I am the author of a previous myTake that defends religion. Inspired by the vitriolic comment against atheists, I write this myTake in defense of atheism.
Atheism means the lack of belief of gods. In defense of atheism, I list arguments that are used against the existence of the gods. These arguments really cover a specific type of atheism that consists of secular ethics, naturalism, empiricism, and rationalism. Religious atheism exists; unlike the nonreligious atheism, religious atheism is the absence of belief in deities within a religious tradition.
I found the arguments against the existence of God on Wikipedia. I know it has a heavy monotheistic bias, but that's because of Wikipedia's internal bias in the editor population. Many editors are from Christian-majority countries. The United States is one of them. Maybe non-English Wikipedias are less biased towards Christianity. As it stands, the Christianity-oriented atheism is atheism within the Christian framework, regardless of whether a person identifies as Christian or not. I know people who claim that they are atheistic Christians exist (I'm not sure how that works out) and that rejecting a tenet in a religion does not require belief that the religion is true.
- Inconsistent Revelations
If there is God, then God should reveal itself in the world. Yet, the religions contradict each other. God's inability to make people understand God consistently is evidence that there is no able god, or that God itself is really inconsistent. How can God be inconsistent while Mother Nature presumptively is? Therefore, the inconsistent revelations are evidence that God does not exist.
- The Problem of Evil
If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator deity exists, then the deity should make a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a rotten world. The god either willfully is punishing us or allowing evil to persist. If God is punishing us for no reason, then God is just cruel, plain and simple. If God is allowing evil to persist, then God cannot be omnipotent.
- Destiny of the Unevangelized
"Destiny of the Unevangelized" is not my terminology. I found it on the Wikipedia page. The terminology is an example of how skewed the article is towards Christianity-oriented atheism. The problem is in the word "unevangelized". Although you can use the term "evangelize" figuratively, its literal meaning is to "share the gospel". A more religious-neutral term would be "proselytize" or "convert". For this reason, I prefer "fate of the infidels".
The fate of the infidels usually involves punishment. This belief is problematic, because it contradicts the existence of an omnibenevolent creator deity.
The argument by "destiny of the unevangelized" would be a reasonable argument against a religion that has a belief that infidels would be punished.
- Poor Design
This point criticizes the belief in a perfect creation by an omnipotent creator deity. If God created a perfect world, then all creations are perfect. Yet, the flaws in nature are evidence that God did not create a perfect world, and a perfect god cannot create an imperfect world. This argument is combined with The Problem of Evil. Therefore, belief in the existence of God is untenable.
- Existence of Nonbelievers
The existence of nonbelievers is evidence that God does not want people to believe it. If an omnipotent deity wants to lead people to itself, then it should have the ability to do it, and we will all be followers of one god and one religion. But the very existence of many religious viewpoints is evidence that such a deity does not want it, is not able to convert people, or simply does not exist in the first place.
- Belief in God is Superfluous
This argument criticizes the tendency to use God to explain natural phenomena. Explaining natural phenomena parsimoniously is much better than adding unempirical statements about the universe.
- Russell's Teapot
This is an extension of the former argument. It claims that not only is belief in God superfluous, but also that there is a greater burden of proof on the theist than the atheist.
- Lack of Experiential Evidence
Experiential evidence is a fancy term for human experience. Some people do not experience God and are just as happy and fortunate as people who do experience God. God cannot support atheism and theism at the same time. If such a deity exists, then that deity would be so highly inconsistent and unreliable that it is best to put faith in the power of Mother Nature (personification of nature) than the whims of God.