"First, let's discuss one of my favorite subjects--semantics. It would seem that we live in an age of word manipulation. Perhaps this has always been so...
Many logical fallacies depend on the straw man of distorted definition. This can be seen on many internet threads pertaining to religious and political themes (not to mention News networks). Before one tackles a certain issue or makes claims upon such, it behooves one to be clear on just exactly WHAT they mean when they use a certain term. To that end, let's define some notably pliable and problematic words...
For this discussion I define the term 'Christian' as it is commonly (if rather loosely) understood and used in American Evangelical and Protestant world. "One who claims to believe that Jesus was/is God incarnate and who believes in a penal/substitutionary atonement theological (and soteriological) view." There are several a priori and post hoc beliefs involved with that definition but they tend to be self evident. I believe this to be a misleading and false definition of true Christianity but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
Now when it comes to the term "atheist" there is far more confusion and confabulation than in regards to something as broad and murky as "Christian". Too often, it's the religious folk who decide that THEY are the ones who get to define exactly what an atheist "is" or believes. A sneaky backdoor to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, as it were. This obfuscation and redefining to suits one purpose has deep roots in mankind's psyche--and not just in the religious realm.
To be fair and honest one only needs to ask true atheists how they define themselves. Here is the American Atheists Association definition:
--------------------- What Is Atheism? No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
--------------------
For a further in depth look at the differences between lack of belief, disbelief and denial here is a short lesson...
Where am I going with all of this and how does it pertain to the title? Simple.
There is no concrete, verifiable proof of gods/God. Period. (Please don't even start with the circular 'nature' argument.) Without that proof all you are left with is, indeed, faith. And, to head you off at the pass, this isn't an attack on faith. There's nothing inherently wrong with faith itself (its by-products can be another story). The problem is with those 'believers' who talk out of one side of their mouth about the importance of faith and then state that said faith is 'fact' and can be proven. THAT'S where the belief stops and the Bullschit starts...
I can count on one hand (with leftovers) the Christians who have the moral, intellectual and spiritual honesty to say, "I choose to believe this not because of facts or proof but because I want to'. And, again, let me stress...that's ok. However, it leads to at least two questions for me..
One, because it is a matter of pure 'faith' (belief without or in the face of facts) how do you regard your version as any better or 'truer' than another's?
Two, (and this is the big, important one for me) how does your 'faith' then make you a better person? Because most Religious people I've met end up using their beliefs to judge others and make themselves feel superior--sometimes 'innocently' and often maliciously.
In the end, both atheists and Christians have the same evidence for God/gods...none. The Christian chooses to believe anyway and tries to convince you it's fact. The atheists chooses no belief and doesn't try to convince you of anything.
Who's more honest?"
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
