Intellectual Dishonesty in Atheism

I was an atheist for about 8 years. During that time, I argued about religion -- a lot. Since then, I've become a Christian, however, I still think a lot about conversations regarding the topic in the past. Today, I thought I'd share one of the ways in which I argued for atheism that was particularly effective, but wholly disingenuous.

First, we have to define the exact scope of the term atheism.

Scope #1. Consider the etymology of the word "atheism." The prefix "a" means "without" and the word "theism" refers to a system of belief in God. The word atheism thus means "without a belief in God." An atheist is not necessarily someone who disbelieves in God, merely he is someone who is without a belief in God. This is a subtle, but crucially important distinction. The lack of belief is not belief.

Scope #2. Frame atheism in the context of secular humanism. The atheism of #1 is joined with a materialistic philosophy, some belief in human rights, and the idea that humanity is progressing forward via smarter thinking and better organization of society. Secular humanism is kind of hard to pin down. There are a bunch of manifestos written on the matter, but it's not clear there's a strong degree of cohesion or leadership as a movement.

Here's the strategy, as an atheist, I often employed:

• For anything positive having to do with atheism or negative to do with religion, go to the 2nd view of atheism. Talk about the advances of modern science. Science equals progress. Superstition and religion equal bloodshed.
  
• For anything negative about atheism, go to the first view. The response is simple: how can the lack of belief in something do... anything? Particularly helpful here is a constant refrain of "you clearly don't know what atheism is."
  

It's very easy to argue in this way, but it is neither consistent, nor sincere. Either atheism prescribes nothing (#1) or it does (#2) -- atheists can't have it both ways.

Arguing from either position is valid, but muxing the two together is intellectually dishonest.