Weak, with a thorough dowsing of weak sauce. Serve it with a watery chardonnay. I stand beside Epicurus and add that the supernatural adds nothing to anybody's quality of life in any way other than placebo.

But... i only have one reason for being an atheist. i think there aren't any gods, and "atheist" is the word for that. a reason for thinking there aren't any gods? i wasn't aware i needed one. i think one needs a reason to think there ARE gods.

as for the listed reasons, 1 is ridiculous. thinking something is evil isn't the same as thinking it doesn't exist. 2. is true but not a reason to be an atheist; it's just a fact, and people may make of that what they will. 3. science isn't a belief system. 4. i don't need an EXCUSE to become an atheist! i didn't even become one; i just realized that there were no gods. it wasn't a decision. it was a realization. i was kind of sad about it. i liked my god. realizing he was fictional wasn't traumatic or anything but it was as i say, a little sad. 5. free will's being incompatible with god only holds true if that's how your particular god operates. some people believe in gods who just sit back and don't interfere with human activity. belief in a god doesn't automatically mean belief in the god of the bible. that reason is a bit culture-bound. 6. it is not unreasonable to ask for proof when someone asserts something ridiculous. however, i am not seeking proof. i don't seek proof that pigs can fly either. i know well enough no such proof is coming. i'd be pretty skeptical if someone did show me a flying pig. wouldn't you be? 7. i have never heard bad theistic behavior used as an excuse for atheism. atheism isn't about what you think of religionists. it's just a belief that there are no gods. theists make up ALL kinds of crap about why they think we hold no gods. this would be a bad reason, but it's not anyone's actual reason! 8. this is a good reason not to follow a religion. i don't know anyone who uses it as a reason not to hold any gods. 9. it's cool to be prevented from running for office, be mocked by religionists and be subjected to these nine ridiculous assumptions about why atheists are atheists? i don't THINK so!

these are not nine bad reasons to be an atheist. these are nine bad, incorrect assumptions ABOUT atheists and why they're atheists.

g

Number 9 seems to think that it's "cool" to be an atheist. Not too much where I live. Around some it might even put you in danger if it is known.

Number 5 thinks you have to put god "outside of time." I like that one and many people believe it. Theists have went so far as to put god "in another dimension" and I think much of this idea is to protect their god in every way. (na, na, na, na, na, na. You can't catch me.) Sorry, Charlie. When you put your god in another dimension you have put him out of existence.

Most of these are fallacies of the simplest order or just generalizations that vary degrees of an exponential nature.

Number 8 compares the strife of religious wars and exploitation with that of drunk soccer fans. Sure both are "strife", but one is mostly people letting off steam, the other gives us suicide bombers, holy wars and the inquisition. Bullets and vaccines both hurt, but the difference is worth noting.

One example, they all are flawed or just straw man arguments.

Agree there are no solid arguments for being atheist, but that is because Atheism is the option left when there are no solid arguments for being a theist. The thing is there many types of atheists, some of the arguments here are the ones used by antitheists which is different atheist from other ones, specially the agnostic or spiritual ones. So there are no convincing arguments to be totally against religion, yeah that could be true, but neither there are arguments supporting the theist position, so the default position is the atheist one.

Agree there are no solid arguments for being atheist, but that is because Atheism is the option left when there are no solid arguments for being a theist. The thing is there many types of atheists, some of the arguments here are the ones used by antitheists which is different atheist from other ones, specially the agnostic or spiritual ones. So there are no convincing arguments to be totally against religion, yeah that could be true, but neither there are arguments supporting the theist position, so the default position is the atheist one.

Many of us have heard all these discussions before and found them wanting and self-serving. That is actually the point - what do these people get out of their ideas???
it's called a conflict of interest and completely calls into question all their apologetics.

The article makes some OK points, as far as it goes, but conspicuously avoids addressing the issue of motivation. Why would a person be motivated to believe in something there is no evidence for? A cursory understanding of evolutionary biology and psychology supplies a perfectly adequate answer to that question - no assumption of a literal god required. The article starts with that assumption of a god, and never manages to escape it or address where the assumption came from.

A sophomoric attempt at denigrating atheism, this article makes assertions but never justifies them. It's nothing but a wordy "nuh-uh!" What the author fails to address is that it's the claimant who has the burden, not the one who doesn't accept the claim. He lost me right out of the gate by saying that we can't expect moral action from God because that would be anthropomorphizing God. Dumbest argument ever! Then why bother with such a being? If it has no bearing on our lives in any understandable way, with motives that have nothing to do with the actual well being of people, why are we told to worship? Why should we think such a being wants worship, cares about us at all, or will be inclined to give us some paradise after death if we do certain things in life? When the author said that evidence doesn't matter, because that puts God in a box, I wanted to yell, "Then you can justify any unsupported idea by that rationale! All you have to say is that it's bigger or more complex than the human mind can conceive and, wham, you've asserted irrefutability."

Number of reasons required to be an athiest:
Zero

Number of reasons to believe in a religion:
More than Zero

I enjoyed your rebuttal.

You don't need a reason to be an atheist anymore than you need a reason not to believe in Bigfoot, the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause. There is no reason to believe in any of them without there being good verifiable evidence that they exist.
For something like the gods I've heard of, there would need to be concrete evidence for something so incredible.

There is simply one good reason for not believing in any gods -- simply that no evidence exists that any god actually exists. Why should any person believe in something without a shred of evidence?

Pakistan - the country (or rather a department in that country) that complained to Wordpress because posting of Jesus and Mo comics in Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True website was offensive. So rather than block the website themselves, compelled Wordpress to block it in Pakistan.

In other words, not surprised that this sort of article would appear in Pakistan Today.....

He's just using his own religions excuses for what he believes that does not invalidate athiests opinions at?

I strive to live a reality and evidenced based life. I do not need anyone to tell me why I should or should not be an A-theist or a Theist as I am quite capable to make that determination myself.