Why? How? wrote:You cannot prove or disprove God.
Well, now -- I think that depends on whether the god involved is well and clearly defined. I'd agree with you that in most cases, the god-ideas people have are so fuzzy and/or incoherent that they obviously defy any possibility of proof or disproof. But that is not to say someone couldn't be a little more precise. Many have tried. The results have not been promising for those who want both a definitive and rational answer.
It's all a matter of faith.
Yet in Western society we see a long, detailed history of theologians, scholastics and others attempting to find some way to "prove" the existence of "God" -- why do you suppose that is?
Then since God can't be disproved the wouldn't Atheism be a matter of faith to? Or would that be denial?
My own atheism is just a matter of introspection. When I ask myself, "Hey, Self! Do you believe in any of these gods people talk about?" -- the answer is no. Thus, I'm an atheist by the time-honored definition of the word, the intersection of how all atheists are alike. Whatever else atheists may think or believe or propose or disbelieve or intuit or whatever, not a single one has a theistic god-belief. That's the central, common feature for atheism. That's all.
In its broadest and most traditional usage as a self-identification by thinkers throughout history, atheism is simply not having a belief in the existence of any god. In other words, if the question is "Do you believe in some god?" then a yes answer means you fall under the category of "theist" (which contains a vast multitude of positions), and a no answer means you fall under the category of "atheist" (which likewise contains a vast multitude of positions). The basic dichotomy between theism and atheism is only the presence or absence of a belief in the actual existence of god(s). Whether or not this dichotomy is really so important is another question altogether.
Some atheists, I suppose, may take a position of faith; there's nothing in the definition of atheism that makes this impossible. However, there's nothing about atheism to make it necessary, either. To the best of my knowledge, I've never personally encountered a faith-based atheist myself. Most are show-me-the-evidence atheists. You know, the ones who explain that if you have no support for the idea that a god exists that can stand up to critical examination (and blind faith doesn't really impress anyone who doesn't already share it), then you have failed to convince them that theism is more than wishful thinking, self-delusion or make believe.
When you pick a particular atheist, though, ah! That's when it gets interesting again. For example, did you know that the Dalai Lama says the existence of a transcendental creator-god is not only
false, but completely
impossible according to the central tenets of Buddhism? Would you call that a matter of faith?