Atheism is a System of Argumentation

I will argue that the only logical use of the word "atheism" is to refer to a system of argumentation. This proposal has the necessary implications that the word "atheist" should only be used to refer to people who, in one way or another, engage in this system of argumentation. I will also attempt to discredit the notions that atheism can be used to refer to anything else. First I will clarify what I think atheism truly refers to in English then I will argue what I think it isn't. I will argue the following: Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not the type of thing that comes in different forms. Atheism is not a philosophy or belief system. Atheism is not a conviction that there are no gods. So what precisely do I mean when I say atheism is only a system of argumentation. Let's start with the etymology of the word itself.Atheism is from the Greek pejorative "atheos" meaning "godless". Modern dictionaries define atheism as either "the belief that there are no gods" or the "disbelief in gods". So at this point, it should be clear that I am in disagreement with the glib offerings of modern dictionaries on this subject as well as the etymology of the word itself. What I want to prove is what the word must logically mean (and not mean) in terms of the way we use it. I propose that atheism is a system of argumentation that is developed *in response to* the religious claims that a freethinking person may find him or herself exposed to and possibly the victim of. Most Westerners are familiar with the instantiation of atheism that is in response to the claims of the Abrahamic religions. I consider assertions arguing against the veracity of religion to be within the definitional boundaries of the word "atheism" but I would go no further. Atheists are people who use arguments against the veracity of the existence of gods in discourse or in their thinking. So far, I don't think this definition would elicit much objection. What I am really interested in asserting is: that which atheism is not. Argument 1: Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods Atheism is not the lack of belief in gods or as people often crudely put it: "unbelief". I have 2 cats and a new born baby. They almost certainly lack a belief in any of the gods ever proposed by humans yet it would be absurd to call them atheist. The reason it would be absurd is because they have never engaged mentally in the system of argumentation called atheism. Consider a person who is raised in a social setting which is void of religious discussion and who has never been exposed to a religious claim and therefore has no belief in a deity. He or she could not rightly be called an atheist either. This person has not engaged in the system of argumentation called atheism and so is not an atheists even though he or she can be said to not believe in a god. Argument 2: Atheism is not the type of thing that comes in different forms. Atheism is a set of refutations which cannot take on different forms as is often claimed. People have suggested that there are different types of atheism such as: "existential atheism" (Nietzsche and Camus), "objectivist atheism" (Rand), "new atheism" (Dawkins, Hitchens), and "Marxist atheism". These authors are indeed atheists because they argue that theistic claims lack validity. However, they differ in what they prescribe as the solution to religion. *What one thinks ought to be done about religion falls outside the domain of atheism.* Consider that many Marxists believed that the government should eliminate religion from society. Modern Western authors of atheism advocate that religious claims should be openly criticized and that the religious impulse should be tamed by secularized governments. But these are not beliefs about the veracity of religious claims. They are not atheistic beliefs but rather political and dialectical beliefs. It should be noted that the primary purpose of secular governments is to protect the religious from being molested by people of competing religions. Therefore, many theists hold similar political and even dialectical beliefs about religion that atheist do (secularism, freedom of speech). Having these types of beliefs do not make atheists out of theists of course. Here we see that the political and dialectical philosophies that may spring forth from atheism cannot themselves be considered atheism because theists can also hold these views. Therefore, the different "forms" that atheism is said to take are not in fact forms of atheism but merely different, tangential, non-atheist beliefs about politics, discourse, etc... Because it is believed that atheism can take on different forms, it is often argued that all atheists have a philosophical connection to communist dictators such as Stalin. This is unfair because knowing a person is an atheist tells you nothing about his or her political philosophy which is where the comparison to Stalin gets its bite. Argument 3: Atheism is not a philosophy or belief system. In fact, the notion that atheism is a philosophy or a belief is prima facia false. Atheism is simply the result of not being persuaded by the claims of the religious and the resultant need to explain to one's self or others why this hasn't happened. This is easiest to see when a currently popular deity is replaced by one that has already been discarded: If one were to reject the claim of a Neopagan that Odin exists we would not call this rejection a belief. We would call it a doubt - certainly not a philosophy. If I were in a social milieu who all believed in leprechauns I would eventually have to explain why I doubt leprechauns exists. This would not be a belief or a philosophy. It would be a doubt. Argument 4: Atheism is not a conviction that there are no gods. This one is probably the most common misconceptions about atheism. Atheism is the dialectical response to claims of religious certainty. In questioning religious certainty atheism is an expression of doubt. Doubt is the opposite of conviction therefore atheism is not a conviction. In conclusion, I hope a debate about the meaning of a word doesn't strike readers as pedantic or useless. The misunderstanding of the precise meaning of this word has lead to considerable consequences and has retarded the religion-verses-atheism debate. People who argue atheism are told they are "certain God doesn't exists", missing the point entirely. Atheists are doubtful and skeptical; the opposite of certain. Furthermore, they are told that their "certainty" causes them to be "just as fundamental as the fundamentalist [they] criticize". (In this instance, the word "fundamental" is misused but I will leave that for now). It is a commonly made accusation that freethinkers are aligned philosophically with communist despots though the majority of modern Western freethinkers are likely not communists or supporters of despotic forms of government. Progress in the larger debate about the veracity and efficacy of religion hinges on our getting our terminology right.