Dangerous Potential: Atheism

I am not a Christian.  I am not a Muslim.  I am not a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or Wiccan. I do not believe in gods.  But am I an atheist?

Atheism is the "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.  Emphasis on "disbelief." Atheism is a rare word in that it is defined by the absence of a given quantity. Offhand, the only similar term that comes to mind is "amoral."  Without going into the unnecessary explanation of grammatical prefixes, suffice it to say that both words are the opposites of the stem words they originate from. This leads to the temptation to argue that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. In a sense, this is true, for if humanity had no concept of deities or of an afterlife, the desire to define those who did not share such views would logically have never risen.

Be that as it may, obviously humanity did develop its own views of life beyond the physical, and the term for dissenters did arise.  However, that does not necessarily make it logical or fair for them to have done so. It has largely created the popular misconception that atheism is in fact merely another branch of theism. For instance, it is often argued by the ill-informed that an atheist requires as much faith in his conviction as does any Christian or Jew.  It is also mistakenly assumed that atheism is a "religion" of sorts, that its members all follow a similar creed, that they all hold a general theory on the origin of the universe, or have a similar moral code.  

This is the dangerous (and illogical) problem of defining a people by what they are not. To elaborate, if one were to take a sample group of persons who identified themselves as not being pacifists (apacifists) it is very possible that this opinion of theirs would be their only unifying connection between one another.  One apacifist might be a Christian who supports capital punishment, another a Muslim strongly opposed to it.  There may not be a single item of mutual agreement amongst them other than that they do not believe in one viewpoint. Such a "group" would not be considered a community, much less a religion.

The same is seen in atheists, where the only unifying theme is their lack of a belief. There are atheists who believe there may be gods, but will only believe in them when provided evidence that such exist.  There are others who adamantly refuse to accept the possibility of spirits, arguing that they can actually disprove the existence of them.  Both are drastically differing philosophies, and the only quantity these two share in common is a lack of another philosophy, theism.  Such is the case with all atheists. It is true that a significant portion are evolutionists, and many homosexuals are atheist, but these are far from unanimous, and contribute nothing towards creating a unified ideology in the same sense as Christianity or Islam.

And yet ironically, atheists seem to be perpetuating the idea of just such an ideology. It is indeed puzzling that there is in fact a form of an "atheist community," particularly on the internet. The concept of "atheist pride" has been established. Organizations such as The American Atheists have been created. In essence, atheists themselves have contributed towards (or, perhaps, become swayed by) the delusion that atheism is in itself a belief or religion.  These groups and individuals define themselves by their atheism as much as a Christian defines himself by his religion.  

Imagine, then, if there should ever be a point in which atheism becomes a significant portion of the world view or, more charitably, the majority opinion. Would it then become commonplace to list the qualities and positions of a person based upon that which he is not?  Will a man describe himself as an aequestrian (one who does not ride horses), an aphilatist (one who does not collect stamps as a hobby)?  Will our political parties rename themselves the Ademocratic Party and the Arepublican Party? On the surface, such speculations are bizarre and unlikely, if only because of how tedious such a format would become.  Yet at the principle- at the core of the matter- the issue is clear: atheists define themselves by what they are not. There is dangerous potential in subscribing into the concept of a word defining only the absence of something. If we accept the fundamental logic behind such thought, we must therefore all define ourselves by what we are not, and who we are not.