What is it about being an atheist that you think needs reinforcing?
Are you talking about how you can debate or defend your atheism?

What is it about being an atheist that you think needs reinforcing? — DingoJones

My ability to defend against arguments for theism. Any argument for theism, or creationism for that matter, is an indirect attack on atheism.

Are you talking about how you can debate or defend your atheism? — DingoJones

Not necessarily doing the debate. I sometimes passively come across anti-atheistic information, such as on websites, and I don't always have an answer.

I might be blind or stupid but I never came across an argument for theism (:

I think the best 'defense' against mysticism is twofold. The first is an understanding of the patterns of reason and emotion that lead to it, the second is a cultivated indifference to any questions formulated in those terms. To reject god, reject theological thinking.

Well atheism doesnt need to be proven, its simply the position of not having believe in a god. You dont really need to defend that. When a theist tries to tell you what you believe because you are an atheist, let them know that. Anything any atheist believes over and above that is not atheism but something else. An example is if you hate religion and think its evil, then you are an anti-theist. So don’t let a theist strawman you out of the gate.
Next, you should read up on the burden of proof. Theists will make all kinds of moves to shift the burden of proof to you, but you aren’t making a claim they are. Your position as an atheist is that you have never been convinced of any theistic arguments. Its up to them to convince you.
Once you do that, then you will have to deal with the specifics of what they believe in why.
Is there a specific argument you are encountering?

All sounds good.

Is there a specific argument you are encountering? — DingoJones

All sorts. I don't remember them on the top of my head. I recall a bad experience: I let it slip to a religious person that I don't believe in god, and he, and his friend who joined in, started rapid firing arguments for why there must be a god. I didn't have much time to think about, let alone understand, what they were saying. It was awful. From then on, I avoided telling people about my beliefs. I don't want to be like that. I want to be proud of my beliefs.

Blah, blah, blah. It says in the Bible ….

Humans wrote the Bible.

But they were divinely inspired by God.

Humans say they were inspired by God.

Religious prophets can be trusted.

…

(More another time.)

I recommend The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillihunty. Youtube some clips and see if that helps articulate yourself. I dont think you need to be proud to be an atheist, but you shouldnt be ashamed or shy about them.

Human religious prophets say they can be trusted.

God speaks through them.

So you say, as a human. 'Just saying' isn't enough.

The Bible is the Word of God. It's all there, straight out.

Then how come the Geneses, both of them, are so wrong as to be the polar opposite of what we've found through evolutionary science? And also wrong that the Earth is fixed in space and that the animal line was created separately?

Humans were made in modern form, as is, by God only a few thousand years ago. God let the Earth go loose later. Animals are for our domination.

We have seen the geological strata and have inspected the layers.

Don't you note that they aren't straight up, but titled, with some even upside down?

Oh, so all the little microbes are really at the top, as the more recent?

Hubba, hubbada, hubba.

We have several other ways of measuring.

Carbon 14 dating doesn't work.

I see that you are a young earth follower of creation science. Can you show God directly, such that we would have no doubt and so then we'd all have to become believers?

God and his realm are invisible, but it's all true.

Does not even your own religious definition of 'faith' honestly indicate that it is of hopes and wishes for the unknown unshown being a God?

Well, I suppose.

So, all you have is a 'maybe'!

Yes.

So, then, you can't honestly preach and teach it as truth and fact, such as even now in trying to convert me, not to mention getting it into public schools.

Good-bye.

Get lost!

My ability to defend against arguments for theism. Any argument for theism, or creationism for that matter, is an indirect attack on atheism. — Purple Pond

Why not just ignore the debate? Then there's no attack, no need to defend. Or, really, it's the perfect defense.

All sorts. I don't remember them on the top of my head. I recall a bad experience: I let it slip to a religious person that I don't believe in god, and he, and his friend who joined in, started rapid firing arguments for why there must be a god. I didn't have much time to think about, let alone understand, what they were saying. It was awful. From then on, I avoided telling people about my beliefs. I don't want to be like that. I want to be proud of my beliefs. — Purple Pond

You could just say it's not a conversatoin your interested in. Then ask them about their jobs or families or hobbies.

'old-fashioned atheists' — Purple Pond

Proclaiming 'no God' as true for sure fails just as much as proclaiming 'God' as true for sure because neither can be shown to be fact; so, the full-blown "old-fashioned atheist" is just as doomed as the religious preacher saying things as if they were true.

Dawkins admits that 'God' has a one in a quadrillion chance of being; so, I guess he is 'new-fashioned', as honest. He weighs the probabilities.

There's Secular Humanism. I was in the Secular Humanists way back when I went to college for the first time around. It was pretty alright.

I’ve abandoned the label “atheist”, personally. I no longer pretend to be nor define myself as being without something that doesn’t exist anyways. Now I feel I can find wisdom in theistic stories without getting hung up on the primitive metaphysics.

Why I Am Not A Christian Bertrand Russell

Logical possibility alone does not warrant belief in and/or that 'X' exists and/or is true. Queerly enough, many folk hereabouts and elsewhere have a penchant for calling a logically possible statement a 'logical truth' as a result of also being the conclusion of a valid argument/syllogism. That is a misnomer.

Logical truth is a measure of coherence. Coherence is insufficient/inadequate for truth. A belief can be both coherent and false. Thus, it only follows that that which is often called a 'logical truth' can be false. Truth cannot be false.

God IS logical possibility alone.

There are much better stories, also logically possible but without all the other well-rehearsed cognitive issues.

While there may be little solid ground upon which to base a belief in God, it does not always follow that a belief in God is not good or necessary for doing good. In some cases, with some people, it is.

A better atheist, on my view, has broadened the scope of their critical thinking beyond connecting good to religion. There is no need for the God of Abraham for good things to happen and/or have happened.

What is one's default setting regarding how you treat other people, specifically those who are remarkably different in appearance and/or worldview?

something with some spiritual depth would be beneficial. I mean, NA basically defined itself on what is isn't. But what does it have to put in its place? What is a basis for ethics, right action, goal setting, and so on? The usual answer usually defaults to making a better living, the myth of progress, or variations on 'seeking pleasure/avoiding pain'.

Goodwill towards all. Always be helpful.

Spiritual depth is determined solely by and directly upon one's belief in the spiritual or that the spiritual.

Spirit, on my view, is best put in terms of personality and/or character.

I reject disembodied cognition.

Both good spirited and mean spirited people still roam the earth.

We determine what's good. It's not all that complicated. We determine how best to treat one another. In such conversations it all(one's actual moral/ethical compass) comes out in the wash(so to speak).

We determine what's good. It's not all that complicated. We determine how best to treat one another. In such conversations it(one's actual moral/ethical compass) all comes out in the wash(so to speak). — creativesoul

The collective “we” or each individual? If you mean each individual, then I don’t see how you can separate the individual from the whole. None of us live in a vacuum. The problem isn’t atheism or theism. The problem is fundamentalism.

We determine what's good. It's not all that complicated. We determine how best to treat one another. In such conversations it(one's actual moral/ethical compass) all comes out in the wash(so to speak).
— creativesoul

The collective “we” or each individual? — Noah Te Stroete

I meant "we", as in... humans.

If you mean each individual, then I don’t see how you can separate the individual from the whole. None of us live in a vacuum. The problem isn’t atheism or theism. The problem is fundamentalism.

Not sure what counts - on your view - as being a case thereof...

Does having strong conviction in certain core tenets/beliefs qualify?

Does having strong conviction in certain core tenets/beliefs qualify? — creativesoul

Strong conviction in anything that encroaches on the freedom of others should be avoided and is fundamentalism.

Strong conviction in anything that encroaches on the freedom of others should be avoided and is fundamentalism. — Noah Te Stroete

You sure about that?

:brow:

When you try to run others’ lives by telling them what to believe or think, then yes.

How strongly do you believe that?

Not all certainty is to be avoided. One is always certain about some stuff. Otherwise, they are mad.

Some folk would like to be free enough to kill you. I say encroach...

You make a good point. However, the OP was about atheism, no?