Atheism is a belief about the universe, inasmuch as it is a belief that there is no God. Nothing more complicated than that. Technically, we don't absolutely, definitively, undisputedly know that God doesn't exist, so it's a belief. Now some beliefs are reasonable, others aren't. I wasn't saying it in the way that religious apologists do - that is, drawing a false equivalency between religious faith and atheism.

As I've said in my other posts, the fact that I'm sitting in a chair typing at my computer is a belief. It's a much more reasonable belief than that I am Napoleon, but it's a belief nonetheless. And inasmuch as it takes place in the universe, you might say it's a belief about the universe.

I agree with you that the burden of proof should rest with the person who asserts that something exists, rather than with the person who asserts that it doesn't.

I'm surprised that someone is accusing me of giving theists an easy time. Anyway, they're going to believe whatever they want to believe, no matter what we say.

Given that in the post-Enlightenment era religious beliefs are on so obviously a shaky foundation for relatively educated believers, such people are justifiably really distressed when someone sincerely professes nonbelief in holy hogwash.

As someone once said "People who want to tell you about their religion, seldom want to hear about yours." My advice is to finish college if you can and keep your personal views personal. The document you signed is meaningless. The college needs to win your support through their teachings, not through a philosophical contract. You may think you have religion all figured out now, but you will be pondering the universe for the rest of your life. You will probably change your views a few times as you get older. Wait till your first child is born, that will change your view on things greatly! Your ancestors religion was based on geography, they couldn't choose. You can. No need to make a big show of it. It's not worth risking your college degree.

Why?

What I mean Prof is why should people get upset if people persist in believing in God. People also insist in believing in astrology. Perfectly respectable newspapers and magazines carry people's horror - scopes. We don't get so upset about that.

As an atheist or agnostic, depending on how you like to define it, I just don't get upset about these things.

Picko, suppose you said you were Napoleon and really insisted on it. Should I get upset. Noooo. I merely lack belief that you are Napoleon. Everything I lack belief in doesn't mean I necessarily hold the opposite belief. I simply have no belief and no interest in the fact that you claim you are Napoleon.

There are a thousand things I don't give credence to. So these things I don't give credence to don't mean that I believe something but rather that I don't believe. There is no such thing as an atheistic belief system. These people who claim that anything in the universe shows there is no god are just as silly as those who say the existence of the universe proves that there was a first cause creator.

We are talking basic logic here.

This is a pointless semantic game. We can debate whether a belief that something is not true is really a belief, but I wonder what the purpose is.

I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that just because someone is an atheist, they object to the very existence of religions or religious people. I honestly don't care what private beliefs you ascribe to. I really don't care if you believe you're Napoleon unless you raise an army and try to conquer Europe.

Of course you can't prove definitively that there's no god. But you have to live according to some set of beliefs. If you believe in any of the plethora of gods that are offered by mankind, you are going to live your life a certain way; if you don't believe in god, that is also going to affect how you live your life.

If I'm going to live my life as if god doesn't exist, then to me it's a matter of profound indifference whether you call me an atheist or agnostic or whatever. If there weren't any people who believed in god, there wouldn't even be a word to describe those who don't believe. They would just be called "people."

It's a bit annoying that some people seem to caricature atheists as either 19th century positivists or as merely inverted religious believers. In my experience, atheists don't even think of themselves as atheists most of the time, because they've got better things to think about.

Jesus Cary. You're usually so sensible, but this question appears to have unhinged you. No, none of us need make a fearless moral inventory of our beliefs to figure out how to handle ourselves around true believers -- as many of your readers understand.

Dear Letter Writer: Rarely does it make much sense to proclaim oneself as an unbeliever whilst living in the midst of the devout. And this applies double to one's family and to the members of a seriously religious college. As you are discovering, religious beliefs and practices are a lot like sexual beliefs and practices -- best kept to oneself and trusted intimates. Unfortunately, in American society lots of people like to talk about their religious beliefs and practices. There's not much the rest of us can do about that except smile politely and excuse ourselves when the conversation gets too intense and weird.

Your situation is a lot like that of many young gay people who may eventually come out to their families and friends, but do not need to do so until the time is right -- generally when they have support, allies and a life apart. Likewise, nobody at your college, certainly not in positions of power, need know about your private life and beliefs. If you are close to graduating, just immerse yourself in studies, develop your skills as writer, researcher, and thinker, and move on.

The letter writer who suggested that a degree from a Mormon or fundamentalist college brands one as "moron" had a funny point -- but it's not really true. A college degree is mainly a ticket into another competition, and in that competition your skills and talents matter most. When Anita Hill testified against Clarence Thomas she taught at Oral Roberts University -- about as intellectually low as one could get. Today she is a distinguished professor at a prominent liberal university. She moved on and you will too. Good luck.

And Cary, pu-leeze. The fearless inventory may be necessary for some kinds of life problems, but not for ordinary religious unbelief. Most of us non-believers actually think about the monotheists' god (or higher power) about as much as we do about Thor and Minerva. And, no, it is absolutely not necessary for non-believers to figure out what they think about “contracts” and “civil law” because some of it is supposedly “rooted,” as you put it, “in feudalism and Judeo-Christian morality.” You yourself admit you haven’t figured these things out. So what in the hell are you doing telling young college students that they have to work on their philosophy about truth, lying, and relation to the universe – simply because they’ve concluded that the nice people around them believe in myths and fables?

And where in the world did you get the screwy idea that because someone doesn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian deity that person “would have to believe” anything in particular -- much less that “it's impossible for anyone else to know what's going on in your head, or heart?”

Dude, you need to check yourself out, at least in this particular area of advice giving. This time you’ve gone over the edge.