Atheism argues that there is no god, but this can't be proven because the latter is defined as infinite. For the same reason, theists can't argue there is a god, which is why they rely on faith. That means the default is agnosticism, as atheists attempt to explain reality all the way to subparticles and beyond, and theists trying to find order in the same. This gels very well with thought processes, i.e., the mind is a bewildering combination of reason and emotion.
Atheism is based on the belief that there is no god while theism is based on the belief that there is. Both cannot prove their argument because the very definition of god is that it is an infinite being, which is a contradiction in terms. Given that, common sense would be agnosticism, where one does not know if there is a god. That supports both atheism and theism. Ultimately, we realize that knowing is based on the strength of scientific equipment, and that as the latter becomes stronger, then we begin to discover new things about reality, but there are limitations to what human beings can achieve.
Ralf Mannheim, As an Atheist for the last 71 years I know very well what this way of thinking is all about. About proving.........the burden falls on all religions and not in Atheism. Christianity and the others tell the world god exists...well, prove it to us. We the Atheism are waiting. LOL
I think treating Agnosticism as an alternative philosophy which supports the two main characters of beliefs might be a stretch in that Agnosticism isn’t just a rubber stamped philosophy but rather a multi tiered one of which none actually support Atheism. Atheism acknowledges No possibility whereas some Agnostics can actually take on the image of being Agnostic Theists whereas the causation of an event that can’t be explained by science nor human logic isn’t immediately negated but acknowledged as a possibility. Note: Having a lack of empirical knowledge doesn’t indicate that no knowledge is desired unless of course one states that “I don’t know and don’t care if there’s a god” which is, a lazy sort of stance that an Agnostic can take but one that is still within the borders of that philosophy. Now, I mentioned the word, “event” on purpose because I too was an Agnostic for several years. Some time ago though, a chain of events that are yet to be explained by reason or science of any kind made it impossible for me to logically accept any other conclusion than to believe that there is definitely something far greater and more powerful than the human mind can understand is at work. Call Him God or Eternal Reality or what have you but I have no recourse but to fully believe that He’s real and may I add, to which there is no downside.
On top of it all, to answer the thread's question, I don't fear atheists. I just am not one. I grew up with a religious mother but I 'fell away'. One sort of needs the one event to actually believe, as an adult. Otherwise, one just hopes. I have had a couple.
As a life-long card carrying atheist I've posted here a few times. I have NEVER!!!! tried to convince a believer to become an atheist, nor have I ever known of another one of us to do so. I've also suggested to read Paul Tillich's book: “The Eternal Now.” Tillich was a philosopher/theologist who fled Germany in the 30s. Good reading for both groups. Now, about the believers not being able to PROVE that God exists, I have to point out that we non-believers can't prove that He/(She?) doesn't.
For me, the human condition is both rational and emotional, which is why theism and atheism are part of the same. Human beings know that they are merely animals and that the universe, following Lovecraft, is neutral, dark, and faceless. And the modern "horsemen of the apocalypse" might also add: Nietzsche - Man is a power-hungry animal. Marx - Man is a political and economic animal. Freud - Man is a crazy animal. Darwin - Man is an animal. And yet for all that, this animal has also managed to attain an incredible level of self-consciousness thanks to an opposing digit and both sides of the brain fused, and refuses to see himself as merely an animal or even as a mere thinking machine. It turns out that he also has an imagination and emotion, and both have been his downfall and his greatest triumph. I don't know why, but I'm suddenly reminded of two things:, Lewis' men of the chest vs. men of the head and of the belly, and the ff. lines from Sophie's Choice:
Ralf Mannheimi Nietzsche - Man is a power-hungry animal. Marx - Man is a political and economic animal. Freud - Man is a crazy animal. Darwin - Man is an animal. Silvia Saint-Claire - Man turns into a toxic individual when his ideas and opinions are not accepted as he wishes...as law.
Woman turns into a toxic individual when……………her ideas and opinions are not accepted…………as she wishes As you see, no one here is “afraid” of Atheism nor afraid of the Atheist just for being an Atheist. As it is with all religions, it may be questioned, analyzed and debated but feared? Nope.
I also forgot to point out that religions are generally based on belief rather than on knowledge. Meanwhile, the human condition remains a rich combination of belief and reason.