The problem with Atheism is that it is a response to Christianity. The flaws and contradictions in Christianity reflect on Atheism to a large degree. As a response, Atheism contains the weak logic and language of Christianity and is susceptible to weakness and error in argument. The strength of an idea is contained within its dialectic. A response to an idea that is not only irrational but sloppy can contain many of the same mistakes.

Atheists work very hard to self-define and to separate themselves from Christianity. They include in their critique a multitude of other faiths such as Muslim. But the literature historically supports critiques on Christianity because of the philosophical climate that has existed in its communities since the enlightenment.

The basic common-sense definition is "A lack of belief in God or Gods." This cannot make sense if the word God does not make sense. The Christian system has had as its prime goal the effort to subjectivize the idea of a God, to blur it into oblivion semantically in order to protect it from concise refutation. They have followed the same example as the hydra. This is a many-headed monster. Cut off one head and the animal continues to live. The more heads the better.

As an Atheist one does not truly know which form of God to dispute. This is because most ideas about God are so subjectivized that the number of possible combinations (of qualities) is infinite. There is actually no way to dispute an idea that contains no specificity.

There is herein a foundational problem involving epistemology, the basic study of knowledge. Christian philosophers such as Kant were compelled to remove all God discussion from the realm of evidence. This was done by reinforcing the idea that the idea of faith contains information. It does not. Believing in something as a guess was the mistake of the Dark Ages. It has never worked. A lack of evidence is not another form of discovery, it is merely a lack of evidence. Science understands this and in all its forms operates with the understanding that guesses (mere hypotheses) are the first step to knowledge. A guess is not understanding or fact - it is less. Much less.

But the implementation of Christian ideas presumes evidence. Christian apologists use the scientific method (our method) to promote and argue for faith. Most of them do not understand Kant's attempt to remove God from the world of Materialism. Common arguments are usually repetitions of the weak teleological position that the designs of our world prove a Designer. All three of the major religious arguments by fact (Design, First-Cause, and Ontological) are really repetitions of this theme as one. They ask causal questions about body and mind. They are infinite repetitions involving legitimate queries about physical and mental existence. In order to confound the questions they include words like spiritual. This word, like the word God, relies on unscientific guesswork. Because of this strategy (epistemologically) the responses to God, Faith and Sprituality contain the weak language of the original argument. This is why Atheist dialectics often spiral downward into forms of demagoguery and Atheists themselves seem more like sophists and provocateurs.

So what is Atheism? Atheism is a complicated reaction mainly to Christian methodology and conclusions. It contains an emphasis on philosophy and science rather than faith and guesswork. In this it is akin to materialism. But Christianity uses science just as often in attempts to legitimize religious truth in the face of enlightenment realities. Atheism is a response that demands clarity and consistency in an attempt at moral revaluation. Historically Nietzsche was the father of this attempt and the main text was his "Geneology of Morals." In this the philosopher asks the question Where do morals come from and why?

Atheists do not often supply answers to alternative moral positions (alternatives to Christianity). Recently during the resurgency of Atheism in many forms these positive claims have become more prevalent. It is often stated that Atheism is more concerned with humanism and a love of (and focus on) reality and man-as-he-is on Earth. These contain positive solutions regarding brotherhood, love and peace. These are forms of sophistry, arguments without substance. Atheism historically has been a return to "real" philosophy. It has been an attempt to objectively explore fundamental substances through competitive dialectic. The fruits of philosophical labor have not in their best forms produced a peaceful or stable world. Philosophy's greatest contribution has been the focus on tension. Competition between two almost paradoxical realities has been the theme of the greatest triumphs of the human mind in the realm of deep thought. The existential dilemma that is produced by the tension between meaning and temporality, lightness and weight, organization and chaos - these are the landmarks of the movement of honest philosophy. They are well articulated in the painful battles that wage throughout Nietzsche's works.

The core of Atheism is not positive affirmation or promises of a brighter future. This was Freud's mistake to promise too much. The core is about competition: the competition between different individuals as they manifest in the form of great ideas. Every worthwile component of the American political system was formed in this way as a competition. The heart of every fair and useful legal system supports the philosophy of competition as a way to obtain truth.

The problem with competition being the core of Atheism is that it promises only truth. Man has grown accustomed to wanting more. Christianity is the extension of this desire. But the realization of this desire is irrational and based in a fantasy world that is built on creativity rather than fact. Atheists often want their system to be more about positive success and constructive idealism and this can do nothing but make it religion. Atheism is a reaction and it contains only philosophy. Any deviation from this in its present state dilutes and degrades it.

Atheism is an extension of philosophy. It is more concerned with truth and progress. It does not make promises.

Christianity began as an extension of philosophy. As an ideology its goal was to objectify moral conclusions. It was a reaction against primitive relativism, simple archaic traditions that delimited value. If one is to rally against Christianity as failed dogmatism one must be vigilant that one's own ideas do not deviate from a philosophical ideal.

To understand Atheism is to understand philosophy. The ultimate tension in philosophy is the competition between eternal truth and dialectial truth. At what point is an idea absolutely true? And to what degree is it open to negoation? How much tension is necessary for an idea to become useful to man? This is the landmark condition of the philosophical mind. Atheism operates best by understanding this tension as a priority.

Within this tension is the definition.