What is Atheism?

Most people who have ever lived have been fully convinced that there is some kind of remarkable intelligence 'out there' somewhere, unlike any other. This being is often said to be the whole reason why we even exist in the first place. However, virtually for the same length of time some few people have rejected this notion for various reasons. Perhaps they found no convincing evidence to suggest that god exists. Or, perhaps they thought that there were good reasons to suppose that such a being does not, or cannot, exist. Either way, these disbelievers are known as atheists, as am I.

Theists see four basic levels of design within the universe: the universe itself (cosmological level), our planet (planetary level), life (biological level), and the microscopic level. The atheist recognizes none of these levels because we have a sufficient idea of how the universe could have come into being through purely naturalistic processes, and how evolution works by gradual changes and adaptation without the need to resort to supernaturalistic intervention or interventions at key points in the life history of Earth.

The generally accepted definition of an atheist is somebody who disbelieves in the existence of god (in the roughly conventional sense of the word). However, the situation is complicated by the fact that at least one of the New Atheists, as well as several other atheists in high standing, have proposed that atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god*. However, this would render atheism as indistinguishable from temporary agnosticism. And it would also require us to coin a new term to describe those persons who not only lack a belief in god but actually disbelieve in their existence, since a lack of belief and disbelief are fundamentally different things.

Reverting back to the conventional definition of atheism, atheists are usually divided into two different categories:**

• Weak atheists: people who lack a belief in god, coupled with the belief that if there is no good evidence or arguments for the existence of god we should not believe in them.
• Strong atheists: people who feel that there are good arguments or evidence against the existence of god, and hence they either do not exist, or more extreme, cannot exist.

However, I cannot see how weak atheism differs appreciably from temporary agnosticism, and hence I choose not to recognize this category. To me atheists are people who believe that there are specific reasons to reject the existence of god. Anybody of more minor philosophical persuasions are agnostics. But I do retain a dichotomous view, by introducing a new category:

• Aggressive atheism: the view that the existence of god is logically and/or physically impossible.

In order not to render this new category as superfluous before I even coined the term, I redefine strong atheism as the view that the existence of god is highly improbable (but not impossible).

Having defined atheism it is quite clear that as such a general philosophical stance is the only commonality between all atheists, there is no precedent for how we should conduct ourselves. Though many of us are humanists who fight for the freedom of speech and gay rights far more vigorously than the religious among us.

As we reject the notion of an afterlife, this is the only life we will have. And hence atheists tend to value their lives a lot more. But this means that we also value the lives of other far more as well. For example, I dare say that we care more about the atrocities committed around the world than theists do because they believe that, though such pain and suffering is incomprehensible, there will nevertheless be heavenly rewards for those victims who suffer at the hands of others. To us the child who dies of leukaemia will never live again. A precious life taken far too soon.

*So far as anybody can tell this is purely to lift the burden of proof off of the atheist and squarely on the shoulders of the believer. However, as I shall argue in a future blog post, I believe that both the atheist and the theist/deist have a responsibility to try to justify their position, regardless of whether it is of a positive or a negative nature. The question of god's existence is not purely scientific, and hence trying to smuggle in the null-hypothesis into philosophy is similar to that of ID being a rehashing of creationism (though to be fair, we cannot guarantee that all ID proponents have political motives), which the New Atheists in particular (as well as theistic evolutionists) chastise.
**These two categories go by a whole raft of different names, each pair of which employs antonyms to stress the dichotomy evident in the beliefs of different atheists.