The Problem of Defining Atheism

A too-common detraction from the concept of atheism is that it is a belief system and thus a competitor to religion. This is why Christians get angry when they can't display nativity scenes or the ten commandments on public property; they think that some OTHER religion is winning out over theirs. When put in this light, the difference between atheism and religion is a delicate dance of logic in which semantics are extremely important to get right. The first declaration that must be made is that belief and religion are two different things to be considered. All religious people are believers, but not all believers are religious. This is probably best illustrated by a venn diagram in which "Believers" is a large circle with "Religious People" as a smaller circle entirely inside it. "Atheists," depending on your degree of pedantism, can either be a larger circle overtaking everything, or a circle that exists outside the "Believers." Some people say that a Christian is an atheist in relation to other gods, which would mean that all believers are atheists in some context. Personally, I think this reasoning is too punctilious and I prefer to view atheists as that outside circle.

The semantics of atheism are so specific that even many dictionaries have it wrong. (Hear me out) Merriam-Webster defines atheism as either a disbelief in the existence of deity, or the doctrine that there is no deity. The Random House Dictionary says that it is the doctrine or belief that there is no God, or it is disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Both of these definitions are incorrect because they include language that insinuates denial and/or assumption. As an atheist, I'm thinking that either they are wrong or I need to come up with a new word because that is not what atheism is. Wikipedia gets it much more accurately, noting that in the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. This is exactly the trouble with understanding atheism: even the authorities of our lexicon misunderstand it. I am here to wrest this important word from the clutches of authority, whose intentions we cannot assume.

One reason for atheism's skewed definition is the origin of the word, which we cannot escape from. Atheists have always been outcasts within society, suffering through periods of vilification and eradication. It is no wonder that the etymology is presented from a theist's perspective, as the survivor writes the book. We should at least be grateful that "atheist" is no longer synonymous with "heathen," as it used to be. However, this knowledge only means that even more progress has yet to be made. The problem is that pressure from all sides is always on the impartial observer to see a concept in a certain light. Believers (or, more adamantly, religious people) view atheism as a rejection of their beliefs while atheists see themselves not as anti-theists, but as realists. In other words, we cannot reject something that we cannot observe. Dictionary publishers would have to choose between these two perspectives for their definition. So far, they're siding with the theists.

If belief were to be expressed in mathematical terms, atheism would equal 0. The misconception is that it is more like -1, but this assumes that there is something tangible that is being denied. Atheism neither assumes nor denies anything. The only thing relevant to atheism is that no god has been proven to exist. If any god was proven to exist, then believing in them/it would be a no-brainer. Belief is a bridge between what there is and what we think there is. Atheism has no bridge. Faith is a word often used in place of belief, which is a lot more telling of its nature. Faith relies on trust and trust is a substitute for delivery. Atheism does not trust and requires delivery to be sustained. Without evidence, there is no basis on which to claim that god exists. This is why atheism is not a belief or set of beliefs, and thus, by extension, not a religion at all.

My proposed definition: Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any supreme being.

Afterward: My hope is to settle on a single definition as a society, but there are always going to be a few fringe subsections who refuse to play along. Consider Conservapedia, which provides hilariously biased definitions of terms you never knew could have such insidious underbellies. Its definition of atheism is 100% focused on denial. Obviously, Conservapedia's goal is to filter as much information through the stereotype of a god-fearing neo-conservative nationalistic American. It is even afraid that the bible is too liberal (and I find it oh so ironic that it uses the MediaWiki platform, which was developed for Wikipedia, the antithesis). If the definition of "happy" is a positive thing and you want to make it negative, there is nothing I can do, is there?