The Atheist [PWNED] Experience:

1."Atheism has no beliefs."
2."Atheism is a non-belief."
3."Atheism makes no claims."
4."Atheism is not a philosophy."
...Paradox: If #1 is true, then atheists themselves cannot believe #1, #2, #3, and #4 to be true since, #1 "atheism has no beliefs."
...Paradox: If #2 is true, "atheism is a non-belief" .. then atheists cannot [believe] that there is no God.
...Paradox: If #3 is true, "atheism makes no claims" .. then #1, #2, #3, and #4 wink out of existence.
#4. "Atheism is not a philosophy."
Definition of Philosophy provided by Wikipedia: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."
...Paradox: If #4 is true then atheism has no connection to any consideration involving:
a. Existence
b. Knowledge
c. Values
d. Reason (Self evident!)
e. Mind
f. Language
Therefore according to their own self imposed stricture (#4), atheists can have nothing to say about a. through f. [as atheists].
Note: According to the Laws of Identity, and Non Contradiction, atheism as described and defined by it's own faithful acolytes has no legitimate identity and certainly appears to be designed to defeat coherent thought and thereby avoid the embarrassment of rational analysis.
Note: "Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a God or gods." A belief (or anything) being "absent" (non-existent) is nothing. The preceding quote made in all seriousness, says nothing, and is therefore meaningless. In any case, apply #1 listed above.
Do you believe that? - or -
#3 .. Is that a claim?
Note: "Atheism is the lack of belief in God."
Definition of Lack: 1) to be deficient or missing 2) To stand in need of
The word "lack" also implies a measure of degree, since it is not absolute. Someone who lacks belief is therefore not without belief and is by definition more likely to be an agnostic.
For me, this [lack] of cogent thinking on the part of atheists raises an important consideration. Are atheists so opposed to the validation of intelligence in defense of Theism that they must eschew it's use in defense of themselves??? I know it's over kill but apply #1 and #3 listed above.
Note: Some atheists refer to themselves as "Brights" Oh well .. what's one more paradox?
Note: The capacity to reason correctly is the fundamental skill set required to accurately assess reality. Sneering condescension and perpetual denial of the evidence is the atheist answer to the correct application of higher mental functions.

Fact: DNA is a code.
Fact: Codes do not write themselves.
"If you can read this, I can prove God exists."
http://www.cosmicfingerprin...

Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson (PDF)
http://talebooks.com/images...

Note: Craig Ventner designs / creates synthetic bacteria thereby providing a practical demonstration of the necessity for intelligent design.

Craig Ventner denies common descent - Richard Dawkins incredulous.
http://www.uncommondescent....

Random mutation always destroys information, never enhances it.
Random mutation generator. Cool - try it.
http://www.randommutation.com/

Information theory and physics do not admit Darwinian evolution as science.
http://www.nmsr.org/csfnm5a...

"Know without a doubt who you really are." Online book.
Your Eternal Self
http://www.youreternalself.com

Intelligent design articles and links:
http://www.ideacenter.org/c...

http://www.arn.org/

http://www.intelligentdesig...

SURVIVAL OF THE FAKEST (PDF)
http://www.discovery.org/ar...

http://www.idthefuture.com/

Is evolution the ultimate example of fine tuning?
http://www.charlesdarwin.org/

http://telicthoughts.com/

The writings of William Dembski:
http://www.designinference....

Just some thoughts:

...Thinking About Thinking: Apart from the perception of reality there must also be a fundamental and commonly accepted method by which to parse concepts logically and rationally if our perception of reality is to be rarefied into a meaningful conceptual representation. The First Principles of Logic (the basis of all rational thought) are incorrigible (firmly fixed) and self evidently true. The First Principles of Logic cannot be empirically proven and are known to be true [intuitively]. Thus "Empiricism" which is founded upon the First Principles must also be said to be dependent upon intuition. If we are to think about [anything] meaningfully, we must acknowledge intuition which is also [transcendent]. Therefore the very foundation of rational thought (being transcendent) is something which the Materialist / Naturalist [must] deny in order to make a rational case for Materialism / Naturalism!
Note: Materialism / Naturalism is the guiding Philosophy / Paradox upon which atheism is founded.