>> I use the word "faith" because it's impossible to conclusively prove there is no God,

no, you use the word "faith" because you don't have a clue. it's also impossible to conclusively prove there is no Tooth Fairy, which is exactly the sense in which most atheists (including Dawkins) discuss their disbelief.

>> One element of atheism of particular interest is its track record and its legacy

Again, completely ridiculous. How and why should a simple disbelief lead to anything? Atheism isn't a way to live. It is a disbelief in God.

>> To get down to specifics, it's legitimate to ask what and where are the atheistic equivalents of Christian welfare agencies

No, it isn't. It's an absurd question, made of straw.

You are really stretching credibility when you describe atheism as a faith - sometimes it is a belief that there are no gods, just as often it is merely an absence of belief in any gods. The whole premise of the article falls down on this misapplication of 'faith' to atheism. Of course there are no atheist charities - the non-belief in gods is quite separate from the desire to do good and help others.

I sm quite certain that there are many atheists who give generously to a number of Christian charities. Not believing in something supernatural doesn't prevent them from doing this. As an atheist I actually collect for the Red Cross.

Oh dear... who is Rowan Forster?

I looked at his bio: "Rowan Forster is a Melbourne journalist".

Oh dear again.... is Rowan a fashion journalist or a sports journalist, I wonder?

Certainly not any form of investigative journalism, or fact-required journalism.

It is hard to know whether Rowan is being deliberately thick, or he is just a bit obtuse, as the previous authors have pointed out.

'Atheism' is not a 'movement', or an ideology like religion is.

There is no power structure to defend, or win a place in 'the market'. There is no evangelising for converts.

In fact, I know atheists who work in faith schools, hospitals, Lifeline, Mission Impossible, and all sorts of 'faith' based groups.

But none of them 'identify' as atheists, it is not a badge they wear or think about any need to promote to others.

I think Rowan needs to go back to the beginning, and understand better what it means to 'be' an atheist.

Why do so many theists want to attribute bascially religious characteristics to atheism? It is almost as if it is a subconscious effort to reduce us all to the same delusion. ie. Like a get out of jail free card if all can be 'accused' of faith type behaviours.

Atheism is not a faith. If I don't believe in the little green men at the bottom of a garden that is not faith it is probability based on reason.

This article reduces us to the competitive behaviours of "mine is better than yours" and is hardly a Christian tenet.

As for charities - OLO has been down that road before and there are many non-faith based charities including Care Aust, Smith Family, Medicins Sans Frontiers just to name a few.

There are no atheistic charities. Atheism isn't a movement. There are many atheists who volunteer to help others even within Christian organisations.

Why do we have to go over this nonsense repeatedley just to appease a few insecure authors.

Another article from the Christian camp with totally flawed arguments.
There is no such organisation as the Church of the Later Day Atheists, or any other organisation of Atheist persuasion so how can there be an Atheist charity?
From there we go on to a spruiking exercise for a religion that self destructs at any close examination.
It is probably pointless in even bring up the impossibility of the argument with a group who cover ignorance with the words 'faith' and 'belief.' It is simply impossible to counter an argument that has no substance.
I am not an Atheist, but whatever the truth about the existence of God it is certainly not the manufactured images of organised religion.
This is the real problem. There are many people who call themselves Atheists because they see that organised religions are BS when the problem is that we have organisation who claim to have the power to interpret Gods will.
The majority of Atheist arguments I have heard seem to have substance except they have the wrong target. Religion has nothing to do with God. Proving that a religion is BS does not prove that God does not exist, only that religion is BS