I can’t speak for 100 atheists, but I would respond, “Define God”.
To the OP, to clarify a little what others have said above, there are “man on the street” definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism:
<ManOnTheStreet>
Atheism = Someone who is certain that there are no Gods
Agnostic = Someone who views God’s existence or non-existence as roughly of equal probability
</ManOnTheStreet>
These definitions are annoying from a skeptic’s POV, because so many of us don’t fit under these labels.
Atheism as defined above is more accurately Strong or Positive Atheism, and it’s actually a pretty rare position. Most famous atheists, e.g. Dawkins are “weak” atheists, and I’d say the vast majority of atheists are weak.
As for the 50:50’ers: those that put god’s existence and non-existence as equally likely…this group includes Theists, Atheists, Apatheists and true Agnostics depending on the exact position.
But generally they aren’t people who’ve given it a great deal of thought…I’ve yet to hear an argument defending the position, just claims of being “open-minded”.
I think the confusion here is basically in the sentence. We don’t believe, therefore we have a non-belief system.
Thing is, there’s no system to not believing. I tend to profess that reading the bible is the surest way to lead someone towards not believing or at least not worshipping. On atheist sites, I am disagreed with this notion plenty of times. Some think examining history of religions is a better way, some think it’s only peer pressure to believe. Some think that simply banning the bible would be best, to which I fully disagree with.
There’s no “system” to our disbelief. There’s no oaths, prayers, or set ways of education to become an atheist.
However, I will admit that I do not wait to be asked about religion before I profess how stupid religion is. Maybe that makes me an evangelical atheist. 
No, it’s just that my viewpoint in this is clearly the right one, and the people who disagree are constantly trying to force their delusions on the world no matter how much suffering, tyranny and death are involved.
For one, the passage of the law forbidding same sex marriage here in California. Believers push their beliefs onto others all the time; it isn’t some obscure phenomena like you seem determined to pretend that it is.
No. Faith is never anything but an error. It is the substitution of fantasy for evidence and reason. It is the flat denial of reality.
This definition of “faith” is functionally useless in this context. “Faith” in the science method is based on the fact that science has produced myriad tangible results. “Faith” in religion is based on misapprehensions, delusions, or simply nothing. Using the same word to describe both feelings doesn’t make any sense.
“Confidence” is a better descriptor of how we regard science and logic. We can be confidence in those methods because it’s easy to point at tangible, concrete results.
Then why the hell did you just tell us what you believe?
Then what am I buying with my four equal payments of $29.95?
I thought I was buying a franchising opportunity!
Next I suppose you’ll tell me that my certificate saying I’m a semi-finalist in the Atheist Essayist competition is all lies too. :mad:
Wait, wait, wait, I think I know what the problem is. I can solve this problem right now, and we’ll never have another thread on the subject.
Unlike Christians, communists, Stalinists, Muslims, etc., saying someone is an atheist actually tells you very little about that person. All it says it that person lacks belief in God or gods. There is nothing else at all that goes with it, no dogma, no revelations, nothing.
You can be an atheist communist or an atheist capitalist, even an atheist socialist or an atheist libertarian. You can be an atheist monarchist or anarchist. You can be an atheist Democrat or atheist Republican. Whereas communist, capitalist, Christian, or Muslim comes with other possible assumptions (state control of capital, market control of capital, Jesus is savior or just a prophet), the atheist label doesn’t convey any further information. You can even be an atheist and believe in astrology, spiritualism, even souls I suppose. You can reject evolution and be an atheist. You can be agnostic and be atheist (one doesn’t think you can really know, but you don’t believe – for that matter, you can be agnostic and be a theist).
So, you’ll never figure out that one thing (other than a lack of belief in God or gods) that will also define an atheist – there’s only one thing that they all have in common. A-theism, without god.
So, happily, this thread can now be closed and we’ll never have to discuss it again. Glad I’ve cleared that up!
DOH! :smack: Sorry about starting that pyramid scheme.
A shrugnostic.
Ohh… a fellow Ignostic. 
/wave
And while I too cannot speak for anyone but myself I rather suspect that were Cagey Drifter to ask 100 atheists “Is there a God?” the number of answers would exceed 1. It might even exceed 100. 
First I didn’t describe my beliefs there, or try to justify or rationalize them, or claim to have a superior belief. I don’t mind a person saying they are Catholic or Atheist, just having them try to convince me that they are right and I am wrong.
Second, I thought the posters I was responding to were knee-jerk reacting based on their belief that I was a theist, and might change their tone and stop acting like non-religious fanatics by revealing that.
Third, I was inspired to do so by the lack of a deity;)
Hang on, hang on… let me see if I’ve understood: the atheist label conveys no additional information whereas the (for example) Christian label conveys additional but possibly conflicting information? 
Clear as crystal… no wait… what’s the brown semi-liquid dirt stuff… that’s not crystal is it? 
I just feel like, fuck spending time going around actively not believing in every yahoo’s flimsy, every-changing vague idea of god. That’s exhausting. I need a whole system of non-belief for each and every schmuck’s own personal savior? No. You define what you think your own god is, and I will let you know that I’m not buying it.
:rolleyes: Not this bullshit again!
Best post in the thread.
mmm
Accusations of proselytizing and comparisons to Hitler, Stalin and Mao-all the usual b.s. that pops up when atheism is questioned.
I reject your reality and substitute my own:p*
*with apologies to Adam Savage
Nobody questioned atheism, the proselytizing came from atheists, and atheists insisted that Stalin, Hitler and Mao weren’t atheists. Bullshit indeed.
No, we’ve insisted that their atheism was irrelevant. They were motivated by Communism, not atheism.