I would agree that atheism isn't a philosophy, however it does have philosophical and world view implications that can't be avoided. Not believing in supernatural things or even just a god has a major impact in philosophy.

What virtue has been signalled here?

@Mvtt Here is a link to Merriam Webster's definition of the word Virtue. Check out definitions 2 and 4. They both apply to my comment.

[merriam-webster.com]

@kensmile4u what is the beneficial or commendable quality you see in sam’s statement?

So you are implying that non believers are not virtuous ?

@Mvtt I see no quality because the statement created an oversimplified binary context between Atheism and religion. We all know humans are a lot more stratified and granular in thought as evidenced by the existence of this site and it's content. The OP obviously thought there was virtue in the statement so he posted it. Therefore he virtue signaled to his fellow atheists. It's common behavior on this site.

@Mvtt, @Moravian No I'm not implying what you said. What do you mean when you say non believers?

@kensmile4u In this context surely it is obvious that non belief means not having a belief in the existence of any gods or supernatural entities. So what are you implying then ?

@Moravian I'm saying there is a very precise point where our thoughts diverge. My thoughts are dependent on facts alone. Since there are no facts available regarding the origins of the universe then I can't say what I believe or disbelieve about that because I don't know. I'll finish by saying none of us know the facts regarding this major issue. This is the point where Atheists will assert the probability of intelligent design is minuscule. That is a scientific error. All known math breaks down in a singularity of spacetime.

@kensmile4u There is an old Scottish saying "Facts are cheils that winna ding". It roughly means that facts are things that will not let you down.But what was a fact a hundred years ago may not be a fact now as we learn more about the universe.
However there is not one fact that supports the existence of any god or intelligent design. Trying to introduce quantum physics is a red herring
I notice time and time again that the opinion of people posting on here has obviously been coloured by earlier Christian indoctrination. I prefer to look back before the Jews became monotheist to when we have the earliest record of the worship of gods either by written record or the interpretation of burial methods or symbols left by the people.
WE do not knot what happened before the big bang or single cell life originated on earth but we have a pretty good idea of the rest. No gods are needed.

@Moravian You are being very presumptuous. I have never mentioned religion in this conversation because it is not a factor. That is the precise downfall of the atheist argument. You can't win the agnostic argument. How do you know if I'm talking about quantum physics or any other thought process? I am as non religious as you are but I am committed to the scientific method. I am humble enough to say I don't know when there are no facts to draw a conclusion. So at this point it is a full stop on the conversation. We'll talk again when you have something substantive to say on this topic. I hope we get the answer in our lifetime.

@kensmile4u fair enough but what was this all about then. "All known math breaks down in a singularity of spacetime." ?
I don't usually get involved in these pointless discussions but I do object to someone suggesting that I am less virtuous than the many so called "agnostics" who populate this site

Explain how non-belief in man made deities is illogical.

Bollocks!

@Mvtt belief means accept as true. The opposite would be accept as false. Theism by definition is that a person accepts that some type of god thingies are truely existing . Atheism, the opposite, by definition would say that there is absolutely not a single style of God thingie in existence.

It is well accepted that Gods are people and people are gods. This has been accepted, peer reviewed and documented for 1000s of years. It does not purport that all styles of god thingies exist, it only requires one style of god thingie to show athiesm by definition and premise to be incorrect, wrong and illogical.

Case closed. Your ignorance of these facts does not make it false because you are ignorant of the facts.

@Mvtt I created Taco God so a person could know themselves and believe in themselves. And put an end once and for all t illogical atheism. This is not to imply that a person must eat a taco to believe in themselves, a person can very well believe in themselves with out eating a taco.

Whereas, the fact tacos exist, people exist and people really eat tacos gives for a real existent God because as I created Taco God as any one and every one that has eaten at least one taco in their life.

Taco God is very much knowable because you know yourself, that is if you have eaten a taco. If you haven't eaten a taco but you know someone that has, then you might could get to know them so that you could know about a taco God.

You are not forced to eat a taco and not forced to go around waving the Taco God label if you have eaten a taco but are not inclined to advertise being a taco God. What taco God does do for people is to free them from being forced to carry the title of illogical atheist. I understand, people like this title for what ever reason and illogical can have entertainment value. So, for entertainment purposes a person can go around with the illogical atheist title and entertain others with illogicalness of the sort, "I lack belief that anyone has ever eaten a taco ". And of course, people can find that funny and entertaining, which there is nothing wrong with good intentioned entertainment even if it is portraying illogicalness.

Illogical atheism can be seen as a part of surrealism a form of entertainment to brighten and entertain others.

sur·re·al·ism
/səˈrēəˌlizəm/
noun
a 20th-century avant-garde movement in art and literature which sought to release the creative potential of the unconscious mind, for example by the irrational juxtaposition of images.

Surrealism is a cultural movement that started in 1917,[1][2] and is best known for its visual artworks and writings. Artists painted unnerving, illogical scenes, sometimes with photographic precision, creating strange creatures from everyday objects, and developing painting techniques that allowed the unconscious to express itself.[3] Its aim was, according to Breton, to "resolve the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality into an absolute reality, a super-reality", or surreality.[4][5][6]wikipedia

Go and be surreal my illogical atheist friends, you are allowed to surreally think freely.

@Word don’t force your supreme logical taco god on me.

"It is well accepted that Gods are people and people are gods. This has been accepted, peer reviewed and documented for 1000s of years."

I don't suppose we could bother you to provide evidence for this new agey type claim, could we?

If gods are people and people are gods, then agnosticism is illogical too by your logic.

@Word "belief means accept as true. The opposite would be accept as false."

No, the opposite would be to not accept as true.

"It is well accepted . . ." means "I wish others agreed with me but I can't find anyone who does."

@David1955 john 1:1 in the beginning was the logos, the logos was with God and was God. John 1:14 ... the logos become flesh(A person).

Thus, gods are people as opposed to being an idol.

John 10:34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

The people are gods such that they are the creators of Jesus character.

Although it is impossible to obtain exact figures, there is little doubt that the Bible is the world's best-selling and most widely distributed book. A survey by the Bible Society concluded that around 2.5 billion copies were printed between 1815 and 1975, but more recent estimates put the number at more than 5 billion. [guinnessworldrecords.com]

Conclusion, Biblical text hold world record for being most copied text of it's kind and peer reviewed for at least almost 2000 years. God thingies are people and people are god thingies.

As to agnosticism, it does have illogicalness. Accepted statement of agnostic is that "a person could never know that god thingies exist".

@editor20 If they do not agree with you, then, they disagree.

@Word The Bible is your evidence?!?! GTFO.

@editor20 It is a form of giving definition. It is evidence of definition. From observation of the definition it can be observed that the definition does exist. People really exist. Gods are labelled as people and People are labeled as gods.

@editor20 Do you understand the difference in "defintion " and "evidence "? Definition is not the evidence, but gives for what the evidence will be when examining something considered to be evidence.

If evidence is presented then that evidence is evaluated to see if it fits the definition. If the evidence does not fit the definition then there is not a match and the evidence is not evidence for what it was purported to be.

@editor20 Evidence then given is a person. The biblical text is not the evidence. The biblical text defines Gods as people and people as gods. Your evidence is the fact you can observe people.

@editor20 [spaghettimonster.org]

Illogical atheist offers this as a definition for a style of god thingie. If you have evidence of the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God then we can compare it to the definition to see if your evidence matches the definition.

@Word oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about real history, real historians, and there you go talking about fables. Silly me.

@David1955 Fable - a short story, typically with animals as characters, conveying a moral.

Pasta in the sky with meatballs is not exactly a fable and not historical. I understand it is a rather modern invention for a God thingie definition.