Atheism requires a secular basis for morality, since a theistic code has no meaning for an atheist. Generally, most Western atheists are exposed to, and comply with out of habit, moral codes derived from religious sources. However, there is a vulnerability to prefer secular establishment, such as a government, to decree and impose moral codes. That is why we tend to find many with atheistic beliefs followers of Marxism or other similar authoritarian philosophies.

Objectivism is one system of beliefs that offers a better alternative for those who espouse atheism. It neither depends on myth nor doctrine, and is sound logically, with positive results for those that follow its precepts. Objectivists who are atheists tend not to be hostile to religion, but indifferent to it.

As one with a science background, and a student of human religious beliefs, I find myself in the Deist camp (which is sort of "almost agnostic"). I think I was influenced by Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" at an early age, and determined not to be affected by the trappings of organized religion. Objectivism seemed a natural course for me, as it's focused on the individual and his actions, much like Deists, who believe we are entirely responsible for improving life (if you want a miracle, get busy and make it happen).

Rand says there are two sides, one is right and one is wrong. One is good and one is evil. By not choosing good, which includes making no choice, a person is supporting evil.

So, whats the difference between Atheists and an Agnostic?

Atheist: I would not believe in God, if I met him as I was dying, and he offered m salvation... Because that is just my mind playing tricks on me as I fade into nothingness.

Agnostic: I will believe in God when I see him! [But will God Believe in YOU when you need him?]

Religious: I accept God because I can't know everything, and the complexity and simplicity of nature makes that easier, and this will help me be a better person!

Zealot: I will sacrifice ALL my pleasures today, so that I get an infinite return on that investment in the future, when I am with God. [Being Dead is apparently better than truly being Alive]

==
Where I struggled as a child... Every Religion basically says "they are right, and the others are wrong and lead to damnation".
Well then, YOUR PARENTS choose your damnation 99% of the time, because most people don't change.
Furthermore, the MAJORITY of people are not of the same religion, so they are damned.
What does it matter?

Well... It's your journey, your soul, and your life. If it helps you be a better person, and support people who need it, then it is good.
If it makes you a murderer, then I think we can live without it (and you, for that matter)

More accurately, atheism is non-belief in belief.

As for Socrates, to claim to know that you don't know is still a form of knowledge. What these dudes really mean is that because we don't know everything (God's alleged omniscience), therefore we don't know anything. That is asserting that A is not A. It is not just a paradox but a blatant contradiction. It is an attempt to smuggle in a defense of irrational premises and the entire fraudulent belief system built on them. Rand: "Check your premises." Aristotle: "A is A."

Agreed!

A-theism: lack of (or without) belief. This describes most of the atheists I know, including myself, and I know a lot. These atheists will be willing to change their minds if provided with actual evidence to the contrary, which makes them both atheist (lacking in belief) and agnostic (admitting that they don't know). (IOW, mshupe, we do not say "I know God does not exist.")

To be sure, there are those who describe themselves as atheist, but do have a positive belief that there is no god, as you mentioned. There is a big difference. It seems to me that these "atheists" are believers in a different religion. So it's probably not a great idea to try to speak for all atheists by stating their definition of atheism, especially if you aren't one. If you are, then you certainly should define which type of atheist you are, to avoid confusion.

So what do you say to this physicist who states "Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against."

Further "Science can give answers to certain questions, up to a point. This has been known for a very long time in philosophy, it's called the problem of the first cause: we get stuck."

I'm also wondering where you get the notion that "the idea of the supernatural violates the law of identity".

Objectivism states that god does not exist, because the idea of the supernatural violates the law of identity.
In other words, the fact that god doesn't exist is self evident.
That's all there is to it.
To believe in god, is to reject reason from the very base of the hierarchy of knowledge, so it will corrupt everything that follows.

Seems to be anti-objective to say there is definitely not a "causation to existence".

I get the confusion and rejection of the idea of a "God"...many things and ideas were called God, not to mention the physical creatures (Nephilim) the ancients thought were Gods or Sons of Gods.

That is why I sick with "Causation"...that represents the highest reality as opposed to an entity that may have taken part in our creation.

Would you elaborate on what you mean?

It is a bit confusing the way you described it.

I see it the same way.

Many atheists are antagonistic to the possibility of the existence of a deity. They cease to be agnostics when they do that, I agree. But as the subject of the author points out, it is an impossible position. "Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against." I agree with this physicist in saying that it is a more rational stance to hold to agnosticism than to atheism.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods.

Socrates said he knows that he doesn't know. That is agnosticism not atheism.

I lost you about half-way through right after you said "that's why she claims to be an atheist."

Many take the hard-line stance of pure atheism (a denial of any possibility of the existence of God) being the only doctrine acceptable to the Objectivist. I really appreciate his line "I'll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited." That to me says that he is willing to check his prejudices and biases at the door and investigate whatever comes his way - even if it challenges his preconceptions. To me, that is what an Objectivist should advocate: to always be willing to revisit and check one's assumptions. One can not broaden one's horizons if one has blinders on.