I believe this is something that needs delving into, with consideration. You have presented a very interesting question, indeed. Is atheism about evidence or rebellion? It does make me wonder, because why would they argue about someone they don't even claim to believe in? That doesn't make sense. It seems that atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods, while in a narrower, more standard academic sense, it is the specific position that gods do not exist. Atheism is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Then on the flip side of that coin, I read that atheism often exists because of the lack of verifiable evidence for a god, with many atheists arguing that one should not believe in things for which there is insufficient proof. Other reasons include scientific explanations that have replaced traditional theological ones, the philosophical challenges posed by the problem of evil, and the contradictions between different religious claims.
So which is it?
Atheism can be complex, and different people may have varying perspectives on why they identify as atheists. Some might argue it's about evidence, while others might see it as a rejection of certain beliefs or claims. Ultimately, atheism can encompass a range of views and reasons, and it seems that it is not necessarily a single, monolithic position.
It's also worth noting that people may identify as atheists for personal, cultural, or philosophical reasons that might not be directly related to evidence or argumentation.
In terms of the argumentation aspect, it's true that some atheists might engage in debates or discussions about theism, even if they don't believe in the existence of a god. This could be seen as a way of critically examining assumptions, challenging ideas, or exploring the implications of different beliefs.
One thing I know. Regardless of our different views and interpretations, we should all love one another and be thoughtful of each other, handling diverse beliefs with respect, whether we agree or not.
