So I don't see the need to define atheism as the author proposes...

They're pretty close to nihilists, it seems to me; or at least the difference between "proper" Buddhism and nihilism is a small one. I get the impression, though, that Tibetan Buddhism is like Japanese Buddhism in that it incorporates a lot of the native religion, producing a hybrid that is quite different from what Gautama taught.

Of course, the link to the site you gave then offers this...Madalyn Murray's opening argument for Abington School District v. Schempp (although arguably Murray v. Curlett became the more famous of the two).

"Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows:
An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it. An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He believes that we are ourbrother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now."

Also, the fact that one can got to reddit everyday and watch atheists argue over what the definition of atheism is kind of blows the arguments in your posts away as well...

Buddhists are atheists...

The level of evidence at which someone accepts a deity is individual. However, this has nothing to do with the definition of atheism itself.

I believe his was a confidence scale. Not an atheist scale per se - though I could be wrong.

Wow. Such a long article on such a simple subject. A --- theist is one without a belief in a god. ANYTHING added to this definition, of course, is fodder for a pointless discussion.

Richard Dawkins suggests a numerical scale to describe different levels of atheism. Do you disagree with him as well?

All cosmological models involve a beginning of the arrow of time. Since not even a "before" exists with respect to the beginning of the arrow of time, how can there be anything in a "before" which does not exist? There is nothing until the beginning of the arrow of time. Therefore all cosmological models have a beginning from nothing, even the so-called eternal ones where the arrow of time begins to run both in reverse into the distant past and forward into the distant future.

These so-called eternal models are used to describe how there is no need for a God to have started them with the aim of rendering God superfluous. However, despite the claims of their promoters, these models are not brute facts in themselves; they require an explanation for their beginning. Even through, as in the Hartle-Hawking model, we can explain how a universe spontaneously creates itself from nothing, we cannot yet explain how it acquires its initial low entropy configuration.

Although it could just be a matter of time before we reveal how the universe constructs its initial low entropy, a question remains. What is it that determines the blueprint for that unique initial configuration? Don’t confuse the blueprint of something with its construction, even if it constructs itself. The blueprint is the idea that it should be in one particular configuration instead of countless others, an idea which the universe realises by constructing itself in that way.

Despite all our science we still cannot escape the fact that creation has a beginning out of nothing, precisely in line with doctrine. Furthermore, also consistent with doctrine, God creates the idea of the universe and the universe responds by creating itself naturally according to that idea. No matter how far back science takes us to revealing how the universe creates itself, the idea still remains.

If reality is not a brute fact but has an absolute beginning, how do you explain it is the way it is instead of something even slightly different?

I didn't say I could explain anything.

I asked you why there would be no universe without a deity conceptualizing it.

Again, in response to your two posts, I can only follow the evidence and the evidence from the latest cosmological models is that creation has a beginning.

Cosmological models are NOT evidence Peter,they are unconfirmed hypotheses. Perhaps this is your failure, understanding evidence.

If creation is no longer a brute fact there must be an explanation, not for its coming into existence because to does so naturally, but for its particular nature.

That explanation is unknown at present, if there is an explanation. It may never be known. You can use the place holder "God" if you wish. I'm not that hung up. I'll use "Joe Pesci"...but any collection of letters will do, it doesn't matter. What you can't get away with is associating your place holder with all the other nonsense afforded the same three letters as your place holder for the explanation for what came prior to the universe creating itself.

A universe which brings itself into existence from nothing must have a blueprint to explain the kind of thing it brings itself into existence as.

To begin with, it is unlikely that the universe brought itself out of nothing. That is your assertion. Some Cosmologists say otherwise. If you want to change the name of you place holder to "blueprint" go right ahead, I'll stick with "Joe Pesci", as I said, it matters not a jot.

This is where your argument - that a self-creating universe doesn't need God as an additional explanation - falls down.

No it doesn't Peter. In light of current knowledge, that is as far as any rational person can take it. I can just as easily state that your God needs an explanation. I know the stock answer, but tell me in your own words why your explanation doesn't require an explanation, or that further explanation an explanation, or blueprint if you like?

You fail to explain why something which has come into existence through its own means has come into existence as the universe.

Why would I need to? It is self explanatory. If it was something which has come into existence through its own means has come into existence as "Russell's Flying Teapot", it wouldn't need an explanation either. Furthermore, you and I wouldn't be here discussing it.

You assume a blueprint, upon which what turns out to be the universe has naturally constructed itself, yet you give no thought to how and why that blueprint should exist in the first place.

I don't assume anything of the kind. You are doing all the assuming. You know the pitfalls in which to "ASS-U-ME" anything leads? But there you go again, words like "blueprint", "exist", "place", like it means something it doesn't. Cosmologists don't know, I don't know, and you certainly don't know. But you and your religion are making stuff up. You are making stuff up based on ancient and highly unreliable texts. Texts that are now understood to have come from feeble minded human beings trying to answer big questions with limited or no knowledge. Scientists don't know lots of stuff, but they are getting their sleeves rolled and getting down to the hard graft of trying to find out. What they are not doing, is positing gods as the answer, as many lazy folk have been doing, and still are to this day. Religion retards the questions, science searches for the answers.

Cosmologists proclaim that their naturalistic models of the universe have made God redundant as an efficient cause, but they cannot explain the blueprint upon which what is modelled turns out to be the universe.

Your own comments of how the universe came into being naturally have made gods redundant. You have introduced all sorts of semantics over the course of this discussion, the latest fad word is "blueprint", but it does not further your conjectured assertions.

Until such a time as they discover an alternative source of that blueprint, they have no right to dismiss God.

Until such a time as they discover an alternative source of that blueprint, you have no right to imply God. Especially the particular god of Roman Catholicism.