Web hosting Custom Email SiteBuilder

What is Atheism?

Definition
What is Atheism? Simply put, Atheism is an absence of belief in a deity. However, there are some Theists, probably most of them, who would argue that Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, a negative position, but a positive belief that there is no God. Moreover, Atheism has been for centuries looked at as a pessimistic view of life and the world around us and, where morality is concerned, as fostering a complete abdication of morals.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Atheism is not directly concerned with morality, ethics, pessimism or even nihilism. It is simply a lack of belief in a deity; that's it. Theists, of course, disagree with this and they define Atheism and Atheist in a very negative light. Here, from Merriam-Webster Online are the definitions given:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist,
from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1571
: one who denies the existence of God
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective - athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Merriam-Webster defines an "apolitical" person as one who has no interest in politics. According to this same dictionary, that definition doesn't mean that an apolitical person who denies that politics exist. Another word, "asexual," is defined as someone who has no interest in, or is devoid of sex. Would that also mean that an asexual person denies that sex exists? I think not. But if so, then why is Atheism defined as someone who denies that a God exists? Where is the consistency? Apparently nowhere to be found in a dictionary which was edited by a Christian. A double standard is liberally applied when it comes to Athesim. Here are more views of Atheism which are quite negative:

Theistic paranoia

A. E. Tayor writes "... even in our hours of most complete and serenest intellectual detachment we cannot escape facing the question whether God can be eliminated from either the natural or the moral world without converting both into an incoherent nightmare." (Quoted from Atheism The Case Against God, p. 5)

Atheism is "science divorced fro wisdom and the fear of God, which the world has directly to thank for the worst evils of 'modern war'..." (ibid,. p. 3)

"The man who has the hardihood to avow that he does not believe in a God, shows a recklessness of moral character and utter want of moral responsibility, such as very little entitles him to be heard or believed in a court of justice in a country designated as Christian." (ibid., p. 4, quoted from a Tennessee Supreme Court judge in 1871)

"Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval theologian, taught that 'the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals,' and he recommended that the heretic 'be exterminated from the world by death' after a third offense." (ibid., p. 4)

Back to reality
The fact of the matter is that Atheism is simply a lack, or absence, of belief in any deity. This is all it is. It is not a worldview, it is not a philosophy, it is simply an absence of belief. True, there are Atheist who vehemently and very emotionally deny the existence of a God. However, that doesn't mean that Atheism, per se, always leads to this kind of emotional response. In fact, it has been my experience that the majority of Atheists are simply those who do not believe in a deity because they have yet to see a coherent definition of God, or evidence that such a being exists.

There is another problem associated with Atheism--or should I say, Theism? I have yet to see a definition of God that was coherent. Every time I hear or read a definition proposed by a Theist, there are self-contradictions involved. As a defense, we are often told that since God is unknowable, a satisfactory definition can't really be given. It's the old "God moves in a mysterious way" dodge and isn't worthy of a rational person. How, may I ask, is an Atheist supposed to examine a belief in God to see if it is acceptable, when definitions are self-contradictory or incomplete because "God is unknowable?" Please!

It is the Theist, because he wishes us to accept the proposition "God exists" as true, who has the burden of proof and, ipso facto, the burden of supplying a coherent defintion. It can't work any other way. It is not up to the Atheist to prove there is no God, since he does not make a positive statement of belief where God is concerned; he merely lacks a belief in any deity. Proving a negative is not the Atheist's responsibility. We may as well ask a Theist to prove there are no fairies or elves. I'm sure the Thiest would straight away retort that he doesn't have to prove the non-existence of fairies or elves, and he would be right. Given this, the Atheist does not have the burden of proof where God is concerned.

Types of Atheists
There are, depending on who you read, basically two types of Atheists. One is the Weak Atheist, who asserts that there may be a God, but that he hasn't seen any convincing evidence. As one Atheist of this type put it: "It may be possible that a god exists, but in my opinion, the probability is virtually nil." Another type is the Strong Atheist who takes a more affirmative stance and states that the proposition "God exists" is not true and outright denies the existence of any God.

George H. Smith, in his book "Atheism The Case Against God," identifies them differently. He classifies them as "Implicit" and "Explicit" Atheists. An Implicit Atheist would be one who doesn't deny the possibility that the proposition "God exists" is true, but doesn't believe it to be true. It is also possible that this type of Atheist may never have been introduced to a god-belief; ergo, he would lack such a belief. He states that even children may be called Implicit Atheists and, according to his view, he wouldn't be dishonest in doing so; after all, young children lack any belief in God. When one views an Atheist as lacking a belief in God, then it follows that young children, who have yet to be introduced to a god-belief, would be Implicit Atheists.

Because of the erroneous view that an Atheist is the sine qua non of immorality, the mere suggestion that a child is an Atheist raises the Theist's hackles. What needs to be recognized here is that Atheism hasn't anything to do with morality, but is simply a lack of belief in God, period. However, removing the stigma of immorality would mean that the Theist would have to recognize that young children are indeed Atheists; and they simply will not have it.

The Explicit Atheist would be one who would strongly deny the proposition "God Exists" as being true. Some of these Atheist may deny this for emotional reasons and some may deny them on intellectual grounds, citing the lack of a proper defintion or any evidence in support of said proposition. In any event, the Explicit Atheist would be what some call a Strong Atheist.

My type of Atheism
What type am I? I'll not dilly-dally, so I'll state, up front and for the record: I am an Explicit Atheist. I emphatically deny that the proposition "God exists" is true. I do not believe in any deity whatsoever, especially the deity known as Yahweh, the god of the Bible, or Allah, the god of the Qur'an. I most emphatically deny the existence of these deities on the grounds that they are nothing but a mish-mash of self-contradictory assertions.

In my opinion, one has but to read the Bible, or the Qur'an, to discover that these deities are human constructions; and bad ones at that. As Smith puts it concerning the biblegod: "God is an exaggeration run amuck." There is nothing logically coherent, for example, about a deity which is said to be Love itself (1John 4:8) and commands the slaughter of tens of thousands of women, children and babies. There is no love in a being who condemns millions to an eternity of torment. It is a blatant contradiction to assign that quality to a being who does such things. It is, simply put, a ridiculous idea and a complete negation of the word love. A god who has whole nations slaughtered, down to women, children, suckling infants and even animals; a god who is said to be just and has his own son tortured and crucified for "sins" he hasn't committed, is a ridiculous concept. It is self-contradiction gone balistic.

The biblegod is nothing but the product of Hebrew imagination. It was used as an excuse for a slash-and-burn philosophy of conquest which no rational man today should accept. One has but to read the atrocities committed in the name of this god, down through history, to know that if it exists, it should be called the Devil rather than God. Anyone who reads the Bible without an ax to grind, will soon see that this monstrous creation is the work of a primitive and superstitious people who believed that any atrocity could be justified as long as "the LORD hath commanded it." I repeat, no man can accept such a proposition without sacrificing reason at the alter of Theism.

Conclusion
Is the proposition "God exists" true? Well, you may believe it if you wish but I, for one, do not. When Theists are able to present a coherent definition of God and when they are able to give verifiable evidence that their proposition is true; then, and only then, will I consider it. In the meantime, as far as I am concerned, "God" is a word devoid of meaning and for which no reasonable case can be made--and it follows that I also think that it is irrational to believe in a God.