Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[celestio]

Because atheists have logical mind.

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.

Would your view of an intelligent creator's attributes be; omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, benevolent, and infinite?

[1714838443]

1714838443

[1714838443]

1714838443

[celestio]

i just wonder what kind of expression that be had by an atheist when he shocked
if religions people say "Oh My God" of "Oh Jesus Christ", does an atheist will say "Oh science", "Oh universe", or "oh boson higgs particle"?

LOL! I guess they might consider their parents as their God. "Oh mum!" "Oh dad"  

I am not disproving you but bolded part suggests the god in your heart to have superpowers.

I liked this - "God doesn't have a face or shape but he is in my heart."

I believe in Adam and Eve but I am not talking about the superpowers like since God is unhappy with the world, he causes an earthquake, tsunami and so on.

I believe that he is the creator of humans though. I would like to know what atheists believe about Adam and Eve. Don't they believe that there was first one man and woman created on this earth? How were they created according to science?

Even to biblical historians, "Adam and Eve", "Noah's Ark", and a few others are regarded as symbolic instead of literal.

[BADecker]

i just wonder what kind of expression that be had by an atheist when he shocked
if religions people say "Oh My God" of "Oh Jesus Christ", do an atheist will say "Oh science", "Oh universe", or "oh boson higgs particle"?

I have wondered this, as well. In some of the mills in America, or on some of the docks like in San Francisco or L.A., workers don't seem to have a touch of religion, but they call on the name of God whenever they please.

All those years as a kid that I said "holy cow" must mean I was a Hindu, right?

So that's why you studied all those 6 or 7 religions you studied.

Words and phrases are passed down, it has nothing to do with any type of "God". That's just sociology/culture for you.

This is true.

Often when Christians use some form like "damn it" or "holy cow" or dogonit," it is a form of curse word that people use as a complaint. And often it is a reduced form of actually using God's name in vain, which Christians are schooled to not do. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_cow_%28expression%29.

[erikalui]

LOL! This is what is the definition of atheism: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

[Lethn]

Because atheists have logical mind.

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.

Don't you realise how ridiculous you sound whenever you say something like that? The fact is religious people will happily believe in god ( because they've usually had it literally beaten into them at an early age ) yet somehow all the other stuff like unicorns and santa claus don't exist. You create your own rulesets for scientific evidence and change the definition of words to suit what you say and try to force somebody who tries to debate you into those rules, that's why these kinds of threads go onto hundreds of pages rather than just be 1 page.

It isn't clever, it just makes you either incredibly petty, or somebody who resorts to circular logic because you've had whatever you believe programmed into you at an early age, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with major religions in particular if it weren't for the fact that you're blatantly trying to infiltrate governments and school systems, that's putting it very politely as well.

If people wanted to worship satan or the flying spaghetti monster, I couldn't give a fuck, just don't expect me to go along with your bullshit because that I find is the most insulting thing of all, that you expect me to go along with what you believe or else.

[the joint]

Because atheists have logical mind.

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.

Would your view of an intelligent creator's attributes be; omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, benevolent, and infinite?

I'm most comfortable with the term "Intelligent Designer," which I would define as an "omnipotent creator of reality."

[BADecker]

LOL! This is what is the definition of atheism: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

Disbelieving in something isn't as strong as believing that something doesn't exist.

Disbelieving suggests that their isn't much though in it, or that there isn't any force directed into it.

Believing that something doesn't exist is a direct act of focusing on the thing to formulate the belief.

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t:

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[the joint]

Because atheists have logical mind.

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.

Don't you realise how ridiculous you sound whenever you say something like that? The fact is religious people will happily believe in god ( because they've usually had it literally beaten into them at an early age ) yet somehow all the other stuff like unicorns and santa claus don't exist. You create your own rulesets for scientific evidence and change the definition of words to suit what you say and try to force somebody who tries to debate you into those rules, that's why these kinds of threads go onto hundreds of pages rather than just be 1 page.

It isn't clever, it just makes you either incredibly petty, or somebody who resorts to circular logic because you've had whatever you believe programmed into you at an early age, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with major religions in particular if it weren't for the fact that you're blatantly trying to infiltrate governments and school systems, that's putting it very politely as well.

If people wanted to worship satan or the flying spaghetti monster, I couldn't give a fuck, just don't expect me to go along with your bullshit because that I find is the most insulting thing of all, that you expect me to go along with what you believe or else.

Responding according to paragraph:

1)  How many dozens of academic sources about the limits of Empiricism would you like me to cite for you?  A dozen?  Ten dozen?  This is common academic knowledge.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you can find the implications of what I'm saying, either directly or indirectly, in literally thousands of works, grade school, high school, and collegiate text books, etc.?

Claim: It is silly to believe in something without evidence.
Counterclaim:  It is silly to believe in something without good reason.

Intelligent Design (assumption of religion) --> No evidence
Positivistic Universe (assumption of Empiricism and Science) --> No evidence

Scientists maintain the assumption of a Positivistic Universe without evidence.  The assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (to scientifically falsify this assumption would require the observational collection of data in a Universe totally absent of any observers).

So, why do scientists maintain this assumption without evidence?  Simple -- they have a good reason to maintain the assumption.  Specifically, the reason is that it is sound to control for the effects of observer participation so long as we recognize and obey the rules of logical inference and inductive reasoning.

The face value of the assumptions of Intelligent Design and a Postivistic Universe are the same.  In the same way that scientists defer to reason to justify certain assumptions, you must also defer to reason to justify your assumption.

Evidence is irrelevant in this case. Sorry, you're wrong, and you will forever be wrong if you maintain this position.  It's not even any less unsound than anything BADecker has been saying.  There is nothing to debate, here.


2)   I'm not even religious.  I hate dogma, and I defer to no holy book or authority. I've submitted research proposals to the APA board and have carried out experimental studies.  I've taught research and experiment design in college classrooms.  You really had better check yourself if you are intellectually honest and care about the topic you're engaging in discussion.  Again, none of this is uncommon knowledge.  I can provide dozens of references for you.  No matter how you spin it, Intelligent Design falls outside the scope of Empiricism in the exact same way that Science's own assumptions fall outside the scope of Empiricism.  Evidence is an irrelevant consideration.  Sorry, you need to do better.  I don't know how else to tell you except you're wrong.

Simple deductive argument:
Premise 1  Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon that which is not bound by physical constraints (axiom; self-description).
Premise 2:  An omnipotent Intelligent Designer is not bound by physical constraints  (axiom; self-description)
Therefore: Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

TKO.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to refute that.


3)  Flying Spaghetti Monster is an invalid analogy to an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.  An omnipotent Intelligent Designer is defined in terms of a lack of constraint while the FSM is defined in terms of constraint.  Phrased another way, a lack of constraint is the distinguishing characteristic -- the *only* one -- which differentiates between it and any constrained forms it could take, such as an FSM.  Accordingly, there theoretically would be a way to empirically prove or falsify an FSM but not an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

[jaysabi]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

It is true that people don't often include the idea of strongly held beliefs as a form of religion. But it is in the definition, or very close.

[Lethn]

Evidence is irrelevant in this case. Sorry, you're wrong, and you will forever be wrong if you maintain this position.  It's not even any less unsound than anything BADecker has been saying.  There is nothing to debate, here.

You're making the assertion that something is true and a fact without any evidence to back it up, that means you have to come up with the evidence, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Also, scientists make no such claim, scientists are out to find the truth and people like you constantly get in the way of that, my favourite example for this is the hadron collider, what would creationists be so afraid of with that thing? It's just a high powered experiment to smash particles together and doesn't do a damn thing to anybody, yet the amount of uproar there was about it was ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother refuting your every 'point' simply because you're intellectually dishonest like most creationists and people who refute basic scientific evidence, when you stop making things up then I'll happily debate with you, but until you can accept the basic ruleset of having to provide physical evidence in order to prove something is real or not there is no point.

[erikalui]

Disbelieving in something isn't as strong as believing that something doesn't exist.

Disbelieving suggests that their isn't much though in it, or that there isn't any force directed into it.

Believing that something doesn't exist is a direct act of focusing on the thing to formulate the belief.

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t:

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

To simply believe something is what theists also believe in. Like some said here, the term religion is grilled in the head of theists and hence they believe in it and same goes for atheists.

I truly agree with @the joint. Atheists believe in science while scientists too make assumptions and their beliefs aren't completely right.

An example: There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.

There are many events that happen in life but they have no scientific evidence and hence people don't believe in it.


An excellent argument of science and the beliefs of atheism:


Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being. This objection, however, though emotionally powerful, is not a logical one because the reality of evil does not cancel out the extensive evidence of intelligent and benevolent design in Nature. To use two analogies: the existence of badly constructed buildings in one particular area does not disprove the existence of competent architects elsewhere, anymore than the existence of hatred within some families disproves the reality of human love in others. What the problem of evil does is to raise challenging questions such as: why does God allow it? What is its origin? What, if anything, has God done about it? It does not obliterate the many traces of His goodness and creativity in the world around us. Furthermore, part of the evidence for God’s existence and goodness is that very moral standard which enables us to detect evil and complain about it! Atheism, by contrast, cannot make sense of the problem of evil because it cannot explain how we can attach any objective significance to our thoughts and values if we are merely accidental by-products of an ultimately random and purposeless universe.


Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self-explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause?

http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/does-science-contradict-religion

[celestio]

If omnipotence is to be: limitless, all powerful, unlimited.

Then we can argue that omnipotence as a concept, does not exist. A better attribute would be "very powerful", but claiming anything or anyone to be "all powerful" is illogical.

In the bible, god is not omnipotent, he is rather "very powerful". He is limited by constraints such as his inability to sin. The bible's view on omnipotence is incorrect.

Then there's the matter that an "omnipotent" deity should be able to do theoretically anything, even outside the boundaries of logic and math. But by definition, an omnipotent deity cannot be omnipotent, showing the invalidity of the concept, "omnipotence" (The "stone so heavy he can't lift it" paradox in omnipotence is valid).

[BADecker]

Disbelieving in something isn't as strong as believing that something doesn't exist.

Disbelieving suggests that their isn't much though in it, or that there isn't any force directed into it.

Believing that something doesn't exist is a direct act of focusing on the thing to formulate the belief.

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t:

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

To simply believe something is what theists also believe in. Like some said here, the term religion is grilled in the head of theists and hence they believe in it and same goes for atheists.

I truly agree with @the joint. Atheists believe in science while scientists too make assumptions and their beliefs aren't completely right.

An example: There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.

There are many events that happen in life but they have no scientific evidence and hence people don't believe in it.


An excellent argument of science and the beliefs of atheism:


Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being. This objection, however, though emotionally powerful, is not a logical one because the reality of evil does not cancel out the extensive evidence of intelligent and benevolent design in Nature. To use two analogies: the existence of badly constructed buildings in one particular area does not disprove the existence of competent architects elsewhere, anymore than the existence of hatred within some families disproves the reality of human love in others. What the problem of evil does is to raise challenging questions such as: why does God allow it? What is its origin? What, if anything, has God done about it? It does not obliterate the many traces of His goodness and creativity in the world around us. Furthermore, part of the evidence for God’s existence and goodness is that very moral standard which enables us to detect evil and complain about it! Atheism, by contrast, cannot make sense of the problem of evil because it cannot explain how we can attach any objective significance to our thoughts and values if we are merely accidental by-products of an ultimately random and purposeless universe.


Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self-explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause?

http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/does-science-contradict-religion

Thank you.

Religious people believe in science. Most of them realize that it was science that pushed the engineers and business people into designing their electric ranges in their kitchens. And they love their electric ranges as much as atheists.

The point you seem to be making is that people who are atheists do not often think of themselves as religious, and atheism as religion. Yet, as I am pointing out, atheism is a religion (at least a philosophy) by the dictionary definitions of the words "atheism, religion, philosophy, God."

[jaysabi]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

Let's look at the most relevant definition of religion, because you took the sixth most relevant definition and tried to use it to prove your point:

Definition 1: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism has one belief: there is no god. It is not a set of beliefs on the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. It does not subscribe to belief in superhuman agency, ritual observances, or a moral code by which to govern the conduct of human affairs. Definition 1 fails entirely.

As for the rest of the definitions, there are no moral codes, rituals, or a defining theory of beliefs that originate from atheism, because atheism is only the belief in the nonexistence of god. That's the beginning and the end of atheism. To the extent there are patterns you recognize from atheists, it is from something that might more closely resemble a "religion" (like secular humanism), but in all relevant applications of the the word religion, atheism doesn't fit. There is no underlying moral code with atheism. The moral compass comes from other schools of thought, like Natural Rights Philosophy or Secular Humanism, not from atheism. The confluence of these schools of thought with atheism are complimentary, but coincidental.

[the joint]

Evidence is irrelevant in this case. Sorry, you're wrong, and you will forever be wrong if you maintain this position.  It's not even any less unsound than anything BADecker has been saying.  There is nothing to debate, here.

You're making the assertion that something is true and a fact without any evidence to back it up, that means you have to come up with the evidence, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Also, scientists make no such claim, scientists are out to find the truth and people like you constantly get in the way of that, my favourite example for this is the hadron collider, what would creationists be so afraid of with that thing? It's just a high powered experiment to smash particles together and doesn't do a damn thing to anybody, yet the amount of uproar there was about it was ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother refuting your every 'point' simply because you're intellectually dishonest like most creationists and people who refute basic scientific evidence, when you stop making things up then I'll happily debate with you, but until you can accept the basic ruleset of having to provide physical evidence in order to prove something is real or not there is no point.

I didn't say that at all. I make my own claims about Intelligent Design elsewhere.  My specific claim was exactly, "It is silly to believe in something without good reason [instead of evidence]."  Then, I obliged by providing the proof you continue to state you're looking for.

And from that, I'll re-quote the deductive argument:

Simple deductive argument:
Premise 1  Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon that which is not bound by physical constraints (axiom; self-description).
Premise 2:  An omnipotent Intelligent Designer is not bound by physical constraints  (axiom; self-description)
Therefore: Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

My claims about whether I believe Intelligent Design actually exists are a separate issue:  To that extent, I have good reason to believe in Intelligent Design.  Evidence is irrelevant.

Other notes:
- I'm not afraid of the LHC.  It's awesome.  But we already know it's an impossibility to reach a theoretical limit of explanation through inductive reasoning, so we already know right off the bat Science has never, will never, and could never provide enough data to construct a theory of Reality at the height of general explanation.  Again, how many dozens of references do you want to support this?  One?  Ten?

- People can be correct for the wrong reasons, and wrong for the correct reasons.  In this case, the latter describes you.  You are totally justified in wanting to remain as logical, un-opinionated, and intellectually honest as possible.  If you don't know where the limits of Empiricism end, then I can't knock you for being ignorant to that knowledge.  But I would simply encourage you to read or re-read about them for yourself, because not only are you straw-manning me to death, but its clear you have some misunderstandings about Empiricism in general, particularly its non-empirical originals (i.e. *entirely* non-empirical origins).

-That deductive argument completely obliterates your point.  Reread it until you understand it.  No intellectual dishonesty on my part, only a projection of yours.

[the joint]

If omnipotence is to be: limitless, all powerful, unlimited.

Then we can argue that omnipotence as a concept, does not exist. A better attribute would be "very powerful", but claiming anything or anyone to be "all powerful" is illogical.

In the bible, god is not omnipotent, he is rather "very powerful". He is limited by constraints such as his inability to sin. The bible's view on omnipotence is incorrect.

Then there's the matter that an "omnipotent" deity should be able to do theoretically anything, even outside the boundaries of logic and math. But by definition, an omnipotent deity cannot be omnipotent, showing the invalidity of the concept, "omnipotence" (The "stone so heavy he can't lift it" paradox in omnipotence is valid).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon itself such that it is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.  If omnipotence is the defining characteristic, then adding constraints via that omnipotence in no way changes its identity.

Omnipotence paradoxes are necessarily self-resolving.

[celestio]

If omnipotence is to be: limitless, all powerful, unlimited.

Then we can argue that omnipotence as a concept, does not exist. A better attribute would be "very powerful", but claiming anything or anyone to be "all powerful" is illogical.

In the bible, god is not omnipotent, he is rather "very powerful". He is limited by constraints such as his inability to sin. The bible's view on omnipotence is incorrect.

Then there's the matter that an "omnipotent" deity should be able to do theoretically anything, even outside the boundaries of logic and math. But by definition, an omnipotent deity cannot be omnipotent, showing the invalidity of the concept, "omnipotence" (The "stone so heavy he can't lift it" paradox in omnipotence is valid).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon himself such that it is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.  If omnipotence is the defining characteristic, then adding constraints via that omnipotence in no way changes its identity.

Omnipotence paradoxes are necessarily self-resolving.

That's a good point. But, wouldn't adding constraints "via that omnipotence" end the omnipotence of that deity? An example would be where a initially omnipotent deity decides to end it's omnipotence via it's omnipotence. Therefore the end result would be that said deity would no longer be omnipotent or that it actually never had omnipotence in the first place, and was rather "very powerful".

[jaysabi]

If omnipotence is to be: limitless, all powerful, unlimited.

Then we can argue that omnipotence as a concept, does not exist. A better attribute would be "very powerful", but claiming anything or anyone to be "all powerful" is illogical.

In the bible, god is not omnipotent, he is rather "very powerful". He is limited by constraints such as his inability to sin. The bible's view on omnipotence is incorrect.

Then there's the matter that an "omnipotent" deity should be able to do theoretically anything, even outside the boundaries of logic and math. But by definition, an omnipotent deity cannot be omnipotent, showing the invalidity of the concept, "omnipotence" (The "stone so heavy he can't lift it" paradox in omnipotence is valid).

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon itself such that it is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.  If omnipotence is the defining characteristic, then adding constraints via that omnipotence in no way changes its identity.

Omnipotence paradoxes are necessarily self-resolving.

I've never thought of this concept before, but it's interesting to me now. I don't see how omnipotence paradoxes can be self-resolving. If you are omnipotent, you have to have the power to constrain yourself. If you not, you can't be omnipotent. But if you can't over come a restraint, you also can't be omnipotent. Doesn't this invalidate the idea of omnipotence as a whole?

In the same vein, is god "unable" to sin in the bible, or is he just so "good" he doesn't sin? Also, I would probably dispute that god does not sin. There are plenty of stories of wretched behavior by god in the old testament.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a religion because atheists don't know that God doesn't exist. They simply believe it.

Doesn't follow logically. If the only attribute of religion was believing in something that can't be known, it might be accurate, but that's hardly the only attribute to religion. However, it's the only metric by which you're judging atheism.

Who is judging atheism? If the shoe fits, wear it. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

...

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

...

What else might atheism be, other than philosophy, since God hasn't been disproved, and there are multitudes who believe strongly that God exists?

Let's look at the most relevant definition of religion, because you took the sixth most relevant definition and tried to use it to prove your point:

Definition 1: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism has one belief: there is no god. It is not a set of beliefs on the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. It does not subscribe to belief in superhuman agency, ritual observances, or a moral code by which to govern the conduct of human affairs. Definition 1 fails entirely.

As for the rest of the definitions, there are no moral codes, rituals, or a defining theory of beliefs that originate from atheism, because atheism is only the belief in the nonexistence of god. That's the beginning and the end of atheism. To the extent there are patterns you recognize from atheists, it is from something that might more closely resemble a "religion" (like secular humanism), but in all relevant applications of the the word religion, atheism doesn't fit. There is no underlying moral code with atheism. The moral compass comes from other schools of thought, like Natural Rights Philosophy or Secular Humanism, not from atheism. The confluence of these schools of thought with atheism are complimentary, but coincidental.

I would agree that ambiguous definitions are not the best. But that is what we have. If one doesn't like the definitions of his particular religion, perhaps he should change the name of it to something that is less ambiguous. For example. Tis not "atheism," but rather tis "atheism - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." However, rather a long "word," right?