There is a simple analogy that I always use.
The theists believing in their whatever deities for which they have no solid evidence of, for their existence, infact none whatsoever, are akin to people who are dreaming.
On the other hand, atheists are akin to people who are
not dreaming.
The act of
not dreaming, is not an act of dreaming.
Another thing is that, it is the theists who are asserting a or several claims for the existence of an or several entities for which they have definitions of and knowledge of regarding its or their properties/qualities/attributes etc. But these entities seem somehow specially to be existent only to them alone. Usually by it or they somehow interacting or manifesting only to them.
It always initially starts out that noone are even aware of such entities, apart from those claiming their existence, that is the theists.
Therefore the logical conclusion is, that these entities, must be biased or those who believe in these entities are suffering from delusion. For they appear to claim the existence of entities about whom the knowledge regarding thereof, generally tend to be confined to images or words.
Even if we are to consider these entities to be existent and biased, why then, those of us, who due to our lack of awareness of the existence of these entities unlike those who are specially chosen to possess the knowledge regarding their existence, accept them?
Is it not unfair that we already, are left out? Further still why should we accept it from those who claim of them? Is this not a scheme that is highly biased? where in which we are the sore losers?
Those asserting the existence of entities for which they cannot prove by means that are demonstrable and obvious. Are the ones who are "believers". For what they believe in are simply not true and that which they claim regarding them are not facts and neither is the basis by which to believe in them reliable. The atheist or disbeliever is simply an individual who is not convinced due to the lack of evidence of the entities that are claimed to be existent or one who dismisses the claims asserted by the theists.
This in itself is not a belief. But a lack of belief.
One can neither prove nor disprove that which is non-existent.
Usually the existence of that which cannot be proven tend to possess traits in combination which are not acceptable based upon what we believe to be true using common sense and simple observation of the natural world.
For example, a human tends to look a certain way, behaves in a certain way and whether or not a specific human existed is based upon verifiable historical accounts or archaeological remains of him or her.
Take the Hindu deity Krishna
blue in complexion, black hair with curled locks, is generally depicted adorned with a pea cock feather, having upon him a garland of flowers and is of youthful countenance
doesn't appear to be like a normal human
what sources can we trace back to, that first speak of him?
are these sources reliable? was there such an individual called Krishna? can we definitively prove such an individual even existed?
of what importance let alone necessity is it of us to believe he even existed?
Since we cannot prove nor disprove Krishna, it would be a neutral, I might argue even rational and natural thing to do, to not believe in such an absurd looking entity.
Topic: Atheism is NOT a Belief