont mind the ism) is neither a  belief nor a philosphy, so asking what it is based on is silly (sorry to say that).
I think atheism is about taking a norman rational and sceptic aproach at the religous narrative as espoused by the multitudes of the competing religious bodies. Besides not believing in god, I also dont believe that 1+1+1=1, I aslo dont beleive that you can turn N1m into N10m in one month with any legitimate business, I also dont believe in Mami water, I dont believe that the earth is the center of the universe, I dont believe that witches and wizards are the causes sickness and death .etc. etc.
Sceptism is part and parcel of our mental make up. We employ sceptism in our business dealings, in our dealings with both friends and foes, in our personal and family lives. when sceptism is deployed to dissect ancient  religious myths, then we are called atheist. It is not a unique or peculiar philosophical system. It is just asking: what? who? when? and how? , something both you and I do countless times everyday in other aspects of our lives.   Do you need to be labeled with an ism when you ask those questions? No.
I dont see how by saying that one does not believe your religious narrative, that makes the person silly, a sinner, shallow and spiritually empty.

davidylan:

[size=14pt]Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work.[/size]

Purist:

I would think that when skeptics declare that they have no 'beliefs', what they actually mean is that they have no religious beliefs. I sure as hell know that I believe in so many things. Religion isn't just one of them.

sexkillz:

So you have FAITH in those things then?

In the military, there are more than 3,000 chaplains who minister to the spiritual and emotional needs of active duty troops, regardless of their faiths. The vast majority are Christians, a few are Jews or Muslims, one is a Buddhist. A Hindu, possibly even a Wiccan may join their ranks soon.

But an atheist?

Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military.

Joining the chaplain corps is part of a broader campaign by atheists to win official acceptance in the military. Such recognition would make it easier for them to raise money and meet on military bases. It would help ensure that chaplains, religious or atheist, would distribute their literature, advertise their events and advocate for them with commanders.

But winning the appointment of an atheist chaplain will require support from senior chaplains, a tall order. Many chaplains are skeptical: Do atheists belong to a “faith group,” a requirement for a chaplain candidate? Can they provide support to religious troops of all faiths, a fundamental responsibility for chaplains?

Jason Torpy, a former Army captain who is president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, said humanist chaplains would do everything religious chaplains do, including counsel troops and help them follow their faiths. But just as a Protestant chaplain would not preside over a Catholic service, a humanist might not lead a religious ceremony, though he might help organize it.

“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”. . . . . . . .

sexkillz:

So you have FAITH in those things then?

Purist:

If by 'faith', you mean believing without evidence (Heb 11:1), then my answer is a big NO.

davidylan:

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking . . . lol you're one ignorant fellow.

sexkillz:

Yeah! To a lay man, this answer sounds SMART! Now, WHAT is the ATHEISTIC DEFINITION of FAITH?

Enigma:

Some sections of evangelical atheism, usually the subtler forms (??)*, even now have "chaplaincies".   

e.g. http://harvardhumanist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=46



* Edited as I'm not even too sure how 'subtle' is 'subtle'!

mazaje:

Faith has many definitions, When an atheist talks about having faith in something it is mostly as a result of experience with that thing so by faith I personally mean confidence or trust in a person or thing based on experience. This is very different from religious faith which is belief that is not based on proof at all. . . .For example religious people believe things that not only have no proof or evidence but are completely against what we know to be true. . .Do you believe that Jonah survived inside a fish for three days?. . .If yes how does that square off with what we know to be true?. . . .Religious faith is believing something because you want it to be true not because it is true it self. . . .

sexkillz:

Bro! QUIT RAMBLING! WHAT IS FAITH?

sexkillz:

Bro! QUIT RAMBLING! WHAT IS FAITH?

mazaje:

I said faith has many definitions and one of them is belief that is not based on proof. . . .This is mostly the faith religious people talk about no?. . . .

davidylan:

It also includes faith in a naturalistic hypothesis for the earth which is not based on proof eitehr.

mazaje:

Sure, that's for those that have faith in those naturalistic hypothesis, no?. . . .

davidylan:

It also applies to those who pretend they have no faith when the very nature of our brains indicates everyone has some form of faith in something.

mazaje:

You can chose to have faith in things that are demonstrably verifiable alone, and disregard baseless mythology, no?. . .

mazaje:

By the way your argument are ridiculous. . . .You don't have any good evidence for your position, you have no evidence to show that what you believe in is true beside the need to believe . . .All you have shown is you are not interested in the truth because the truth always has evidence to back it. . .How does the fact that evolution is without evidence help your own baseless beliefs that humans were created by sand because some people that believed they could see the creator of the universe hiding in the clouds if only they build a tower that is high enough to reach the sky said so?. . .

What exactly is your position, that evolution is false? So what? How is your own baseless belief true?. . .That is what you are suppose to show instead of crying all over the place. . .

davidylan:

depends on what you call "demonstrably verifiable". can you demonstrate to me that emotions are real? Have you seen it? But you have faith in it no?

mazaje:

What the hell is this nonsense. . .Emotions are REAL and their effect can be felt. . . .When you are sad you feel it, when happy you feel it, when u are in an Intimate mood you feel it. . . STOP equating emotions to religious faith or ONLY on stories that have no evidence and which are mostly untrue and have shown to be lies. . .