Oh I see. I think I understand now. So it's almost like atheism is passive, and anti-theism is active? Anti-theists really care about showing that they're right, while atheists just don't care at all.
And what I was asking was really if atheism is correct or not (that it is actually true that no gods exist). This brings me to my next big question. For the atheists who said that god can't be proven: why aren't you agnostic?
Foi, I can't give long science lectures like some can. I would suggest that you find some science lessons online at the level you think you can absorb. Many are available. If nothing else, just go to YouTube.
But I would like to comment on your perception of atheism and anti-theism. You've managed to simplify things a bit too much.
I am an atheist (I'll get to your last question at the end). This simply means that I have no belief in any sort of god, either via the route of traditional religions or by having my own brand new made up one. My view of this world and universe is such that I see no reason to believe any of the stories about any of the deities. Nothing I have seen or heard from the religious world matches my experience in the real world, and I summarily dismiss each religious story as a myth, no matter how old it is.
I am an anti-theist when theism gets in the way of civilization. Whether it is catholics and protestants killing each other in Northern Ireland, Israelis and Palestinians doing themselves in over land in that region, or fanatics flying airplanes into tall buildings in a single bound, I speak out against the religion behind the violence because to me, it is the base cause of the death and destruction. Also, when a parent prays over a very sick child instead of taking it to available doctors, and the child becomes crippled for life of dies of a treatable condition, or suffers more than it should while dying because pain medication is withheld, I become an anti-theist.
I am not anti-theist when my 88 year old neighbor Susan goes to church every sunday morning. She wouldn't harm a flea, and I'm sure part of the reason she is so sweet is that she has, in the good sense, embraced the ideals of her church. I have known other people, just as sweet, who were not religious, so I don't feel that the connection is necessary, but I'm certainly not going to go around dissing an old lady just because she enjoys her beliefs in a harmless way.
George Bush claimed that god told him to attack Iraq. A lady in Texas drowned her children a few years back because she wanted to be sure they got to heaven, and she thought by dying as kids they had a guaranteed ticket. A few years ago a man killed his male roommate when he found out the roomie was an atheist because he thought god would want him to. These are more reasons to be anti-theist.
Believers who tout intelligent design, an idea whose time past a few hundred years ago, insist that the patterns they see in DNA and other biological stuff is proof that a god was behind life. That they cannot provide one single peer reviewed study to show this, but rather rely on their instincts telling them it must be true, means that they want the change the curriculum in schools across the country because the hope they are right.
These are other examples of why I at times turn what you want to call anti-theist. It is not a generic stand. I fight such religious thoughts because harm is being done for no good reason. I fight such religious thoughts because innocent people are suffering over beliefs that have no basis in reality.
I'm not the least bit concerned that you believe in god. I would become concerned if you decided that your beliefs gave you good reason to kill me or my children because we disagree with you. If I came at you with a knife and you shot me, that would make all the sense in the world. If I happened to mention I didn't believe and you shot me because you disagreed, that would be a crime. The sort that I protest now because it does happen.
As to your last question to atheists. Why am I not an agnostic?
First of all, I see the commonality of currently followed religious beliefs, such as christianity, islam, hinduism, etc, as mythologies just as much as the Greek and Roman myths I was taught in school. I understand that ancient civilizations, lacking information about reality, hoping to control (for good or bad reasons) the masses and trying to learn about the world, would come up with a god or gods. If I were four and forced to explain fire or thunder, I'm pretty sure my story would include some magical component. Adults equally mystified can conjure of explanations that sound more plausible to those who want or need to believe the story. But that doesn't mean that 2,000 years later I'm going to get all excited about a seven day creation story, especially when science offers up a viable alternative that consistent with the world I can see and experience.
Secondly, since I have been raised in a predominantly christian culture, I dismiss the possibility of a christian god specifically because the history claimed by the religion does not match the history found by historians. Most damning, as far as I'm concerned, is the commonality of the Jesus story with that of older religions. Jesus was not the first son of god claimed to have been born of a virgin and to die via sacrifice. Krishna, of the hindu religion, was born of a virgin on December 25th. Long before Jesus. Same with Mithra. Born on December 25th, long before Jesus. To a virgin mother. Horace, an Egyptian god, and Budda, of Buddism, were both born on December 25th, according to their religions. Why that date. Presumably that date was considered important because that is the day the morning starts getting longer after the shortest day of the year, December 21st. For three days the sun rises at the same late time, and then on the 25th it again begins rising earlier, making the days longer. Something I imagine to be quite important in the days before electric lights. So each god represents the hopes of a new, brighter day for each of their religious groups.
Why would a real christian god, who despised all other claimed gods, follow up with a nearly identical story. Does it not make more sense that religions have such common themes because the known world (in this case, the date of the start of longer days) was equally important in multiple cultures and hence reflected in it's stories. And borrowing god stories was probably pretty common as well.
Because I can easily find and understand reasons for ancient god stories, and none of the religions, either in the old form or their present one, match my reality, I dismiss them completely. As when I do that, I become an atheist because I have yet to find a reason to have doubts.
Because all claims made by the religious fail to match my reality, I am an atheist rather than an agnostic. I've no reason to give any given belief, let alone all of them, any wiggle room whatsoever.
I'm not impressed by the need for belief and faith either. Both would absolutely be required by a fake religion, which had no actual gods to offer. Why would a real religion, with a real god, rely on the same two tenants?
Toss in the world of science, which is able to explain a trillion times more phenomena than religion, and is a human-understandable endeavor lacking the 38,000 sects that christianity has, and the picture completes itself for me. Ancient stories that match nothing, modern science which matches everything, and I end up being an atheist.
I may be wrong, but if there is a god up there that wants me to believe in him, that loves me, etc., he's doing a piss poor job of being omnipotent if all I can muster is doubts.
Note to DistainDavid. I'm thinking that we're going to have to give you a PhD in Science Education, based on the energy you've put into trying to help Foi understand. I do hope he appreciates your efforts.