I've heard all over the news utterances of an atheist having no firm belief in anything. An atheist, to a religious man, is one who has dangerous ethical ideas and, at the same time, none at all (a contradiction). He is a man who believes in unbelief as a dogma. These are obsolete arguments.
Just as obsolete as the argument that an atheist commits the dogma of non-belief as opposed to the Skepticism he wants to represent. Let me specify what I believe in hopes of dissuading the religious a bit. It pains me to call my reasoning, “belief,” but I feel it must be done in order to better relate to the religious. Perhaps, through this, I can demonstrate the conditions of my “beliefs” which are natural, benign, subject to change and much more philosophically sound than any type of religious belief under the sun. I would rather call my beliefs sparks of reason and reactions to falsity and fraudulence, but I am relating myself to the religious. Let it not be misconstrued.
If we compare the beliefs of atheists and religious people, atheism holds itself better than deism for the reason that it is farther away from dogma than its counterpart. An atheist believes in the possibility and probability of a god not existing just as he believes in the possibility and probability of God existing. Generally speaking, he believes in possibility. A religious man does not believe in the possibility of God not existing, just as he believes in the non-possibility of God existing (if god exists, why bother with possibilities?). No possibility, for whatever question exists, means absolute certainty based on personal utility or faith. It's unavoidable.
A person will, in all cases, choose to believe what is in his or her best interest or what is emotionally sound. Not infrequently, a similar person will choose what's best as told by some flakey old man in a black jump-suit. Yes, a priest. It's insulting here for the religious man to compare his beliefs with an atheist. An atheist's beliefs are not based on authority, nor are they counterintuitive. They are solely the products of reason. It's precisely why atheism is subject to better ethics. The atheist rationalizes and gives weight to all possibilities, and gives possibility, at least, a chance. How often do we witness a religious man say he has faith in his actions and it's consequences without rationalizing the possibility of either because he believes in God? It's very easy and quite often the case.
If we look closely at dogmas of the religious and the atheist, the religious man doubts, unremittingly, in non-existence and falls victim to the unbelief he uses against the dogma of the atheist's non-belief in a god. This is an argument used over and over against the atheist. The religious man says, you are just like me, you believe in no god just as I believe in god. This is false and, at the same time, self sacrificing. Atheism is much more a matter of choice than belief.
The atheist chooses to believe that there is no god because he finds no good reason for it. He chooses carefully at the discretion of the multivariate conditions of knowledge and general existence theory. He does not simply believe in god's non-existence, he rationalizes it. The religious man submits to the will of God. He chooses to believe without admitting any evidence and without any of the considerations of skepticism when he argues for God. He then uses skepticism-the Atheist's broad sword-against him with his weak little arms of faith, and ends up hurting himself more than he does the Atheist.
Now, it's apparent (and how is it not?) that an atheist believes in possibility, while the religious man does not. The religious man simply has faith in the existence of God without the notion of possibility. Atheism trumpets the possibility and makes it a virtue to choose what is most reasonable. Precisely for these reasons, atheism holds itself better than religion in matters of moral ethics as well as philosophical soundness and makes it much less dogmatic than religion.
