Pericles,

You object to atheists being criticised for their faith, since, by definition, they don’t have faith in anything. Can I try and put this into some perspective.

I once heard Australia’s most famous atheist, Philip Adams, asked what he believed in. He answered, “Nothing”. I can respect this provided the position is held consistently.

You are correct in saying atheism is not a faith. It is the antithesis of theism. A theist believes there is a god. An atheist believes there is no god. You could argue neither are faiths. They are philosophical positions on a similar philosophical plane.

But when you start fleshing out these positions with metaphysical beliefs, then it becomes reasonable that you be asked to defend them, as would people who openly defend their faith convictions.

For example, I have no problems describing 20th Century communism as a faith position, despite it being based on atheism. It had all the required elements. It had its true believers, its own holy books, prophets, and evangelists (think of the thousands of Maoist youth moving across China, spreading the message of their little red book). Communism had its own definition of sin (something to do with economics and greed), its creation myth (Darwin’s evolution), and its vision of the apocalypse (the Revolution).

All up, it was a pretty well developed faith, finding converts the world over. Many of the atheists who have commented on this thread may not have quite developed their beliefs to such an extent, but some have indeed adopted faith positions approaching those in the previous paragraph.

That they are willing to argue their positions so vehemently displays how much they are wanting to convince others of their positions and convictions, and within a metaphysical domain. Such willingness to explain your position and convince others is often a religious characteristic. If they truly believed in “Nothing” they would not be so passionate about it.

If atheists say they don’t believe in anything, then that’s fine. But often their words and actions betray them.

Mick V - your description of atheism is the best I have encountered. Well Done!

Mick V - in relation to atheists I hear what you're saying. But I don't believe it can be applied to agnosticism.

There are only 2 sorts of people in the world. Evangelical Christians and 'others'. There are those who are saved and those who still need to be saved and that's all that matters! If you belong to the 'others' then it hardly matters whether you are agnostic, heathen, atheist, buddhist, calathumpian or whatever because you are 'unsaved'.

Agnosticism, of course, is the only 'rational' position given that the non-existence of god is as unprovable as the existence of god. I have the greatest respect for agnostics simply because it is an intellectually honest position. True agnostics are rare. I also believe, however, that life is far more interesting than can ever be experienced through rational processes and the irrational believers and atheists end up being much more interesting people. The most boring people are those who try to rationalise their 'beliefs'.

Jesus was interesting! Not all martyrs are interesting

There are Australian martyrs but in a romanticised or archaic version of martyrdom there is difficulty in recognising them. I am surprised that the name of Graham Staines and his little sons were not mentioned. Their martyrdom has been covered by the major press. Thanks to "waterboy" for highlighting that martyrdom. Then there are the New Guinea martyrs of World War II. Australians who are memorialised across Australia in numerous Anglican buildings. Read about them at my blog, The Eagle's Nest at http://eaglesplace.blogspot.com. I would draw attention to the six martyrs of the Melanesian Brotherhood, an Anglican order in the Solomons. Australia has been very involved in brokering peace in the Solomons. So have the members of the Melanesian Brotherhood who were viciously murdered. So the blood of martyrs may not have been shed on Australian soil but Australians have shed their blood in the public practice of their faith. I am sure there are others whose deaths are longer ago or less heralded. One thing I think should be remarked upon about the martyrs mentioned is that their lives were given to God long before their dreadful deaths. Their lives were distinguished in Christian service but it seems one more thing was required of them - their lives. It may be difficult for those who don't own to a faith whether Christian or another to understand the way martyrdom might be perceived. Many martyrs have penetrated secular life - Gandhi; King; the many non-Jews who perished because of their assistance to Jews. There are the Russian journalists who have died for speaking the truth. They are surely secular martyrs in a common humanity. Their deaths are recorded and will be remembered. Let's rush neither to judgment nor to romance - but let us value by remembrance and honour those who have given their lives in great causes to value other human beings.

"True agnostics are rare. I also believe, however, that life is far more interesting than can ever be experienced through rational processes and the irrational believers and atheists end up being much more interesting people."

I'm agnostic and as I always say "whatever gets your through
the night" :) Hey, be as crazy and interesting as you like,
just keep me out of it! I have no problem with peoples lifestyle
choices, just problems when they try to make it compulsory
by law.