The term atheism comes from the Greek atheos (a meaning "without"; theos meaning "god"). An atheist, therefore, is anyone who lacks belief in the existence of god(s). Everyone on earth is either a theist (one who believes in the existence of one or more gods) or an atheist. Contrary to popular belief, even those who profess to be agnostics (from the Greek agnosis: "without knowledge") qualify as a type of atheist, because, although they claim no knowledge of whether or not any gods exist (i.e., they don`t outright deny the possibility), they still lack belief in the existence of at least one god. Any person who cannot truthfully state that he or she believes at least one god exists is, by definition, an atheist. Atheists who have not completely ruled out the possibility that god(s) may exist are variously known as "agnostic atheists", "negative atheists", and (most commonly) "weak atheists." Atheists who are positively certain that no gods exist are variously known as "gnostic atheists", "positive atheists", and (most commonly) "strong atheists".

-J.M. aka singularis

No. Atheism, like theism, is a philosophical position. As stated above, it is a lack of belief in the existence of god(s); no more, no less. There is no set of beliefs, values and/or practices held by all atheists. There are religions such as Buddhism (certain forms of it, at least) that lack god(s), and are therefore atheistic in nature. In contrast, there are religions such as Christianity and Islam that have god(s), and are therefore theistic in nature. In short, atheism, in and of itself, is not a religion and the mere fact that someone is an atheist does not tell you whether or not they practice a religion (or anything else about them, for that matter); it tells you only that they lack belief in the existence of god(s).

-J.M. aka singularis

Individual positions on this one vary. However, because the notion of absolute "nothingness" (i.e., a complete absence of everything, including space-time itself) is cognitively meaningless (not to mention a physical impossibility, at least insofar as physicists can presently tell), most atheists are in agreement that the mass-energy comprising the universe has most likely always existed in some form or another, and always will. Such a position is 100% compatible with today's leading scientific theories about the origin and evolution of our universe (including the most widely accepted of all the theories, that of the Inflationary Big Bang). Again, however, individual positions on this one vary.

-J.M. aka singularis

It seems that people generally do whatever they want to anyway. They either interpret their religion in such a way as to make their behavior seem permissible, or they just ignore the teachings of their religion altogether. Regardless, it seems clear that the vast majority of people do not derive their ethical principles from their religious texts. There are very few Christians who actually believe children should be stoned to death for disobedience (per Deuteronomical law), that gays should be put to death or that it`s a grave offense for a woman to speak in church, etc. Similarly, the vast majority of Muslims do not follow many of the questionable moral precepts found in the Qur`an such as "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" and so forth. Neither the commandments nor Hellfire threats of a god should be required for anyone to love his or her parents or child(ren), or to treat people with fairness and consideration in hopes of being treated the same way back. Ethics need not be predicated upon belief in a god. In fact, a strong case could be made for questioning the inherent "goodness" of any person whose sole, or even primary, motivation for behaving ethically was the hope of getting some great reward for it in an "afterlife".

-J.M. aka singularis

Most atheists believe that what's being dealt with is a mixture of charlatans, sincere (but mistaken) individuals, and mythological figures who never actually existed. Let`s suppose for a moment that an all-knowing, all-powerful god really exists, and that he wishes to communicate with mankind and be "known". Why would he choose to communicate with such a negligible portion of humanity, and force everyone else to take these peoples' words for it that they really received revelations? In other words, why would this [purportedly] intelligent god intentionally employ a method guaranteed to land a substantial portion of the earth`s population in Hell? Obviously many, if not most, people are not going to take someone else`s word for it that they`ve been conversing with god(s) and/or angels. In modern times, that type of talk could easily get someone branded as insane, and possibly committed to a mental institution. Is it any wonder, then, that large numbers of people rejected each of these self-proclaimed prophets and messengers in his own day? If there really is a god who wishes to be "known" by everyone, he needs to simultaneously reveal himself, clearly and unambiguously, to everyone on earth in such a way that everyone would instantly become a believer. What, exactly, that would entail is difficult to say. However, an all-knowing god would surely know what to do, and an all-powerful god would surely be able to do it. Yet, it has not been done. It seems obvious, then, that if such a god truly exists, he is thoroughly unconcerned with the fact that hundreds of millions of people currently lack belief in his existence.

-J.M. aka singularis

An alleged miracle is not sufficient evidence to prove the truth of any particular religion. Every religion has its share of alleged miracles. How would a Christian explain the miracles of Islam, and vice versa? How would either explain the miracles of Hinduism, or of modern cult leaders? A report of a miracle merely indicates that something out of the ordinary may have occurred (there are always the possibilities that the person is lying, was misled, misinterpreted the experience, or was hallucinating...there are even such things as mass hallucinations). In any event, both the Bible and the Qur`an report that Pharoah`s loyal magicians allegedly performed all sorts of miracles and magic tricks, which proves that, even from a religious perspective, a miracle is not sufficient evidence to prove the truth of of any particular belief system. Neither can alleged prophecies function as proof of any particular religion`s truth, as every religion has its fair share of prophecies. There are also lots of modern psychics and clairvoyants who don`t follow any of the major world religions, who are believed by many to be able to predict the future.

-J.M. aka singularis

The human mind has a natural tendency to seek order in chaos, and this may be one of the primary reasons many people claim to see evidence of [conscious] design in nature. Beauty is subjective; it is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. It must be kept in mind that, as awe-inspiring as nature can be at times, it is also filled with such terrible things as the following: tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, asteroids capable of colliding with the earth and destroying virtually all life on the planet (as has happened at least twice in the past that we are aware of), black holes that swallow up any and all things that come near their event horizons, animals that are forced to brutally slaughter and feed upon one another in order to survive, spontaneously-occurring cancers that affect both innocent newborns and "sinful" adults alike, AIDS, ebola, and so forth and so on. It seems that nature is filled with nearly equal amounts of the so-called "good" and "bad". Is it really logical to contend that such an imperfect world can only be the handiwork of a perfect being? The honest, reasonable person has to admit that an infinitely loving, infinitely powerful god with an infinite amount of time on his hands would`ve produced something much, much better.

-J.M. aka singularis

No. Though it may at first seem otherwise, positing the existence of a god does not make this apparent problem go away. After all, if the mere fact that the universe exists necessitates that it have a creator (a "god"), then this creator, by virtue of the fact that he exists, must also have a creator: a mega god, if you will. This mega god, by virtue of the fact that he exists, must also have a creator: a super mega god. This super mega god, by virtue of the fact that he exists, must also have a creator: a super duper mega god...and so forth and so on, ad infinitum. Obviously, this is ridiculous; the buck has to stop somewhere. Either everything requires a cause or it does not. If there is at least one exception to the rule, we might as well assume it`s the universe itself, rather than postulate the existence of an additional entity whose existence can`t be verified and doesn`t help to explain anything anyway. After all, space and time are inseparably linked properties of the universe, and it really doesn`t make any sense to believe that there was once a "time" before time or a "time" before space. Yet, this is exactly what one is required to believe in order to accept the idea of a creator. Though the universe has clearly not always existed in its present form, it seems self-evident to most atheists (as stated above) that something, in some form or another, has always existed, and always will.

-J.M. aka singularis