What is Atheism?

[SteveII]

I don't reject truths from other disciplines.  [A] I might not find a particular conclusion to be a truth. For example, while many people just accept evolution as truth (defines as the theory of common decent and the mechanisms by which that happens), I don't make that leap because 1) it has not been proven and 2) my worldview gives more more possibilities than say, and atheist has. I'm not trying to start a debate on evolution, [b]just illustrating the difference in having to believe a theory is true and not having to believe a theory is true regardless of it's actual truth value. When they prove it, I will amend my belief.[/b]

There are plenty of secular members here on AF who don't leap to belief in god, because from their perspective, like the reasons given by you in [A], it has not been proven and their worldview provides them with more possibilities than a theist. Hence, in your opinion, is such a position a valid alternative to theism?
                                        
Also, regarding , there have been secular members on this site who have made similar remarks about their atheism, namely that if theists prove it (god), then they will amend their beliefs? Do you think that this is reasonable?  What are your thoughts?

An atheistic worldview provides more possibilities? I think they have it backwards. Naturalism is more limiting because of two things: 1) it cannot explain the existence of logic, mathematics, morality abstract objects, consciousness etc. and 2) rejects supernatural possibilities/events/causes/persons (which is a philosophical position, not a scientific one). Naturalism leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and as is often the case, relegating those question asked to "not relevant" or "meaningless". 


Regarding the topic of sources of truth we have been discussing: You may be familiar with Alvin Plantinga. He formulated the following argument that points out, not that naturalism is false, but that we cannot sensibly believe both naturalism and the scientific theory of evolution. 

Letting R be the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, N the proposition that there is no such person as God or anything like Him (naturalism), and E the proposition that we and our cognitive faculties have come to be in the way proposed by the contemporary scientific theory of evolution, Plantinga formulates the argument as follows:

1. Pr (R|N&E) is low.
2. Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that Pr (R|N&E) is low has a defeater for R.
3. Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief he thinks he has, including N&E itself.
4. If one who accepts N&E thereby acquires a defeater for N&E, N&E is self-defeating and can’t rationally be accepted.
5. Therefore, N&E can’t rationally be accepted.

Pasted from Book Review: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/where-the...naturalism