Apologies but the question is still moot. What advantages does lacking a belief in something that someone else asserts as true give? The question is inherently pointless.
I don't believe you, I completely lack a belief in this concept and I insist you provide me with reasons.
Ok, I'll give in to idiocy.. 1) If you were going to try and answer such a silly question: The advantage or lack thereof of believing, or not believing in something is purely subjective: a man that asserts a god exists will often speak of how he is better off because he's going to heaven. A non believer will often assert that he is better off because he's being honest to himself, all comfort aside. Neither has copyright on what is ultimately 'better'. 2) Atheism is not a guidebook on life. It does not assert a way of living, it does not offer a moral perspective, it does not in itself offer anything. It is merely a lack of belief/belief system that has no say or impact on anything. You believe, don't believe, disbelieve.. whatever. It can't ultimately be better or worse than anything else and nor does it ever attempt to be. 3) By not offering anything at all it can't ever lay claim to being 'better'. My god is better than your god. In our afterlife we get a gazillion women for company, free beer all day long and a personal jukebox of all your favourite tunes. Your god does yada yada yada.. A comparison in this case can be made, (although the outcome is still purely subjective. A jukebox and beer isn't 'better' to a monk). You simply cannot make a comparison between a belief in god and a lack thereof. Ergo - the question is pointless.
In other words, atheism offers the delicious concept of nothing. How very exciting. Btw, my lack of belief in your lack of belief is undiminished.
It doesnt offer a delicious concept of anything. Whether atheists are right or not isnt defined by theist's concepts of 'exciting'.
Right? Wrong? Thats morality, y'know, another thing that atheists are on a slippery slope regarding their belief and lack thereof. Well it helps to know that atheism pretty much involves nonlateral thinking. Thanks for the input guys.
So this all comes back to Sam's original question, which revealed how theists approach truth. They are not interested in true vs. false, but rather better vs. worse...relative to their desires.
No we're interested in what may not be immediately obvious. After debating with some atheists on this site, I am beginning to understand why they are atheists though.
Questions of existence vs. non-existence are not morality questions. And I would suggest that the modern secular humanist approach to life has far more integrity than the barbaric models found in Abrahamic religious origins...morally speaking.
1) Whos version of right or wrong? 2) Entirely irrelevant to what 'atheism' is. An atheist can have morals, can lack morals, will piss and poop just like everyone else.. they're utterly inconsequential to the meaning of 'atheist'. A 'theist' can be moral, a theist can be immoral, a theist will piss and poop like everyone else.. it is inconsequential to their beliefs. A religion is a collective, a group that live under certain guidelines, rules and ideals. A club of chess players also live under certain guidelines and rules. 'Atheism' is not a club, an atheist is merely one that is 'without god/s'. I am an atheist, I would consider myself relatively moral. My moral attitude or lack thereof is inconsequential to my lack of belief in gods, (or if it cheers you up my positive belief that gods don't exist). Your line of questioning is redundant.
