Replies

Atheism isn’t a religious faith any more than not playing basketball is a sport.

False analogy. I will just copy and paste a AI (https://www.perplexity.ai/) reply, which also saves me typing in responding to troll as yourself:

The objection "Atheism isn't a religious faith any more than not playing basketball is a sport" is a false analogy for several reasons:

Mischaracterization of atheism: Atheism is not merely the absence of belief, but often involves active rejection of theistic claims based on evidence and reasoning 4 9

. Unlike "not playing basketball," which is passive, many atheists engage in critical thinking and analysis of religious claims.
Differing levels of engagement: While not playing basketball requires no effort or thought, atheism often involves consideration of philosophical and scientific arguments 4
. Many atheists actively study and debate these topics, making it more akin to playing a different sport rather than not playing at all. Implications and worldview: Atheism, unlike not playing basketball, has significant implications for one's worldview and understanding of reality 5
. It influences moral, ethical, and existential perspectives, which "not playing basketball" does not.
Community and identity: Many atheists form communities, engage in discussions, and consider their atheism an important part of their identity 8 . This level of involvement is not comparable to simply not participating in a sport.
Intellectual position: Atheism is an intellectual stance on the question of God's existence, requiring consideration of evidence and arguments 3 . Not playing basketball does not involve any intellectual position on the nature of sports or reality.

In conclusion, while atheism may not be a "religious faith" in the traditional sense, it is a more complex and engaged position than the analogy suggests. The comparison to "not playing basketball" oversimplifies the nature of atheism and fails to capture its intellectual and philosophical dimensions.

Atheism isn’t a religious faith any more than not playing basketball is a sport.

That is indeed a false analogy.

Atheism is an active belief system, unlike agnosticism.

Agnosticism is understandable, but atheism is unintelligible because it is a belief system based on a universal negative (God does not exist). It is impossible to prove such a profound negative.

Here's what ChatGPT had to say about this:

Atheism, as an active belief system asserting that God does not exist, faces significant philosophical and epistemological challenges. Unlike agnosticism, which reflects uncertainty, atheism must grapple with the difficulty of proving a negative—a virtually impossible task requiring exhaustive knowledge of all reality. Atheists often attempt to address this by arguing probabilistically, citing the absence of empirical evidence for God and naturalistic explanations for phenomena.
However, the old lawyer’s axiom, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” highlights that the lack of evidence for God may merely reflect the limitations of human perception and empirical methods, particularly if God exists as a transcendent being beyond material detection.
Theists counter that the absence of evidence does not invalidate their claims, especially when supported by philosophical arguments, historical claims, and personal experiences. They also argue that certain phenomena, such as the fine-tuning of the universe or the existence of objective morality, are better explained by a divine creator than by atheistic alternatives.
In comparing probabilities, theism, as articulated in traditions like Christianity and Judaism, offers a comprehensive explanatory framework for the universe, morality, and human purpose, while atheism struggles to provide equivalent depth. Ultimately, atheism’s reliance on negative assertions and limited explanatory power underscores its challenges, making theistic worldviews more compelling and philosophically grounded.