Introduction

The atheist system does by design demand clarity. Regardless of the answer to the title question, it is clear that the history of atheism is one that demands clarity, the use of reason, and concision. It is based on empirical processes. It cannot then tolerate for itself the same blurred or subjective self-definition as so many philosophical or religious systems. The atheist must work to define what that means if he is to continue using and applying the term. It would be ironic and contradictory for him to allow it to become mired in the same cultural linguistic confusion as so many other worldviews.

Atheists are almost always highly educated men. Not all highly educated men are atheists, for sure, for that would neatly wrap things up and I wouldn�t be arguing a redundant position, to say the least. It is true, however, that most atheists have minds of a highly complex nature. There is an historical fact that begins this discussion and substantiates the atheist position: this fact relates to an unusually high proportion of atheist thinkers (and their effects) in Western philosophical traditions. This unusual and dramatic effect is not proportional to the number of common men that deny religious truths within the nations that have comprised the West. Religious fervor has declined since the enlightenment, yet in 20th century Europe and America actual statistics reveal the percentage of believers to be nearly 95%. Christianity has by numbers become the most dominant worldview on the planet, consisting of nearly 2 billion members. The history of western thought is not only dominated by atheistic tendencies, it cannot supply even one clear exponent of the Christian religion since the enlightenment. Religious philosophers, Kierkegaard being a model, are often as antagonist to their own Christianity as they are sympathetic.

Great atheists abound, but a thorough explanation of their beliefs might be found in the writings of Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, and Freud. The materialist position is in fact the foundation of the critique of religion - this being the state one might call atheism.

These and other great thinkers are characterized by two important qualities, clear and logical thinking and a broad understanding of history. As for the latter, consider Nietzsche�s work in The Genealogy of Morals and imagine how ineffectual it might have been without detailed historical considerations. It is because of these great qualities - logical thinking and historical education - that many thinkers develop an antagonism to religion.

What do we make of historical geniuses who did profess religious belief? Francis Bacon (a non-believer), in his famous quote, even noted a tendency of great thinkers to eventually return to religious matters. In response, atheists claim these Christian philosophic worldviews incomplete. Religious philosophers are logical in all matters except those related to the intimate details (details imbibed in childhood) of religion. Great minds are still susceptible to the lure of faith. The philosopher Emmanuel Kant is an excellent example of this and his name has suffered much in philosophical literature as the archetype of the incomplete intellectual. Thus the atheist position defends itself against the weight of philosophical theism.

Atheist literature has been around as long as mystical religious conceptions. The skeptic, if that is how we can see the atheist, has been outspoken in many forms. The roots of these thinkers begin at least as early as Diogenes, the Greek iconoclast and model of anti-conventional behavior. These iconoclasts have permeated Western thought, but have lived mainly in popular obscurity.

There are two possible reasons for the mass ignorance of anti-theist literature. This particular fact is of prime importance to our discussion because my ideas herein are, to my knowledge, not at all new or creative. My evidences are mere echoes - and unflattering repetitions at that � of much historical anti-theist writing. Two reasons for this obscurity are 1) that the majority of people do not wish to explore something antagonist to comfort (almost as an instinct), and 2) that most people don�t explore anything deep at all. In regards to the latter, it may be said that most people don�t know much about their own specific religion either. A Christian, asked about the Gospels or the historical conceptions of Jesus, will have no more to say accurately on that topic than they might about Nietzsche�s revaluation.

Three questions help to outline my discussion about the nature of atheism. These questions are in no way separate and are, for practical purposes, mainly synergistic. These inter-related questions would be:

1. What does the word atheism mean objectively?
2. Is it possible to be an atheist in the first place?
3. In what category do we put an atheist statement?

What does the word atheism mean objectively?

In common terms Atheism means a belief that God does not exist.

It is important to unravel some of the initial linguistic problems before attempting a more complex definition. The mystified nature of the term �atheism� causes tremendous difficulty for any analysis. There is no doubt that the power of mystification, and the resulting confusion from it, is due in large part to the fact that secular thought is a minority belief system.

Atheism is the reaction of certain individuals to the intuitively held belief that there is a God. It would be ridiculous in our time to define God as something other than omnipotent and perfect. The atheist believes that widely held religious beliefs create perverted social moral foundations and that the subjective nature of an intuitive belief method increases linguistic confusion. This confusion ultimately helps to maintain popular belief by undermining the common man�s ability to reason about the real world.

Religion is based on intuitive claims rather than scientific claims. It is true that only patently uneducated people attempt to defend religious claims by science, even though this has become a modern and fanciful endeavor. Many philosophical theists, such as Kant, not only satisfied a wealth of critics in this regard, but also were convinced that this claim was paramount for the health of Christianity.

The atheist does not agree that intuitive claims give rise to useful truth. It is a separate issue entirely to discuss private truths that are not political (not used as such for political reasons, large or small). The atheist is opposed to this method in regards to larger claims, claims for instance that define moral standards. Nietzsche�s is a prime example of this type of effort.

So an atheist is not merely a man who does not belief in the existence of God. It is much more complicated than that, as one might have easily assumed.

Is it possible to be an atheist in the first place?

�You want to replace the Christian religion with the Atheist one?� -Pat Buchanan

A useful exploration of this question must begin with an examination of its opponent, religion. It may be fair and lucid to say that religion is a system of beliefs, held to be true by its believers, that posits a God and demands worship. A system that does not fit this description may fail to be defined as religion. The Buddhist worldview is one such problematic example.

But is this possible? Is it possible to have a belief that is merely the negation of something else? Of course. I could say: I believe there is no tenth planet in our solar system. If we could agree on the definition of planet, then anyone (with the technology) could prove or disprove my belief. My belief is that there is no tenth planet. So the negation of a belief can be a belief. The belief is, however, dramatically influenced by the opposing belief that is to be negated. Let�s say, for instance, that person A says that he sees invisible monkeys in his house. These monkeys are invisible to anyone other than him. This is a belief system that is not susceptible to evidential argument. The non-believers (people who believe there are in fact no monkeys) must then put together an evidential argument against person A in order to disprove him. In this case, the non-believers are influenced by the non-evidential nature of the initial belief that there are invisible monkeys. There should be no mystery as to how loosely and superficially this �argument� might progress.

What does this say about religion? It means that religion is, in our time, a non-evidential argument. It relies on intuitive evidence for its proof. Christian believers say that they feel the presence of God in most cases. They believe the truths of the religion to be true because they �just know.� If we understand this in terms of Charles Sanders Peirce (the American Pragmatist) and his essay �Fixing Belief� we can refer to his useful outline of four methods. These are as follows: three non-evidential methods (tenacity, authority, and intuitive) with oddly enjoyable rewards, and one factual method (scientific inquiry). If we follow Peirce in the essay and carefully absorb his ironic style we are left with an advanced understanding of how we might classify belief strategies. The rewards of the first three methods, ones that we might see as the combined effect for religious conviction (something Peirce clearly understood), are not useful in fact. The religious defense from the intuitive position is the strongest and clearest. It does however presuppose a Cartesian approach to obtaining �truth.� By the powers of my own mind, independent of others, I am convinced through reason of this particular belief. Descartes resorted to a certain derivation of the Ontological Proof in order to build his foundation and thus his theism; and it would be clear that any religious believer that took care to educated himself deeply in all these matters would by necessity have to adopt a similar strategy. This method, stating a proof of God�s existence from a rational feeling based on the perfection of the world, is a useful example of Peirce�s intuitive method.

How does this classify atheist beliefs if they are merely a reaction to intuitively felt claims? Is an atheist merely a political pawn? Does his minority status further diminish any effect he will then have on the Western thought?

Atheism is not a religion because it does not tell you how to believe, it tells you how not to believe. It does not fill in the gaps. This is the most misunderstood element of the atheist worldview. It is merely an attack on Christianity. Any attempt to prove otherwise is subjective at best and ignorant of history. Ignoring the common sense anti-religious claims of Freud, Nietzsche, Bacon and Peirce in an atheist conception is an attempt to inaccurately define words and history.

How do we classify an atheist statement?

This exploration of the rational-intuitive method for claiming religious truth is extremely important to the definition of atheism. Atheism is a reaction to this truth claim and is controlled in many ways by the language of the religious system. The anti-theist must argue against the existence of God using empirical methods. The evolution of the theist has removed religion from the empirical realm. It is as if they do not speak the same language, the believer and non-believer.

Nietzsche claimed himself an atheist by nature. In this statement a new method of atheist critique might be explored. The atheist may claim an intuitive right to his own claim that God does not exist. This is taking things farther than Freud, the archetypal atheist who would not refute existence. Freud�s major claim and a defining component of traditional 20th century atheists is one that states merely that there is no useful evidence for the existence of a deity. Freud only goes as far as saying that it would be quite lucky for man�s guess on such matters to be correct.

Evidences for and against the existence of God are both mired in confusion. The problem of evil is perhaps the most powerful evidential argument on the side of atheism. The failure of this argument, which appears perfect to most atheists, fails in the cultural linguistic confusion. The word omnipotent becomes useless in this particular argument. If God is truly omnipotent he could create a better world. The Christian counter-argument that states the prime importance of human freedom (over a naturally better world) merely presupposes a definition of omnipotence that is different from the same definition in the opposing viewpoint. This confusion or stagnation is not accident. It is a product of the nature of the argument to belief by the religionist.

To protect belief the religionist seems to have designed a worldview insusceptible of criticism. This is by nature confusing. The atheist believes in facts as the ultimate arbiter of human knowledge. The religionist does not. It makes sense to say that every believer must be willing to follow Descartes on his journey to pure subjective rationalism, he must be willing to disavow not just scientific truth, but all objective truth on the path to God. This God may then be the only objectively true fact. The atheist knows of no man who is willing to commit to this statement. The conclusions of relativistic theories are inevitable and impossible to use in the real world. This is the definition of the atheist�s most useful scientific and historical conclusion.

The atheist has the further right to claim his position by intuition. The feeling of a lack of God is as powerful as the feelings of a God. If it is truly confusion to create arguments by evidence, this intuitive argument serves to compliment the shortcomings of the other. In this light, the Cartesian claim to God�s perfection is in peril. The image of God is not present in an atheist mind and neither is the idea of perfection that does, for the philosophical religionist, prove God�s existence. The religion argument becomes circular.

Conclusion

The atheist position is not altogether settled. It can be seen as a system or worldview that struggles in opposition to the subjective and intuited positions of religionists, and mainly Christians. The statement that atheists merely don�t believe in God is an understatement and fails to reflect what they do believe.

An atheist may have many spiritual arguments that may even be classified as religious, independent of his critique of Christianity. Any scholar of Nietzsche is quite familiar with this enlightened position. Atheism does not rule out the unknown. On the contrary, in its proper form it holds mystery and wonder in high esteem. The atheist has a priority system: Christianity must be demystified and made powerless first before accurate philosophical discussions about spirituality may be undertaken. This priority exists because the non-theist is burdened and inspired by the bloody history of the monotheistic tradition and his skepticism of the intuitive method for obtaining universal truth. It is because the atheist is by nature interested in history that his separate explorations of the unknown might prove quite valuable in a secular future.