However, I don’t think you can give a list of questions someone needs to be able to address to be a “true” atheist. Being a philosophy major, I can think of many challenges to atheism that I very much doubt you could address. Likewise, I think someone can be an atheist without having answers to your questions, or without having even thought of them.

There are certainly different degrees to how well thought-out a person’s atheism is, but, really, I think in order to be a “real” atheist, you just have to have (unlike cats, trees, or babies) actually thought about it. At all. For five seconds. Maybe just, ‘huh, those people seem to believe in this deity, that’s silly, I don’t see any reason to believe that.’

“Atheism is not simply a denial of gods. Instead, it’s an active assertion that the universe can be explained better in the absence of gods.”
Atheism is a denial of gods. More often, it is this assertion. However, I’m sure someone could give a different reason to disbelieve in God (i.e., could argue that the concept is inherently self-contradictory), and they would still be an atheist. Or they could give no reason at all. If you say God doesn’t exist, you’re an atheist. You don’t have to take a test to make sure you can give reasons or your belief (yes, atheism is a belief, a belief in nonexistence, not a lack of belief, which is what babies have) in order to qualify for your atheist badge.

Atheists need to become much more clear about what atheism is and isn’t if they want atheism to be given the respect it deserves as an intellectual position. Atheism is not simply a denial of gods. Instead, it’s an active assertion that the universe can be explained better in the absence of gods.

I have been looking for a way to explain this on my own blog and you’ve provided a concise method for me to do that — the Universe can be explained better without god or gods.

Thanks!