Everyone has a philosophy of life, whether explicitly formulated or absorbed by default from other influences, or some combination. All atheists therefore also have a "world view", but it isn't atheism because "all it takes to be an atheist is not to believe in a god", which isn't a philosophical belief in anything, only one kind of belief to not have. Atheists hold many different kinds of philosophies which can having nothing essential in common, but they do have philosophies.

Denying there is a god is meaningless until the term is defined. Most attempts are invalid, meaningless and contradictory and are therefore epistemologically safely denied outright as an impossible hodgepodge of contradictions that cannot exist. A characterization or it's alleged possibility that is imaged but not otherwise self-contradictory, yet still without evidence, is rationally to be dismissed out of hand as unworthy of further discussion as if cognitively it has never been said, not an "agnostic possibility" to be taken seriously. Both kinds of rejection of the belief are atheist, with the second broader.

Atheism is non belief in any god, not a rejection of all but one. It is true that religionists reject belief in gods other than their own, making them "atheists" about other gods (as you describe Dawkin's argument), but not necessarily for the same reasons as a rational rejection. If they understood the rational reasons for atheism (and consistently applied it) they would not believe in any of them. Instead they believe in a favored fantasy on faith and reject the rest as part of the house of cards, not necessarily out of any comprehension. And that kind of "thinking" is "different".

Christians do think the same as rational atheists in the sense of how biologically the brain operates and the senses on which it relies -- all humans do -- but not in how they use it epistemologically so their thinking is not the same. The epistemology and psychology of their thinking is Platonistic as opposed to Aristotelian reason. They add fanasy as a tool of cognition. Their mental constructs of higher level abstractions are fantasies accepted on feeling, confusing abstract knowledge of reality with the mental capacity of projecting cartoons -- re-recombining in the imagination some characteristics found in reality with others that are impossible.

we love you, too, philosophercat!!! -- j

p.s. who is AG?
.

I have a working theory of the effect of gabapentin on the peripheral
neuropathy in my feet, yet it is an unknown area of knowledge for me
since I am not a physician. . it's fun doing theories about people
whom I see at Sam's, but do not know. . this is a common adventure,
don't you think? -- j
.

well, OK;;; I use the word mystery to identify things which are knowable,
yet currently unknown. . like gamma-ray-bursts from the stars -- we're
still working on that. . the unknown, for me, seems to make sense
as the knowable, just not-yet. -- j
.

could we not say that a person is the sum of his or her character and
"soul," the unknown deep individual identity unique in that person? -- j
.

The difference is not the "treatment of death". This is about life, not death. Ayn Rand's philosophy is based on how we know about the world through our faculty of reason and how to use it to live on earth. Obsession with fear of facts such as death contributes to belief in the supernatural, it does not justify it. All the theological rationalizations are a house of cards, constructed by faith on an imagined foundation.

I accept contraception as a legitimate choice by the woman, or the man,
since lovemaking is just that -- lovemaking, and sex for conception is
another thing altogether. -- j
.

some of us just simply accept reality and its beautiful, exquisite complexity,
and call the creation of it unexplainable, under the heading "God." . labeling
of the unknown can be arbitrary, yes? -- j
.

might have been a frog egg -- ribbit!!! -- j
.

Yes. . this was one of the reasons for my rejection of church when
I was a kid. . religion is a personal thing, not a church thing. . imho. -- j
.

ummmmm ... I used to have a little idea which I called "dependency theory"
under which I deluded that any being which finds itself fully dependent
on another -- not because of force or coercion -- must accept the host's
decisions about its life. . I was reading a lot of science fiction then.
yet it fueled my ferociously strong desire for INdependence -- to
the maximum extent that I could create it. . maybe the fact that
a zygote or fetus is a human, subordinate to the host mom, is pertinent. -- j
.

The "1)All-powerful, 2)All-knowing, and 3) good" characterization is inherently contradictory, is not a coherent definition of anything, and has tied the theologians themselves into knots since the Dark Ages. It is no more than a wishful thinking posit on faith of a starting point from which to manipulate words in rationalizations cut off from reality, the same mentality that led to endless meaningless arguments over how many angels on the head of a pin (which is how the 'definition' wound up in VetteGuy's philosophy class).

This is an example of a contradictory assertion properly rejected as impossible to exist in addition to rejection of belief in an arbitrary theist assertion as unseriously cognitively worthless.

For those interested in Ayn Rand's philosophical position on this -- which is after all the purpose of this forum -- see the Appendix on the Epistemology workshops in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed, p.148:

Q: what common features of particulars are retained in order to get the concept "God"—

AR: "I would have to refer you to a brief passage about invalid concepts [page 49]. This is precisely one, if not the essential one, of the epistemological objections to the concept "God." It is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with the projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality—such as omnipotence and omniscience.

"Besides, God isn't even supposed to be a concept: he is sui generis, so that nothing relevant to man or the rest of nature is supposed, by the proponents of that viewpoint, to apply to God. A concept has to involve two or more similar concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality."

Ayn Rand was avowedly Aristotelian in that respect, and admired Aquinas' philosophy, but not theology, for the same reason. Augustine was the opposite, a mystic neo-Platonist.

You make appointments for rapture? Better to issue a referral to a specialist somewhere else for his "objective study" of his belief in sacred text. It is sometimes done by psychiatrists.

Love based on the Greek and the way Love is used, encompasses far more than simple emotion.

If I asked you to define Hitler how would you do it?

People are the sum of their character and experiences. Your name is defined by your reputation. How do you define Obama? Only with traits, like Liar, Deceiver, Crook, Tyrant.

When you Think of General Patton, Hero, Arrogant, Tough, Driven, all traits which are and can be partly emotion.

If I asked you to "define" yourself how would you do it?

You missed the second half of that verse.

the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen

But I am guessing you have not read in its entirety what I wrote because you have successfully taken bits and pieces again out of context and knittted together something that suits your fancy.

The egg. But it wasn't a chicken egg ... it was a dinosaur egg.

Right Allosaur?

Just tryin' to lighten the mood ...

Apparently not "intelligible" to your standards of semantic gymnastics. I have no desire to argue it further. I gave you a definition, which I thought you wanted. Blarman gave a clarification, which you also refused to accept. I come to this site for well-reasoned discussions. If I wanted antagonistic rants I could find plenty on facebook.

Happy to. Give god my contact information and have it contact me during normal business hours.

Love is an emotion, a deep feeling of affection. Are you saying god is an emotion or god has the emotion of love?

I am happy to accept an intelligible definition. Do you have one?

Inerrancy of the Bible? There are so many contradictions and impossibilities that the entire book is ludicrous. I thought only a very few people would believe it to be the word of god and the others just try to explain away its blatant errors.

In the sense of how the brain operates, Christians do not think differently than other humans. Atheists do not have a “world view” because all it takes to be an atheist is not to believe in a god. To have a world view requires philosophy and atheism is not a philosophy. Some atheists do deny a god, but I don’t. I say I do not believe in one because nobody has ever provided an understandable definition of the Abrahamic god(s) and you need that before you can adduce evidence.

Besides, as Dawkins points out, my guess is you are an atheist as to all gods except one. I just take it one god further.

All of your post assumes a fact not in evidence: a god. You need to establish the existence of a god before you can proceed with all the other allegations you have.