"Atheist Talking Points: What is Atheism?"
Types of Atheism:
"You might think that Atheism is a simple concept – no god – but that would be far too simplistic. Atheism comes in an entire spectrum of beliefs, varying from Rationalism to Anti-Rationalism; from empiricism to Postmodernism; from Enlightenment to nihilism. What they all have in common, of course, is the rejection of deity and rebellion against authority. 
Some divide themselves into strong Atheists, weak Atheists, and Agnostics.
A strong atheist, for example, would “believe that there is no god”. A weak Atheist would revise the statement to declare “no belief in a god”. So the strong Atheist has a firm belief while the weak Atheist just has no belief. This might seem to be picking nits, but to many Atheists it is an important distinction. The Agnostic, on the other hand, declares an inability to decide due to lack of credible evidence available to him at the present time. So the Agnostic has rejected any knowledge of transcendence, and thereby rejects the First Principles and the basis for rationality; Agnosticism is non-rational.
However it is sliced, the Atheists and Agnostics have rejected certain propositions. First, there is no “first necessary and sufficient cause” for the universe. Second, the universe contains no intelligence beyond the mind of man. Third, there is no type of existence that transcends the ability of man to detect, whether through his primary senses or through the instrumentation he has devised.
Taken together, these form into a philosophy of Naturalism, which declares the non-existence of transcendence beyond the natural, material, sensually knowable, world. Naturalism and Physicalism are “natural allies of Atheism, and offer a philosophical framework within which Atheism finds a natural home.” 
Naturalism is a broad concept. Steven J. Gould declared that there were separate “magisterial” domains for natural phenomena and non-natural phenomena. There is no direct evidence for such a theory. Empiricists have defined a discipline within a naturalized context: only effects that are cognitively discernable are recognized as viable. Philosophically, empiricism is forced to deny the transcendence of its own foundation: the First Principles. This does no harm to the practical aspects of scientific pursuit, but it does undermine the type of Naturalism that declares itself based upon empiricism.
Physicalism is also more commonly called “monism”. Monism is the concept that mind and brain are identical, linked inextricably, and therefore the mind (or soul) is not transcendent but dies with the death of the brain.
The question arises, does activity in the neural constitution of the brain cause the mind? Or does the mind cause the neural activity of the brain? At least one philosopher thinks the mind – brain relation will not be solvable.
The first argument for Monism is Darwinian:
Evolution cannot produce anything that is not material; thought and consciousness exist, therefore they must have evolved and are thus material. (This blatantly circular argument is not even questioned by Fales). However two arguments against this are “qualia” (abstract thought), and intentionality.
Qualia, or abstract thought is explained away as just being mistaken for not being physical;
intentionality is construed to be Darwinian strategy for survival. Each of these is a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy; also called “Just So Stories”, these creations are fabricated specifically to prop a failing or fallacious premise, in this case the premise being Monism as refuted by abstract thought and intentionality.
The second argument for Monism is the David Hume argument that consciousness is only produced by the reproduction of animals that already have consciousness;
it is therefore a physical process, producing a physical entity. This argument completely ignores the question of the source of the original consciousness, but presumes that it jumpstarted itself sometime in prehistory.
Both of these arguments are strongly dependent on the validity of Atheism. Neither can be defended if a deity is found to exist, or if transcendence is found to exist. So both of these arguments are strong tenets of Atheist Worldviews. We shall revisit these when we get to the fallacies segment.
Theodicies and Refutation
Also known as proofs of the existence of God, theodicies are routinely “refuted” by Atheists. Entire books of theodicy refutations have been written. Theologists have responded with new, tighter theodicies, and so the cycle goes. Atheists have their own Anti-theodicies, such as the challenge by Anthony Flew (“What evidence would it take to convince a Christian that there is no deity?&rdquo. Flew’s 1950’s challenge became known as the Atheist Manifesto until Flew himself refuted it in 2004 when he admitted the existence of an pre-existing intelligence to be necessary for the existence of DNA.
But the most common Anti-theodicies are “Who Created God?”; “An omni benevolent God wouldn’t do….”; and “Evil Religion, Evil Church, Evil Christians” (the “fundamentalist” pejorative). These will be discussed independently in both the Atheism’s Talking Points articles and the ebooks.
The mindset of Atheism is based upon an inversion of logic which is manufactured during the process of rebellion. There is no longer any question of the “anti-“ nature of Atheist thought and attitude. As Vitz conclusively found, the “great” Atheists all had either defective fathers or no father; the young boy was deprived of a positive masculine role model. The maturing male rebelled against the feminization he received at the hand of the rearing females, against the father that “abandoned” him to that fate, and subsequently rebelled against all authority, especially the ecclesiastical authority over his soul.
The stages of rebellion and the inversion of logic and emotional responses are covered in detail in another article. For now it should be recognized that Atheism is an emotional response;
the propensity for inverted logic renders it non-rational. This is why arguing with an Atheist is completely non-productive.
An emotional position will be held no matter how rational the argument against it. And the irrationality of the rebuttal fallacies are not even noticed or acknowledged by the Atheist. Atheism is a psychology of denial.
Denial in Atheism
Friedrich Nietzsche was the ultimate Atheist and the master of denial.
Nietzsche denied the validity of the First Principles because they relied on intuition and transcendence. Denial became an essential tool of Atheist intercourse. If a fact is not convenient, deny it. Nietzsche’s denials included the denial of any value of human life beyond the Darwinian objective of creating the “ubermench” or superhuman. His denial of evil led him to propose that any method that successfully supported the elite class in its pursuit of the ubermench is ethical. He forecast that his philosophy would bring massive wars and cataclysm to the 20th century…he just didn’t know which “brutes would arise” to bring them to fruition.
By denying the First Principles, rationality, ethics, morality, and the value of human life, Nietzsche had brought the Enlightenment to full term, and Atheism to its fullest philosophy. Denial of God was just a marker along the path.
Denial had produced an Atheism that is far more than just the “belief that there is no deity”. Atheism became a worldview with political and economic overtones as well as spiritual."
 Biet-Hallahmi, Benjamin; Atheists: A Psychological Profile; The Cambridge Companion to ATHEISM, Cambridge University Press, 2007
 Fales, Evan; Naturalism and Physicalism; The Cambridge Companion to ATHEISM, Cambridge University Press, 2007
 Bernard Williams, “Can We Solve the Mind – body Problem?”, Mind 98, 1989, 349 – 66; per Evan Fales, Naturalism and Physicalism; The Cambridge Companion to ATHEISM, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 132.
 Fales, Evan; Naturalism and Physicalism; The Cambridge Companion to ATHEISM, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
 Paul C. Vitz, “Faith of the Fatherless, the Psychology of Atheism”; Spence Publishing, Dallas, 1999.
 Nietzsche, Friedrich; “Beyond Good and Evil”; translated by Walter Kaufmann; Vintage;1989; p24.