In the last weeks I have had several interactions with people here and none of them actually knew what atheism is and what it is not. In this world there are humans who are atheists, so for those who are interested I will try to explain what atheists are in my understanding and what I, as an atheist, think and believe. I do not speak for other atheists or any group and it could well be that there are atheists who have different views on a particular aspect. But in general, I think I am voicing what is considered to be the consensus.
I am aware of the fact that this is a touchy topic and I wish to express again that I do NOT intend to insult, lecture or belittle anyone, but provide factual information. I hope I will manage this in a non-objectionable, non-confrontational and polite fashion.
Atheism is a reaction to theism. Theism is the belief that there is evidence for the existence of a god. So the "A" in front of this word "theism" means it is the opposite, the lack of belief that there is evidence for the existence of a god. That's all.
Atheism does not judge spiritual beliefs or rituals.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. While most scientists are atheists, very few atheists indeed are scientists.
Atheism is not a worldview, but a lack of belief in one single claim.
Atheists have nothing in common other than a lack of belief. Atheists are not a group and don’t agree on cars, colours, clothes or anything.
Atheists have never seen the need to organise and voice their concerns until religions became more vocal and made increasing demands around 15 years ago. This applies to Jehovah's Witnesses the same way as it does to Catholics and Muslims. If religions would suddenly disappear, so would atheists. Automatically. The same way if a god were to appear and manifest itself, atheism would immediately disappear. This does not automatically mean that all atheists would worship this god, but the lack of belief in the existence of a god would necessarily fall away.
Atheists being called militant are not militant in the sense that they kill others but in that they write a book about their experiences or make a speech about their opinion.
Atheists organising themselves means there are meetings where people are told that it is ok to believe what is the individual's rational and emotional preference.
Again: atheism has nothing to do with science in general or evolution in particular. There are theists working as evolutionary biologists and atheists who think that evolution is just another scientific fallacy.
Atheists do not act in the name of atheism. A person such as Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, is often considered atheistic but did not commit his crimes in the name of atheism. He was a Buddhist when he was young. Stalin was affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church as well as the Methodists and Hitler was a Catholic. So the usage of emotionally negatively charged names in history is actually quite weak. Personally, I consider the tallying up of who did what to whom in the past a futile exercise and prefer considering the positive actions of humans here and today.
Being an atheist is not an automatic insult to people believing the opposite.
Atheists do not worship people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss, Hawking, Tyson or Myers. They are well known and respected people, not more. I do not always and automatically agree with them.
Atheism can't be considered a religion because there is no dogma and no consent on anything. Just because I don't play golf does not make me an "agolfer" in a group of "agolfists" who meet every weekend to hold hands, bow down and sing songs about the "agolfist" deity.
Epistemologically, i.e. through the eyes of acquiring knowledge, atheism is an expression of belief / lack of belief - and gnosticism / agnosticism are all about knowledge. So one can be an atheist due to their personal lack of belief and an agnostic too, as one can't possibly know for sure whether a god exists. So that makes me an agnostic atheist, a person who does not see the evidence for the existence of a god, but who can't know for sure that one can't or doesn't exist.
But more than atheist I am a sceptic and realist, someone who needs to know that what I believe has substance and that there is a reason to believe this. From a logical point of view I can't reject or hate a god as I don't see any evidence for the existence of a god, so I can't reject or hate what does not exist. What I do believe, however, is that atoms exist, even though I have never seen one. I also have what are called reasonable beliefs, such as that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Both, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning have their place if they are used with the appropriate amount of scepticism and caution.
And I also believe that science is a tool, which can analyse and accurately describe our physical world by providing empirical evidence. I am not science-centric in that I believe anything and everything which is labelled as science. Science is just a tool, a method of working out which claim is more likely than another, so I believe that if a scientific instrument tells me that my car battery has a potential difference of 7 Volts between the minus and plus poles this is true and I need to either charge or replace the battery. However, if I read an ad which claims I can burn fat and lose weight by chewing "scientifically designed" pills, I highly doubt that - and go and check.
And finally, because there have been a few personal attacks:
I grew up/went to school in an Islamic country in a Christian household. One brother is today a member in a Christian sect in Asia. I questioned my belief when I was 12 and stopped believing in the existence of a god when I was 13.
I have a solid scientific education with BSc's in 2 fields and an MSc, without being an actively researching or up-to-date scientist, but have been working in the commercial field for some time.
I am an informed critic of religious books when I started studying these books a few years ago due to my religious brother making claims I could not understand or conceive of being correct.
If anyone wishes to know more or something more specific, fire away - but please remember: I am NOT an evolutionary biologist and thus not qualified or in the least interested in discussions about evolution or creation, which seems to inadvertently happen
I am trying to be courteous, polite and respectful. Can we keep it this way, please?
