I am always a fan of consistent reasoning, so letâ€™s apply your reasoning to a different setting. Would you agree with someone who said that the Muslims in ISIS were not motivated by Islam since Islam cannot motivate violence?
My opinion is no.
Please explain. If you are going to define atheism, and insist that other self-described atheists were wrong about their definition of atheism, then how can you deny a Muslim the right to define Islam as he sees fit?
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism canâ€™t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)
Like someone said: ". . . it is a label." We ARE different from the theists in that we adhere to a live and let live philosophy, so long as it adheres to rules of civil behavior.
If you are agreeing with Bust Nak that â€œatheism, being a lack of belief, can't motivate,â€� then it is inconsistent that â€œwe [atheists] adhere to a live and let live philosophy.â€� You can say that you, personally, adhere to a live and let live philosophy. However, there is nothing in atheism that includes a live and let live philosophy or any form of rules of civil behavior.
There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just canâ€™t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.