Atheism: Definition, Etymology and Types

This article clarifies what we mean by atheism by pairing a brief history of the term (from the Greek a-theos, ‘without god’) with a clear, multi-axis typology. Because ‘atheism’ emerged in Western settings and has shifted with changing ideas of God, we use it carefully beyond that context while showing it still aids analysis. The framework distinguishes three axes: scope (global vs. local), strength (strong/positive vs. weak/negative), and basis (explicit vs. implicit). It also maps orientations often conflated with atheism, including humanistic/secular ethics, agnostic atheism, anti-theism, apatheism, miso-theism, and mystical atheism. In addition, the article highlights the difference between Old/Classical Atheism, rooted in philosophical critiques from antiquity through the Enlightenment to modern thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche, and Russell, and New Atheism, a twenty-first century movement associated with Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Stenger, marked less by new arguments than by its militant tone and reliance on science or scientism. The result is a framework that untangles positions usually lumped together and situates atheism within its historical and contemporary expressions, steering discussion toward sharper issues.

Definition

No single definition of ‘atheism’ can capture all of its varied uses. ¹ Historically forged within the West, its meaning has shifted with changing conceptions of God. Still, used cautiously outside its original setting, it can be illuminating. Although dictionaries often define atheism as the belief that there is no God, the Greek roots suggest a broader sense: lacking belief in any god. However, in practice, both senses circulate today across the world. ²

Etymology

The etymology of atheism originates in the ancient Greek word atheos, composed of the privative prefix a- (a), meaning ‘without’ or ‘lacking,’ and theos, meaning ‘god’ or ‘deity.’ ³ In classical usage, atheos signified ‘godless’ or ‘abandoned by the gods’ and was often employed as a polemical label rather than a self-designation. ⁴ For example, Roman authors used atheos to denounce impiety, whether directed at philosophers, ⁵ Epicureans, or early Christians who rejected the civic gods of Greco-Roman religion. ⁶ The semantic field gradually shifted in late antiquity: while atheos could still mean neglect of ritual, it increasingly denoted an outright denial of the gods’ existence. ⁷ In the Latin tradition, the word became atheus, retaining this accusatory sense. ⁸ During the Renaissance and early modern period, the concept entered vernacular European languages through the French form atheisme (attested from the mid-16th century), which crystallized during the religious and philosophical debates of Reformation Europe. ⁹ From French, the term entered English in the mid-16th century—first attested with Sir John Cheke’s 1540 translation of Plutarch and then widely in print by 1587— and, over roughly 1540–1630, its polemical sense of impiety or heresy increasingly and then decisively shifted toward the explicit denial of theism, a meaning later consolidated in Enlightenment usage. ¹⁰ Thus, the linguistic trajectory of atheism reflects a broader historical evolution: from an accusation of religious deviance in antiquity, to a stigmatized label in medieval and early modern Europe, and finally to a philosophical and cultural worldview articulated in modern thought.

Typologies of Atheism

This typology of atheism maps the different dimensions along which non-theistic stances vary. By scope, it ranges from global atheism (denying all gods) to local atheism (targeting particular God-concepts). By doxastic ¹¹ strength, it contrasts strong/positive atheism (asserting non-existence) with weak/negative atheism (withholding belief), and by basis it distinguishes explicit atheism (a considered rejection) from implicit atheism (unexamined non-belief). Philosophical-ethical and epistemic hybrids include humanistic/secular atheism and agnostic atheism, which adds non-belief with suspended claims to knowledge. Attitudinal variants—anti-theism (opposition to theism) and apatheism (indifference to the God-question)—cut partly across belief and knowledge. Affective and experiential edges such as misotheism (hostility toward a conceived deity) and mystical atheism (non-theistic spirituality) show how positions can combine and differ in ambition, method, and explanatory burden.

Global Atheism

Global atheism is the ambitious position that denies the existence of any divine beings at all, insisting that no legitimate God-concept is instantiated in reality. This form of atheism does not restrict itself to contesting the classical theistic omni-God, but rejects deities across monotheistic, polytheistic, deistic, and pantheistic frameworks. Because of this universal scope, global atheism requires a comprehensive rebuttal of all possible God-concepts, which makes it philosophically demanding. Its arguments often overlap with metaphysical naturalism, which claims that reality is fully explicable in natural terms, and also engage with the question of whether ‘God’ must entail being ‘worthy of worship.’ ¹²

Local Atheism

This type of atheism focuses on denying specific God-concepts without attempting to disprove all possible deities. Most contemporary philosophy of religion debates fall under this category. Local atheists typically challenge the God of classical theism—an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being—by raising targeted objections. ¹³ These include the problem of evil, which argues that the reality of suffering undermines the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God, the problem of divine hiddenness, which claims that God’s apparent absence is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving deity. Local atheism is considered more modest and defensible because it does not overextend into rejecting all concepts of divinity. Instead, it seeks to undermine particular doctrines or conceptions, leaving open the possibility that alternative notions of God or ultimate reality may still be tenable.

Atheism according to Intellectual Basis

Old/Classical Atheism: Old/Classical atheism has its strong foundation in philosophical argumentation rather than an appeal to science. This type of atheism roots back to Greek thinkers such as Democritus, Leucippus, and later Epicureans who, though not strictly atheists, critiqued organized religion as a source of fear and unhappiness. During the Enlightenment, figures such as Denis Diderot and the Baron d’Holbach offered explicit critiques of religion, while David Hume and Voltaire advanced skeptical and deistic positions. The early 19th century saw more forceful defenses of atheism, such as Percy Bysshe Shelley’s The Necessity of Atheism (1811), followed by Marx and Nietzsche, who constructed sweeping cultural and philosophical critiques of God, morality, and society. Even into the 20th century, leading defenders of atheism—including A. J. Ayer, John Dewey, and Bertrand Russell—continued to ground their case primarily in philosophy. Thus, the recognizable arguments of old atheism, both against the existence of specific kinds of gods, and in favor of secular materialism, were ‘philosophical in nature’. ¹⁴ In short, before the advent of New Atheism in the 21st century, atheism remained principally a philosophical position, engaging metaphysics, morality, and epistemology far more than scientific polemics.

New Atheism: The New Atheism designates a movement that began with Sam Harris’s The End of Faith (2004) and was popularized by the works of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Stenger, often referred to as the 'Four Horsemen' of New Atheism. New atheism does not bring any novel philosophical argument against religion—since most of their critiques echo earlier atheist thinkers—but rather bring in a shrill tone, strategy, with total reliance on science and militant extremism. The label ‘New Atheism’ is misleading insofar as it suggests a novel set of arguments against religion. Central to the movement is the conviction that the existence of God should be treated as a scientific hypothesis. ¹⁵ Thus, the New Atheists’ guiding premise is best understood as scientism, the belief that science is the only legitimate source of knowledge, leading them to dismiss theology and philosophy as irrelevant to the debate.

By the Strength of the Assertion

Strong (or Positive) Atheism: This is the explicit belief that no gods exist. A strong atheist claims to know that theistic claims are false. This is often associated with a positive assertion or a definitive statement about the non-existence of a god or gods. ¹⁶

Weak (or Negative) Atheism: This is the absence of a belief in any deities. A weak atheist does not claim to know that gods don't exist but simply lacks the belief that they do. It's a position of non-belief rather than an assertion of non-existence. ¹⁷ This category can also include those who are indifferent or haven't seriously considered the question.

Atheism according to the Basis of the Position

Implicit Atheism: Implicit atheism refers to the absence of belief in God or gods without a conscious rejection of theistic claims. It is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it, and this condition can be found in children, isolated societies, or individuals who have never considered the concept of God. In other words, implicit atheism characterizes a state of 'not having belief' rather than consciously denying belief. This category highlights that not all atheism is based on rational arguments against theism; it can also result from a lack of exposure or consideration. ¹⁸ Scholars of religious studies have recognized this distinction as important because it underscores the role of cultural context and knowledge transmission in shaping belief systems.

Explicit Atheism: Explicit atheism, sometimes called positive atheism or critical atheism refers to the conscious, deliberate rejection of belief in God or gods and is often rooted in philosophical critiques of religion. It arises not from ignorance of religious claims but from engaging with them and concluding that such claims are false or unconvincing. The term was popularized by George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God, where he defined explicit atheism as the ‘conscious rejection of belief’ following reflection and evaluation. This distinguishes it from implicit atheism, where one simply lacks belief without having considered the issue. ¹⁹ Historically, it has been connected to rationalism and empiricism. Although Paul Edwards, in his article ’Atheism’ in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines atheism as the rejection of belief in God and does not use later terminologies such as explicit atheism or critical atheism, his definition reflects the same idea: atheism as a reasoned stance arising from rationalist and empiricist critique of theism, rather than a mere absence of belief. He also explains that explicit atheists adopt a ‘principled denial’ of divine existence on the basis of logical analysis, often challenging traditional arguments for God such as the cosmological and teleological arguments. ²⁰ The stance thus embodies a propositional claim: that 'God does not exist,' as opposed to mere suspension of belief.

Atheism according to Philosophical and Ethical Framework

Humanistic Atheism (or Secular Humanism): This is a philosophy that combines atheism with a moral and ethical system based on human reason, compassion, and justice, rather than divine authority. It is an ethical worldview that emphasizes human reason, scientific inquiry, and moral values derived from human experience rather than religious authority. ²¹ Secular humanism often appears in manifestos and organizational programs, aiming to provide a comprehensive non-religious philosophy of life. Secular humanists believe in living a good and meaningful life, focusing on human well-being and progress in this world. The Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by philosophers like Paul Kurtz and Isaac Asimov, declares:

We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. ²²

Agnostic Atheism: It refers to neither believing nor disbelieving that God exists, and is often contrasted with atheism, but that framing is misleading. Agnosticism and positive (strong) atheism are mutually exclusive: if one is true, the other is false. By contrast, agnosticism is compatible with negative or weak atheism, because agnostics, lacking belief in God, count as negative atheists by definition. The converse, however, does not hold: negative atheism does not entail agnosticism; one can lack belief in God without adopting the agnostic claim about the unknowability of God’s existence. ²³

Anti-theism: Anti-theism is the stance of building one’s outlook primarily around opposition to theism. It differs from atheism, which is simply the conviction that no gods exist and does not, by itself, involve hostility toward theism (indeed, hostility to what one holds does not exist is incoherent). While skepticism or resentment may understandably be directed at religious institutions or clerical power (e.g., anticlericalism), a worldview grounded chiefly in anti-theistic dislike is ultimately self-limiting. For a humanist perspective, rejecting belief in gods must be followed by a constructive, evidence-based account of how the world works and how we ought to live. In that sense, anti-theism is too narrow, and atheism, though distinct from anti-theism, is also insufficient on its own as a comprehensive life-stance. ²⁴ An antitheist not only lacks belief in a god but also believes that religion is harmful to society. They may argue that religion promotes superstition, irrationality, and conflict. The ‘New Atheism’ movement, popularized by figures like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, is often considered a form of anti-theism.

Apatheism: This position is characterized by apathy or indifference towards the question of whether or not a god exists. It differs from theism/atheism/agnosticism (which state beliefs or knowledge claims) as apatheism is about priority, not truth. It’s orthogonal: a person could be theist, atheist, or agnostic and either accept or reject apatheism. Some theists (e.g., universalists or non-interventionists) may find it compatible; many others won’t. It’s often more attractive to atheists/agnostics, who don’t center life on religious commitments. Critics say, it dodges an important question whereas defenders say, it frees attention for practical concerns. In practice, apatheists don’t organize their lives around religion and treat God’s existence as irrelevant to daily choices. ²⁵ An apatheist considers the question to be irrelevant to their life and believes that the existence of a god, even if true, would have no practical impact on them.

Misotheism: It is the stance of hating or resenting God, not denying His existence. The misotheist’s complaint is moral, aimed at what they take to be God’s character or governance in a world marked by evil and suffering, so they often accuse God rather than doubt Him. Some writers show versions ranging from absolute miso-theism (hate God and deny worship), to agnostic misotheism (unsure God exists but opposed to the very idea), to political misotheism (hostile chiefly to God’s public cult and institutions). This differs from atheism, which is about belief and simply denies that any god exists; atheism carries no built-in hostility. Still, the two can intersect: a person’s misotheistic protest (If such a God existed, I would not worship Him) can motivate or feed into atheism or anti-theism, while some atheists are 'cold' deniers with no animus at all. Conversely, a miso-theist may remain a theist—believing God exists yet refusing devotion. ²⁶ In short, miso-theism is a value-laden revolt against God, whereas atheism is a doxastic stance about God’s existence; they are logically distinct, though in lived experience one can incline toward or reinforce the other.

Mystical Atheism: Mystical atheism, according Comte-Sponville is a godless, naturalist spirituality that can culminate in mystical experience without invoking a transcendent deity. He argues there is ‘nothing contradictory in the notion of a godless spirituality,’ since if everything is natural then spirit is part of nature. At its utmost, spiritual life ‘verges on mysticism,’ where the core is not dogma but an experience of being—what Wittgenstein called wondering ‘not how the world is but that the world is’—an experience/sensation/silence, not a creed. ²⁷ Comte-Sponville concludes that 'atheistic mysticism — mystical atheism' is both conceptually coherent and historically attested (especially in Eastern traditions); drawing on de Lubac, Leibniz, and Kojeve to show how mysticism can 'eat away at myth,' and quoting Nietzsche—'I am a mystic and believe in nothing'—to mark the gap between religion and spirituality. ²⁸ Thus, mystical atheism is a less common and more nuanced form that rejects the concept of a personal, creator god but may still be open to spiritual or transcendent experiences without a supernatural framework. This might involve a sense of awe and wonder at the universe or a belief in a form of immanent reality.

Thus, atheism is not one thing but a family of positions that differ by target, strength, reasons, and attitude. Naming the type at issue—global or local, strong or weak, explicit or implicit, ethical, agnostic, oppositional, indifferent, protest, or mystical—helps avoid category mistakes and sets the right burden of proof. Yet these typologies are classificatory, not answer-giving: they do not resolve basic questions of origin, meaning, value, and destiny—why there is something rather than nothing, what our ultimate purpose is, what grounds objective morality and human dignity, or whether there is accountability beyond death. Here religion, and Islam in particular, offers a comprehensive framework: Tawḥid grounds reality in the Creator; Risalah (prophethood) provides reliable guidance (Quran and Sunnah); Maqaṣid Al-Shariah articulate objective moral aims; and Akhirah (the Hereafter) secures responsibility, justice, and hope. In this light, the typology clarifies debates about disbelief, while Islam supplies an integrated metaphysical, moral, and teleological account for how we ought to live.

• ¹  Paul Edwards (1967), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Macmillan Company and the Free Press, New York, USA, Vol. 1, Pg. 175.
• ²  Martin (2007), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 1.
• ³  Stephen Bullivant & Michael Ruse (2013), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., Pg. 23.
• ⁴  Stephen Bullivant & Michael Ruse (2021), The Cambridge History of Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 12.
• ⁵  A. B. Drachmann (1922), Atheism in Pagan Antiquity, Gyldendal, London, U.K., Pg. 5.
• ⁶  The Catholic Encyclopedia (Online): https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126. htm: Retrieved: 14-01-2026
• ⁷  Stephen Bullivant & Michael Ruse (2021), The Cambridge History of Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 11.
• ⁸  Michael Martin (2007), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 22.
• ⁹  Stephen Bullivant & Michael Ruse (2021), The Cambridge History of Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 12.
• ¹⁰  Gavin Hyman (2010), A Short History of Atheism, I. B. Tauris, London, U.K., Pg. 3-4.
• ¹¹  Doxastic means anything related to belief. It describes the mental state of holding something to be true or false, as opposed to hoping, imagining, or merely desiring it. In philosophy, when we call a state or attitude ‘doxastic, ’ we are saying it belongs to the realm of belief and opinion.
• ¹²  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Online): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#GlobAtheVersLocaAthe: Retrieved: 14-01-2026
• ¹³  Ibid.
• ¹⁴  Massimo Pigliucci (2013), New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, John, Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA, Vol. 37, Pg. 145-146.
• ¹⁵  Whitley Kaufman (2018), New Atheism and its Critics, Philosophy Compass, John, Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA, Vol. 14, Pg. 1-4.
• ¹⁶  Michael Martin (2007), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 1.
• ¹⁷  Ibid, Pg. 2.
• ¹⁸  George H. Smith (1974), Atheism: The Case Against God, Nash Publishing, Los Angeles, USA, Pg. 13-14.
• ¹⁹  Ibid, Pg. 17.
• ²⁰  Paul Edwards (1967), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Macmillan Company and the Free Press, New York, USA, Vol. 1, Pg. 175-180.
• ²¹  Antony Flew (1993), Atheistic Humanism, Prometheus Books, New York, USA, Pg. 9-11.
• ²²  Paul Kurtz (1973), Humanist Manifestos I and II, Prometheus Books, New York, USA, Pg. 14.
• ²³  Michael Martin (2007), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 2.
• ²⁴  Bill Cooke (2006), Dictionary of Atheism, Skepticism & Humanism, Prometheus Books, New York, USA, Pg. 40-41.
• ²⁵  Trevor Hedberg & Jordan Huzarevich (2017), Appraising Objections to Practical Apatheism, Philosophia, Springer, New York, USA, Vol. 45, Issue: 1, Pg. 3-4.
• ²⁶  Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (2019), The Divine Reality: God, Islam and the Mirage of Atheism, Lion Rock Publishing, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, Pg. 20-21.
• ²⁷  Andre Comt-Sponville (2008), The Book of Atheist Spirituality: An Elegant Argument for Spirituality without God (Translated by: Nancy Houston), Bantam Press, London, U.K., Pg. 140-142.
• ²⁸  Andre Comt-Sponville (2008), The Book of Atheist Spirituality: An Elegant Argument for Spirituality without God (Translated by: Nancy Houston), Bantam Press, London, U.K., Pg. 191-192.