In looking back over some of my previous posts on this subject, I daresay I said it fairly clearly the first time I addressed it:
Simply put, atheism means the absence of theistic belief. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real...Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods.Reasons why people become become atheists are varied and are useful for understanding atheists. Some are more common than others, but they are not particularly relevant for understanding the meaning of atheism. Again, an atheist is simply someone who responds with anything other than "yes" to the question of whether he or she believes that god(s) exist.
Still not clear? Allow me to draw upon another prior post:
Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.Now that we know what atheism is, it is time to examine what it is not. This brings us to the common misconception to which I previously referred.
What Atheism Is Not
Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist. Some atheists may indeed claim such certainty. These individuals are sometimes described as "strong atheists." Nobody disputes the existence of such atheists. The point is that certainty is not a necessary condition of atheism. One who asserts that there "probably" is no god is still an atheist. In fact, one need not assert anything to be an atheist. One need only refuse to accept the theistic belief claim.
Why Should We Care?
Let us dispense with all the obvious reasons why accuracy is preferable to inaccuracy and why dictionaries are not necessarily above reproach. We can keep this brief: defining atheism accurately reduces epistemological confusion and reminds us where the burden of proof rests.
I am willing to cut theists, particularly evangelical Christians, considerable slack in misunderstanding atheism. I know all too well what they have been taught about atheism (and atheists) and why. To my atheist colleagues, this is where we should be expected to lead. Until we can accurately define ourselves, it is folly to expect anyone else to do the same.
I have written previously that I do not find distinctions like "strong atheist" or "passive atheist" to be particularly useful. This needs some clarification. I believe that such distinctions may eventually be meaningful as ways of describing within-group differences. However, I maintain that they are not useful at present because too much confusion remains over the meaning of atheism itself. Within-group distinctions are premature when the group itself is as fuzzy as we have allowed atheism to be. I do refer to myself as an agnostic atheist at times because that is an accurate description; however, I generally prefer to shorten my self-identification to atheist.
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution