Christians, and other theists try very hard to claim that atheism is just like their religions, a worldview, and how dare we criticize them since we are the same. Unfortunately for them, that never works out. I found this argument from Tom Dallis and responded to it. Since many christians are loathe to allow atheist responses to be posted, here it is below. Nothing much new. (no memes at the end)
Atheism is the conclusion that a god or gods doesn’t exist.
No evidence for “transcendence”. But do show some if you have it. No god is needed for the cosmological argument, and any theist can use it and has. Why do you deny that other gods than yours is the creator?
Christian, or any religioius morality, is demonstrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can’t show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn’t have to follow these supposedly “objective” morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little moreo than might equals right
No evidence for your god and theists themselves can’t agree on what meaning or purpose their imaginary friends give them. Like morality, that is also subjective, just like every other humans. Humans give each other and themselves meaning.
Funny how ” intuition, revelation, or subjective experience” are deemed worthless by every christian when it comes to them supporting the claims of other religions. How convenient for you. There’s a reason why humans don’t accept these things as “knowledge” since they can’t be shown to be valid, and you all agree with that as long as it isn’t your god involved.
it is demonstrable that religious institutions and beliefs are harmful. That is not an assumption. Curious how christians agree that religious beliefs and institutions are harmful as long as it isn’t theirs being examined.
No evidence of an afterlife and no evidence of any “soul”.
Human progress is demonstratable. ” human dignity and the possibility of ultimate progress in a universe that lacks inherent purpose.” funny how your religion doesn’t support human dignity with a god that commits genocide. And again, no god needed for there to be purpose and meaning. Your arguments fail since they are built on an assumption, a god yuo can’t show exists at all.
Atheists do not all belong to atheist organizations. They have vastly different ideas about humanity, economics, law, morality, etc. So your claims of “community” fail. Still no one “worldview”.
“Atheism is not merely the absence of belief in God but an active framework for interpreting reality, morality, meaning, and human purpose. It is a worldview with its own set of assumptions, beliefs, and implications that shape how individuals engage with the world. Recognizing atheism as a belief system allows for a more accurate and balanced discussion of its claims, challenges, and consequences. Denying atheism as anything other than its own worldview embraces a faulty logic and blindly follows its own rhetoric. At which point, it acts as a cult. “
ROFL. Oh dear. It is not a worldview. Atheism is a position on one topic. And curious how christians, and most, if not all other theists, are atheists too since you all are certain no other gods but yours exist. Does that mean you have an “atheistic worldview”? I suspect you would argue not.
Christains and other theists love to try to claim that “but but you are the same as us” when we aren’t. Curious how your religions are literally cults, and atheism is not.
Club Schadenfreude 
Atheism is not a worldview. But I think that skepticism might qualify as a worldview, and I definitely hold to that. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. My confidence in the truth of a claim is proportionate to the amount and strength of the evidence supporting it. Atheism is simply one of the conclusions that I have arrived at from following this approach.
LikeLike
No, Skepticism is a means of reaching a world view, in contrast to the other means of reaching a world view which is Faith.
LikeLike
Once one concludes that no deity or god exits, other things, like religion(s), heaven or hell, life after death, cause and effect, creationism, and so become secondary rejections or change. Many, if not most, believers conclude for god through (because of) religion, others through some sort of logic: “there MUST be something.”
You are right, religion (or pick a cult) by it’s nature promotes some kind of “world view.” My world view could be more influenced by years of religion (society and culture), and likely is (Roman Catholic/Christian). Same for my moral compass and other internal philosophies. But my atheism tells me nothing. I conclude on my own that religion is a bad thing. Admittedly, I am influenced by other atheists in that conclusion, but so what?
Someone once asked me what I DO believe (they thought the knew what I did NOT believe, but they were not exactly correct). When I told them what I DO believe (things like all life is connected, cruelty is wrong/bad/evil, love is wonderful but does not concur all, and much more), they missed my point even thought they agreed with over 90% of what I said.
We atheists simply conclude that there is no god. After that, any one of us could write a book. But no two books would be exactly alike.
LikeLike
Have you watched Heretic yet? You’re going to LOVE it!
LikeLike
the movie about the mormons and hugh grant? I’m not too fond of psychologial horror but I’ll have to try it out. I know my husband would like it. Have you ever seen Mr. Frost, with Jeff Goldblum?
LikeLike
Thanks for visiting my post. Read this engaging post.
I agree with: ‘No evidence of an afterlife and no evidence of any “soul”.’
I’m from India. The ancient systems and books we value use the method of “neti, neti”, i.e. “that it’s not”, instead of defining the soul. Although, there are a few, here in India, who promise to help one experience the presence of soul. I asked few of them to help me experience its presence. Still waiting for the possibility of one such experience. Until I experience it, can’t accept its existence even when the whole tradition says so.
I disagree with: “Atheism is the conclusion that a god or gods doesn’t exist.”
When the term ‘conclusion’ is used, some kind of logic is expected, using steps and following a method leading to the conclusion. Atheism stands in opposition to Theism and both are essentially beliefs.
LikeLike
there is quite a bit of logic in being an atheist: no evdience means no reason to believe in a claim. If I said fairies didn’t exist since there is no evidence for them, do you find that a logical argument?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can 100% agree with, ‘there is quite a bit of logic in being an atheist,’ only when that logic is demonstrated to me. I say this despite being an atheist.
I fully agree with, ‘no evidence means no reason to believe in a claim,’ but the process of looking for such evidences should be scientific and available for examination and repetition by others too.
The statement: ‘If I said fairies didn’t exist since there is no evidence for them, do you find that a logical argument?’ has syntactical inconsistency. The claim of fairies’ existence is in past tense but the absence of their evidence is in present tense.
So, let me rephrase it as: ‘‘If I said fairies don’t exist since there is no evidence for them, do you find that a logical argument?’’. Yes, I agree with this one, provided, the process of analysis is available for inspection and possible refutation.
LikeLike
and since it is available?
LikeLike