To me, atheists and theists are both faithfuls. They both believe in something that cannot be proven, which is the basis for faith. Unlike the faithfuls, the agnostics make room for doubts.
I am not comfortable with this point of view of what an atheist is. An atheist doesn't take on faith that there is
no life after death. The absence of a belief isn't a belief. It is nothing. Instead, the approach is that there is no evidence of life after death. If there was evidence the atheist would change his mind. The problem is partly with the word atheist. It implies an affirmative position when none is needed. That said, the atheist may chose to draw some conclusions as to likelihood of certain specific religious beliefs. The atheist may examine biblical or other religious texts that discuss God and how the world was made and conclude that these stories are inconsistent with the evidence on how the world works and maybe even inconsistent with their own morality. (Why are religions so exclusionary and what may happen to you after death be an accident of your birth?). After examining the evidence, the atheist may go so far as to say that it is
unlikely you have a separate self or consciousness apart from your physical self. The atheist would say that it is
unlikely there is a god, at least as god is described in religious literature, as we would have to stretch science way out of proportion to make science consistent with religious writings. Based on analysis of evidence and his own ethics, the atheist decides there is no need to spend any more time on the matter. In contrast, I think that an agnostic is one that either says it is impossible to know (which is an affirmative belief) or that the subject does not interest him enough to think it through thoroughly and draw a conclusion based on the current evidence, or deep down inside he wishes he had faith that some people just seem to have.
What bothers me is when the religious triy to modify science to fit their religious faith. At least the Dalai Lama says that if a religious belief conflicts with science, the belief must give way.
Most atheists do not define themselves by the absence of belief, but on how they approach the world. Maybe they are scientists who see the utility of the scientific method for figuring out how the world and people work. Maybe they are also secular humanists for whom rationality and doing good are of prime importance. And yes, some atheists are angry atheists like some deists are angry as well. It is hard to be part of a small minority, to know that many people think that there is something wrong with you, that you could fix that wrong by just believing. But you cannot just manufacture faith.
Now sometimes religious people say that the atheists' religion is the scientific method, but I think is a non-sequitur. The only reason that I rely on science is that it works. It is replicable. It is a process that gives helpful answers and through time it has built on itself. It isn't a matter of faith that the atheist relies on science, it is a matter of what works best to make the world understandable. Does it work best to carbon date a bone as being millions of years old or to rely on a biblical analysis that the world is 6000 years old? Does it work best to say that life developed through evolution, based upon what we know about genetics and what we find in fossil records, or does it work best to rely on one of many creation stories as literally true?
I hope this does not come across as confrontational, but given how few admitted atheists there are in the US it is good to share where they might be coming from.
.
