Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). As many have pointed out, it’s not the denial of the existence of god(s). The latter definition implies god(s) exists and atheists actively deny this apparent fact. Atheists simply lack belief or have no belief.

Now, it’s important to understand that atheism does not necessitate recruitment or acceptance into any club. Moreover, atheism is neither a religion in opposition to any other, nor is it a dogmatic doctrine. There is no shortage of words to describe various irreligious stances and, even in this case, those stances can shift, change and evolve over time and in different contexts.

This is not to say that atheists are ambivalent. They simply accept that any thoughtful human being would change her mind based on falsifiable evidence. Anti-theists may have stronger opinions than agnostics etc., but, admittedly, no one knows the absolute truth given our humanly limits. Another way of defining what atheists “believe” is so: Atheists do not believe in god(s) because there is a lack of evidence which supports his existence. This may be a more scientific way of defining atheism, but atheism does not require scientific proof, in the strictest sense of the word.

As an example, let’s consider a new born child. It does not matter where, when or how she was born, or who her parents are. A new born baby, even well into life after birth, lacks all belief in god(s). She only comes to belief at indoctrination, i.e. when her caregivers begin teaching her about god(s) and religion. Until that point, she has learnt no scientific method with which to evaluate her caregivers’ claims. Children tend to believe in Santa Claus in much the same way adults believe in their parents’ religion; they were told to believe. Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, have said that children are closer to scientists through their natural inquisitiveness about the world. I would agree. Essentially, when it comes to god(s), the curiosity is stifled, but it remains that we are all born atheist.

Favourite Atheist Lectures: Cleck here

There is a reality, however, that places most atheists in opposition to theism. In the lecture above, you may have noticed that Sam Harris talks about the inherent dependence atheism has on theism. While he may be rejecting this dependence in favor of a certain amount of ignorance, the reality is, we live in a world where irrational beliefs cover about 80-90% of the Earth’s population. Given the political, social, moral, philosophical, cultural, etc. effects of irrational belief, atheists, who largely justify their position through reasoned approaches, generally feel a compulsion, and even duty, to expose belief as damaging to the aspects of life stated. In this case, the definition is added to and becomes what atheists would consider, militant atheism. This term is almost always synonymous with New Atheism. Harris’ arguments make much philosophical sense, but it is held that even if we (atheists) were to shed the terminology, we would be again relabeled with some word or the other by those we attack on theistic grounds. Maybe years into the future, when religion has come to the shores of extinction, we may be able to exist as “non-racists” against “racists” do.

There is a growing propensity toward gatherings of atheists. It’s a phenomenon that is witnessing a few slightly varied institutionalizations of atheism. The first example is that of atheist churches or congregations. The second is that of State Atheism as seen in China. On a personal note, I do not agree with these implementations. They tend to allow for dogmatism and herd-type behavior.

More on this in Part II of “What is Atheism?”.

Do you have your own definition of “atheism”? Please submit your own definition here.