h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can see a couple of flawed assumptions and definitions in this article which are either confusing the author or are being abused by the author to support his arguments.

"It is a well known fact that atheists disapprove of belief in god or gods, in any shape or form."

This is false and unfair. Atheism is the opposite of theism, nothing more, nothing less. It simply means without a belief in a god or gods. How and why individuals reach this position vary greatly. Some do go further to disapproving of or even hating religion or specific religions. Some consider theists 'infantile' or 'foolish' but many other respect their beliefs and understand their reasons for holding them.

"Atheists are agreed that human beings were not created by any divine agency, but are the product of millions of years of natural selection, of nature red in tooth and claw."

The first half of that is true (by definition) but the second part isn't. There is nothing to do with atheism that automatically includes evolution (or abiogenesis). A lot of atheists do believe evolution because most people do (in fact, most people believe what they are told and prefer not to think about it).

So, actually have the argument is that because evolutionists believe in natural selection they can't (for example) agree with supporting the weak. This is still rubbish. Just because evolutionists believe this is how things happen doesn't mean they wouldn't like it to be different. They don't have to like evolution, don't have to support it or help it along.

Indeed, the whole of modern western society has been about holding back nature, beating it, shaping it to make our lives better. Whether this is moral or not is a matter or opinion.