Religion is the thing you do when playing at really is more important than understanding or being in reality. And belief in god(s) is the thing you believe in when the truth of reality is not really a big concern, but the lies about it are: No Magic No gODs or “No gODs, No Masters”

If anyone wants to say you are stupid because you are Atheist and not agnostic at all on the god question tell them about me. I am far from stupid and I actually think it’s the other way around as in one has to be very smart, well enough to construct a sturdy enough argument to reject all gods intellectually as it requires not just a powerful Hypothesis it requires it is rich with evidence as well which I have done as others like me have. It’s not an easy way to defend but don’t worry it is quite defendable: The God Fallacy

I am a Realist in Many ways, 1) I have a positive epistemic attitude (belief) towards or in philosophical realism that there is a real external world and that is can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 2) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in scientific realism that the content of the best scientific theories, models, and aspects of the world described by the sciences can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 3) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in logical realism such as that logic is the means of discovering the structure of facts and its projection in the language such as the Law of Non-Contradiction or logical fallacies which represent logical truths pertaining to aspects of the world and can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 4) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in mathematical realism such as that 2 + 2 equals 4 even if there are no intelligences or minds. Because math is in a sense a method of communication or description of and or about aspects of the world quantifying what can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 5) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in value realism roughly speaking, is that value claims (such as, nurturing a baby is good and abusing a baby is bad) can be literally true or false; that some such claims are indeed true; that their truth can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 6) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in epistemological realism roughly speaking, is that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind. Relating directly to the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that the world exists independently and innately to our perceptions of it. Our sensory data then reflect or correspond to the innate world and that such truths can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 7) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in moral realism roughly speaking, is that some moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, wile not all at least some moral claims actually are true or have connection to additional commitments which the truth can be reached, and those facts in some specified way can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.

I hear Damien Marie AtHope, you don’t know gods are lies, no atheist could know this.
 
My response, Yes, I can and yes we can, we know that the god myth is man-made nonsense as we can know about what time male gods myths came along and a hypothesis for why. It’s around 5,500 to 6,000 years ago, with the birth of state cities (birth of masculinity worship). But female goddesses go back at least 12,000 years ago close to around the time of animal domestication and the cultivation of seed baring plants (fertility goddesses) or maybe to 40,000 years ago as fertility (female figurines) and hunting magic/protection (female items) of the peoples labels Aurignacian culture and the birth of developed art an it seams shamanism, totemism, and animism. It is the earliest modern human culture which like modern humans (like us) which started accruing around 50,000 years ago. But, we do know that the first worship and it was not likely a god or goddess just a reflection of nature worship by means of a stone shake around 70,000 years ago around the time of a supervolcano in Indonesia and humanity almost going extinct. This time was an ice age and smoke may have lingered in or on clouds possibly looking similar to snakes. And, at 100,000 language development begins around the time human burial begins, do language and magical thinking help each other? Yes, they sure do today and it is not so strange to think myth needs language too. So, it’s safe to say we worshiped nature long before the gods we thought created it, thus we know all gods and goddesses are made up lies.

For more on this kind of thinking: Superstition to Religion “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots”Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion” or at least burial and maybe thoughts of an afterlife 120,000 Years Ago?Humans are Prone to Thinking Errors, and Yes This Includes Theism. We All Should Reject the SupernaturalThe Rational Imperative, How Does One Know Things?Stone Age Art: 500,000 – 233,000 Years OldClimate Change and Human EvolutionThe Evolution of Fire Sacralizing and/or WorshipAn Old Branch of Religion Still Giving Fruit: Sacred Trees, and Chimpanzees Sacralizing Trees?

Let’s END faith’s corruption of rational thinking. It is in our power if we truly try. The folly of faith and its use as a method to truth or knowledge has been a great unreason, which has plagued humanity for thousands of years.

How can we stop the use and promotion of faith’s errors in rational thinking and champion something new?

Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies

It is easy; all we need is a RATIONALISM REVOLUTION, accepting only the realism of naturalism’s proven reality and rejecting the disproven superstitions as well as unproven supernaturalism of religions’ nonreality or otherworldly pseudo-reality. As modern rationalists we need to encourage a reasoned epistemology revolution, allowing only justified true belief built on valid and reliable reason and evidence, because that is in our power to create and make happen in the here and now. We do not need force or weapons to champion this worthy endeavor. Rather, we need to follow rational critical thinking ourselves and inspire others to do the same, instead of falling back to the irrationalism of faith thinking one of the most failed epistemologies to validate anything.

While atheists don’t have to disprove god, atheists who are informed often can offer disproof, in fact disproof atheism society has tirelessly done just that: Disproof Atheism, is disbelief in the existence of God based on a comprehensive critique of proofs of God’s existence and a growing web of empirical and conceptual disproofs of God’s existence. This growing web of disproofs:

1) addresses a variety of concepts of God held by major religions and
leading theologians,
2) demonstrates that each of these concepts of God not only contradicts empirical facts and scientific theories but is self-contradictory, and
3) provides an ever more formidable cumulative case against the existence
of God.

The Disproof Atheism Society, founded in 1994:
— is an independent, Boston-based, worldwide network of people interested
in logic, science, and analytic philosophy who support the development
of disproof atheism.
— holds monthly talks, discussions, and other events, usually at Boston
University and frequently with a featured speaker.
— hosted in 2010 the first-ever Disproof Atheism Conference, an all-day
academic conference focused on conceptual disproofs of God.
— provides resources and references on disproof atheism. http://disproofatheism.org/

1. COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS
2. TELEOLOGICAL DISPROOFS
3. EVIDENTIAL EVIL DISPROOFS
4. NONBELIEF DISPROOFS

CONCEPTUAL DISPROOFS OF GOD

1. SINGLE ATTRIBUTE DISPROOFS
2. MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTES DISPROOFS
3. LOGICAL EVIL DISPROOFS
4. DOCTRINAL DISPROOFS

SPECIAL DISPROOFS OF GOD

1. DEFINITIONAL DISPROOFS

2. FINITE ATTRIBUTES DISPROOFS
3. “BEYOND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING” DISPROOFS
4. META DISPROOFS

 

And this is not even mentioning all the other science and philosophy that can be used to accumulatively finish the answer with we know that there is no gods as much as we relatively can claim to know anything.
What are the philosophical views of 1,972 contemporary professional philosophers?

*No God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.

*Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.

*Moral judgment: cognitivism 65.7%; non-cognitivism 17.0%; other 17.3%.

*Moral motivation: internalism 34.9%; externalism 29.8%; other 35.3%

*Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%.

*Truth: correspondence 50.8%; deflationary 24.8%; epistemic 6.9%; other 17.5%.

It should be acknowledged that this target group has a strong (although not exclusive) bias toward analytic or Anglocentric philosophy. As a consequence, the results of the survey are a much better guide to what analytic/Anglocentric philosophers (or at least philosophers in strong analytic/Anglocentric departments) believe than to what philosophers from other traditions believe. http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

For more reading check out the following links: 

Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean?

It’s Not the Deity You See as Possible But How Many You Reject

Discussions on Agnosticism and AtheismTheists and Atheists as well as Agnostics?

Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?

Agnosticism: Non-Standard Epistemology

My Anti-Agnostic Atheism Thinking

Losing My Religion and MY Faith Addiction

I am an Atheist?

Atheism is not Religion!

Reasons for or Types of Atheism

I Am An Axiological Atheist?

Questions and Challenges to My Atheism.

Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic

I Am an Ignostic Atheist

Origin Logics is Naturalistic Observation

The Scientific Method & Naturalistic Rationalism

Stop Believing in Supernatural or the Possibility of Magic

Keep Your Religion Out of My Life

How I come across?

Firebrand Atheists Unite

Being Epistemically Rational

Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god

My “Methodological Rationalism” approach

Creationism (pseudoscience)

I know that most christians believe that their bible gOD is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things.  I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally.  I also believe that many christians haven’t really read the bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references.  Also many priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love. If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.

Atheist is a broad label.
 
Everyone is free to use any words they like for their atheism, but is you dont believe its still some form of atheism and there is established classes to define it as well as different styles or expressions to atheism. Atheism has a few standard stances Explicit “strong” or “weak” or Implicit. No need to use words like gnostic nor agnostic, atheism does not require such folk terms as it is a stand-alone concept.
 
Explicit “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists assert that “At least one deity exists” is false.
 
Explicit “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.
 
Implicit “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe that a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.
 
 
I add “Axiological” to my atheism to explain how I make my argument for atheism. Axiological atheism is standard philosophy used in atheism arguments. It is classed under a anthropocentric argument for atheism both dis-valuing gods and religions and valuing humanity. Some who hold an opinion that they think it comes out as a nonsense concept is a irrelevant as to disproving its use.
 
Look under Page 4 Articles in Preparation: “Axiological Atheism and the Problem of ‘The Problem of Evil’,”
 
Look under 1.4 Axiological Versus Deontological Formulations
 
Axiological (atheism) formulation on the “The Problem of Evil”
 
Consider, now, the following formulation of the argument from evil, which, in contrast to the abstract version of the argument from evil set out in section 1.1, focuses on quite concrete types of evil:
 
There exist states of affairs in which animals die agonizing deaths in forest fires, or where children undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, and that (a) are intrinsically bad or undesirable, and (b) are such that any omnipotent person has the power to prevent them without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good.
 
For any state of affairs (that is actual), the existence of that state of affairs is not prevented by anyone.
 
For any state of affairs, and any person, if the state of affairs is intrinsically bad, and the person has the power to prevent that state of affairs without thereby either allowing an equal or greater evil, or preventing an equal or greater good, but does not do so, then that person is not both omniscient and morally perfect.
 
Therefore, from (1), (2), and (3):
 
There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.
If God exists, then he is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.
Therefore:
 
God does not exist.
 
As it stands, this argument is deductively valid. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#AxiVerDeoFor
Here is the Axiological (atheism) formulation on the “The Problem of Evil” proof listed above.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/validity.html

Want to know how I became an atheist, click the link: http://damienmarieathope.com/atheism/

I am a strong atheist and I do not agree with the folk use of the term gnostic, neither it nor agnostic are standard epistemology terms and they misrepresent the relationship between knowledge and beliefs. I do however value ignostic.
 
I am a strong atheist as well as call myself a Ignostic Atheist not the agnostic/sceptic term Gnostic Atheist.
 
Gnosticism (after gnosis, the Greek word for “knowledge” or “insight”) is the name given to a loosely organized religious and philosophical movement that flourished in the 1,900-1,700 years ago. Gnosticism began with the same basic, pre-philosophical intuition that guided the development of Greek philosophy that there is a dichotomy between the realm of true, unchanging being, and ever-changing becoming. However, unlike the Greeks, who strived to find the connection between and overall unity of these two “realms,” the gnostics amplified the differences, and developed a mythological doctrine. This general gnostic myth came to exercise an influence on emerging christianity, as well as upon platonic philosophy, and even, in the East, developed into a world religion (manichaeism) that spread across the known world, surviving until the late Middle Ages. The common folk thinking is agnostic theist does not know, but believes and the agnostic atheist claims neither knowledge nor belief. If all items that are knowledge always subsume at least one belief. Knowledge is an epistemic property of beliefs and like knowledge, certainty is also an epistemic property of beliefs. (1), (2), (3), (4)
I am an Axiological Atheist: 
Axiological Atheism is a Arguments for Atheism: Some atheists argue a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities and are skeptical of all supernatural beings, while others argue for Atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Axiological Atheism is Classed Under a Anthropocentric arguments: Anthropocentrism generally regards humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to mythic god(s) or lesser animals. Axiological atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god(s). Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre and Freud all used this argument to some extent to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.  
Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism:
 
I am going to roughly offer the understanding how axiological thinking interacts with differing theological beliefs. Axiological theism: is the thinking a god(s) or goddess(es) are real as well as valuable and we are enriched (all value, truth, morality are deity involved) because there is such a being(s) and we should worship it and would be worse off if such a being(s) did not exist (life would have no meaning, worth or value and there would be no way to judge morality). Axiological agnosticism: is the thinking I do not know if a such being as god(s) or goddess(es) exist neither can we evaluate the value and we thus lack the basis to value judge what benefits or harm they may encompass and such would probably not worship such a being(s) as we do not know if we should or should not. Likewise, we cannot form an opinion as to if we are better or worse if such a being(s) existed. Axiological atheism: is the thinking that no god(s) or goddess(es) exist and they lack all worth and value to humans even if they existed. Such myth should be rejected in favor of believing in humanity, seeing secularism and humanism as a kind of “higher kind of absolute” or form of valued good. (Ie. humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god myths or religious philosophies). An axiological atheist could be thought of as thinking no gods no masters and thus would never worship a god or any being especially if it was by threat, force or the act of coercing to any extent. An axiological atheist may even question if any being is worthy of the title god or be ignostic that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god and see this as extending to other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Thus regarding that as ridiculous and not worthy at all and should be shown Ridicule and Disdain. Therefore as you can guess they would say we are better off that no god(s) or goddess(es) existed and it would be much worse if they did. Axiological attitudes toward God’s existence are axiological theism (thinking God’s existence to be a good thing), axiological atheism (thinking God’s existence to be a bad thing) and axiological agnosticism (indifference toward God’s existence). https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23281-issues-in-the-philosophy-of-religion/ 
To learn more about Axiological Atheism check out Axiological Atheism Explained”