I was recently turned on to a post by blogger Greta Christina titled Atheists and Anger. It is a very lengthy post, but much of what brought me to atheism is encapsulated nicely there. I want to pull out some of the points I agree with fully, and I want to address some of the points where I differ.

Why am I an atheist? That is an easy question to answer. Others have done so adequately. Essentially, atheists share a skepticism of speculation. Personally, I see religion as completely harmless speculation. It is the acceptance of religion over other systems of knowledge that is dangerous. Hence, I am an atheist because I think it is the correct way to live responsibly.

The question "Why Atheism?" is different. If I am correct in my philosophy, then why shouldn't you be? This is the source of much that is both positive and negative about atheism. Epistemically, though, atheism provides the only system of knowledge capable of rejecting utter nonsense.

What is an atheist? Like the question, what is a table, the answers vary according to culture, experience, and context. I realized that, as an atheist, I assume my own viewpoint; I know what I mean when I call myself an atheist. However, I have avoided defining my atheism for my readers.

I have, in the course of writing, distinguished myself from such atheists as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. Yet, I have not really outlined in a systematic way where my paradigm falls on the spectrum. I seek to do that here by introducing several answers to the title question provided by other atheists.

While beliefs are nothing but cumulatively accepted opinions, faith is an entirely different matter. I have often argued the merits of any given belief based on its applicability to the real world. However, faith has evolved in the human species, and it must, therefore, have at one point in our evolution offered some advantage. Whether that advantage is still being conveyed, we are, as a species, saddled with our evolutionary baggage, and I believe it is a worthy question to ask whether religion is such baggage or whether religious beliefs somehow continue to confer a selective advantage.

It is Daniel Dennett's book, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, that encouraged me to think more in this direction. Yet I have always harbored a fascination with the connection between the evolution of paradigms (sets of beliefs, if you will) and the evolution of the species. Religion has always been an excellent example of that connection.

What started as a comment on Dailykos.com, became a simple project. Are there any atheists in Congress? What are the religious affiliations of our Representatives and Senators?

The answer comes from analysis by Americans for Religious Liberty (PDF) based on the Congressional Quarterly reporting of each member's response to demographic questions. While most religious groups are represented in proportion to the general population, there are no declared atheists. Why?

Well, although not the point of the post, kos shows a Gallup poll from February indicating that the majority of Americans would not vote for a "well-qualified" candidate for president if the person were an atheist. It seems pretty likely that this prejudice extends to other offices, as well.

I'm an atheist, and I vote damn it!

Atheism is not a religion, it is not a movement; atheism is a paradigm, a worldview if you will. I do not say that I am an atheist because I wish to claim anything about your own beliefs or methods of rationalizing your existence; very simply, I claim that I am an atheist because I do not care what you believe.

If you care what I believe, that is your problem to deal with. I, instead, will focus on what the human species is doing to write its own history. I will pay attention to the 'here and now', the immediate reality. Trouble me not with your discussions of afterlife and morality. Let us talk about real problems that face our country. And more importantly, let us face those problems together.

Why do I fight against the christo-fascists in this country? Why do I abhor even the most innocuous move towards theocracy? Because I do not want 16-year-old girls to be executed for "crimes against chastity."

[BBC news] On 15 August, 2004, Atefah Sahaaleh was hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka.

Her death sentence was imposed for "crimes against chastity". The state-run newspaper accused her of adultery and described her as 22 years old. But she was not married - and she was just 16.

Have you ever heard any of these "rebuttals" when arguing with someone?

• You are entitled to your opinion.
• You can believe what you want.
• We will have to agree to disagree.

What is the basis of communication if not the ability to refer in context to a shared understanding of the reality we live in? There is a school of thought that suggests empathy accounts for the extraordinary human ability of language. I'm not sure what empathy would be other than what I have described: a shared context of reality.

"I believe in Unicorns."
"Unicorns do not exist."
"I believe they do."
"What is your evidence?"
"I just believe they exist."
"There is no evidence to support that belief."
"You are entitled to your opinion."

I know, that's not really breaking news for those of us that actually think for ourselves. However, according to an article on my new favorite science website, LiveScience.com, a study was done that proves it. In fact, praying not only does nothing to aid recovery from surgery, it may be harmful to those who realize they are being prayed for.

In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

I love it! This is a great little piece of snark from Magnus Greel over at DailyKos.com.

Tired of "In God We Trust"? Not to worry. In Secularville we'll be minting our own currency and there won't be a religious reference within 100 feet of it. "Under God" will be specifically removed from the pledge of allegiance recited in our public schools. We will also ban any religious references in public buildings. No Ten Commandments in the courthouse, no opening prayers for the city council and no crosses, doves or burning bushes on our police cars.

I have a new plan to balance the budget: get Congress to obey the Constitution. First, if they had not abrogated their power to declare war to an unbalanced, crusading President and his cabal of war-mongers, then we could have saved the country the $245 Billion [$276 Billion - 4/26/2006] that has been wasted there. We all know how well that money is being spent, don't we?

Second, by continuing to recognize the First Amendment and its establishment clause, Congress could have saved over a $1 Billion by not illegally distributing money to Christian organizations. This little billion is but a small piece of a huge pie being offered up illegally by the President and his Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI).

There is established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President that will have lead responsibility in the executive branch to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Federal Government's comprehensive effort to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and other community organizations to the extent permitted by law.