You may well be right about this, I was mostly referring to the modern day and location of the USA. Perhaps I am apt to overlook conflicts amongst "factions" of which I am not a part.
I'll accept your definition for the sake of argument and for lack of better terminology to express what you are saying.
In that we don't believe in him or in that we don't believe in the entire collective of gods (as in lumping them all up in one without giving one presidency over the other)? I'm just trying to clarify this statement to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
I would like to point out that the only "rule" to be an Atheist is that you don't believe in gods. An Atheist who believes they can talk to Elvis via walkie-talkie while he rides around in an alien spacecraft may very well be ostracized from any sort of Atheist community because most people would agree that he's bonkers, but that doesn't change that he's still technically an Atheist.
I'm not sure about that one. There's been a slew of new ideas about the origins of the universe/multiverse (cyclical, fractal, doughnut shaped, bubble multiverses, flat, the list goes on) and honestly I've just given up trying to pick one until they come up with solid evidence. I'm perfectly content with saying that I don't honestly know. The only thing that I would say most Atheists agree on (I say most because, an origins view is not a prerequisite to being an Atheist) is that at some point there was an event which we refer to as the "big bang".
I would agree, but also point out that most governing senses of morality come from society. Whether or not you agree is one thing, but I personally tend to think of morality as something that develops personally and is influenced by society. I don't really think it has anything to do with their Atheism.
This is unfortunately true. I try to avoid this because I realize that a lot of people actually do require their religion to function as they do. I also think that people should always come to any philosophical, emotional, political, or religious position on their own as part of a personal journey rather than just accepting what someone else has told them. I think a position held with knowledge, especially come to from the outside, is more respectable than a position held from tradition no matter what that position may be.
In some cases perhaps, I would be cautious of applying that distinction to the entire group though, not only because Atheists are such a diverse group, but also because one of the definitions of faith is belief in something without proof. Faith in something in light of facts seems a bit oxymoronic to me, but I can see where "faith in facts" could be as I said earlier, a position held simply because someone became convinced of it, not entered into in knowledge.
I can see where that would be frustrating. I'm not sure you should be saying that we all argue from a tactically religious stand point. I realize many will, and I know I certainly have in the past by the definition that you give above, but I try to refrain from it now in light of new perspective. My main concern now is understanding the religious position, not fighting against it unless a challenge is issued.
Again you are unfortunately correct
I think most people are apt to try and convince others of opinions they themselves hold. Most people tend to think that the world would be better if everyone ascribed to their personal beliefs. After all, if you didn't think you had the best set of beliefs for your situation, then you wouldn't hold them. What people don't realize is that there are many different situations, and in some cases the beliefs you hold simply aren't healthy or beneficial to other parties at this moment in time.
If Atheists believed that they needed to escape from God's moral code then they would believe in God and thus no longer be Atheists. If I believed in God I don't think I would be so stupid as to deny him.
Upvote
0
