Belief without proof = faith, ergo atheism is a faith. Not sure about the 'alternative' part, but if you mean "not mainstream" or "not one of the big three" then it's definitely 'alternative'.
Rubbish.I don't know what you mean by 'proof', but atheism does
not involve 'belief without justification'.
The notion that atheism requires 'faith' is one of the biggest bullshit myths held by people (especially in the U.S.) these days.
There is a very well established logical argument in philosophy against the existence of a benevolent (or ‘just’) deity -- it is called the 'problem of evil'. (There are other arguments available, but I'll simply mention this one for the sake of convenience.) It has been around for many centuries, and was famously presented as a deductive argument by the Oxford philosopher John Mackie in the mid-20th Century.
The argument is pretty straight forward, and I use it to introduce undergraduates to basic logic. It holds, roughly, that suffering ('evil') exists, including both 'moral evil' (suffering caused by human beings, e.g. murder, rape, etc.) and 'natural evil' (suffering caused by natural events, e.g. diseases, famines, tsunamis, etc.). The basic problem is that widespread suffering cannot be reconciled logically with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent (or just) deity. It is one of a number of compelling arguments against belief in a 'traditional' God (another holds that the very idea of 'God' is logically incoherent).
Very roughly, the ‘problem of evil’ argument states:
1. If God exists (as understood by the main monotheistic religions), he is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent
2. If suffering exists, God cannot be omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent (at most he can only be two of those things, e.g. he might be all-knowing and all-powerful, but not care about the existence of widespread suffering).
3. We know suffering exists.
4. Therefore God does not exist (i.e. any God that is omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent).
It is clearly a
valid argument (
if the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true). Whether it is
sound depends on the truth of its premises. Presumably religious folk dispute the truth of premise 2.
All leading contemporary analytic philosophers working in the philosophy of religion -- including, of course, theists -- recognize the strength of the 'problem of evil' argument. There are a few responses out there on behalf of theism, but none are especially impressive, in my opinion.
The argument shows, I think, that atheism is
not simply a system of belief with no greater justification than, say, Christianity or Islam. The arguments against the existence of a benevolent deity are logically compelling; the arguments in favour of the existence of a benevolent deity are not.
The 'problem of evil' says nothing about 'higher beings' (super aliens?) that are not omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. The argument is simply directed against the traditional conception of God, as found in the main monotheistic religions. According to traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. If there is a God that is, say, merely omnipotent and omniscient, but not benevolent, that would be quite interesting. However, I can see no reason to worship such a creature.
In short, atheists have
rational grounds for their rejection of a 'triple-O' God (i.e. the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). Thus it is
not based on 'faith' (belief without rational justification).