It's often been argued, by those who profess to be atheists, that atheism is nothing more and nothing less than "an absence of belief in God (or the gods)". This definition is simple, to the point, and clear enough. It is the dictionary definition of the word, but although one might think this position is rather straightforward and uncontroversial, it hides the fact that, at least so far as modern-day, militant atheism goes, it remains hopelessly inadequate.
It is inadequate for the rather simple and obvious reason that the vast majority of atheists one encounters these days do not simply lack a belief in God, but actively promote what they DO believe, to anyone nearby who will listen (and even to those who tell them to go away). Evidence for this can be found, first and foremost, in the 'YouTube' comments section where anything of a religious nature is discussed within the clip that has been posted. Alternatively, one can make them come out of the woodwork by simply leaving a comment beneath any clip that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, by simply mentioning "God" in a comment you leave there.
Before I came here to GAG, I would often express my views there, and would usually wind up in a debate with someone who truly thought that if a claim was in their view "extraordinary" (whatever that means, precisely) it required "extraordinary evidence". Well, as anyone who has given this a modicum of thought will be able to tell you, the very idea of the extraordinary is completely subjective. What may be extraordinary to me, may not be to you (and vice versa), so what exactly are they after here?
They also like to emphasise the point that their "lack of belief" requires no explanation, and no justification, because it's "the default position". Well, sorry, but no, that's not the way it works. A belief that is stated as such, when used to make a point about something, always needs to be explained and defended. An absence of belief about anything at all is still a belief (i.e. the belief that x does not exist). When you base an entire worldview (ex. the philosophy of materialistic reductionism) upon this "absence of belief", the burden for providing reasons for why you believe what you do is even stronger, and when you try to justify the absolutely abhorrent (ex. abortion "rights"), well...
Yes, I mentioned abortion because that's something else I have observed most atheists believe in, or support, along with a whole list of other (in my personal view) dreadful ideas. Could this just be a coincidence? Why DO they so insistently state that "religion is for idiots", or "Christianity isn't true, because... reasons. Richard Dawkins says so, and he's a really smart guy"? Where are the good arguments for the belief that God is a delusion? Why should I accept their horrendously bad arguments for God's non-existence? Don't they realise their belief that physical reality equates to all of reality has holes in it that put black holes to shame?
Although I do not consider myself to be a Christian, I know enough about it to understand it isn't something that can only be approached from a single perspective, that perspective being the literal interpretation of the Bible as a manual on how the universe works. People believe it is true because they can relate to it on a personal level, they take much of the text allegorically, and the passages that are meant to be interpreted literally are seen for what they are: laws, commandments and promises made within a context that may not be applicable today.
Anyway, that's my take on all of this. You can disagree if you want to, but please, no profanity! Don't become emotional about this. Keep that anger in check. :)