1. Basic Definition
Atheism is, at its core, about what a person believes regarding gods and the supernatural. It can be described in two closely related ways: as the lack of belief in any god, gods, or supernatural beings, and as the belief that no such beings exist. The first definition is theoretically neutral and simply says, “I do not hold a belief in any gods,” without yet committing to a positive claim. The second reflects where most thoughtful atheists actually land: having considered the available evidence, they conclude that gods and supernatural beings are human ideas rather than real entities. Both usages appear in everyday conversation, and many disputes about atheism turn on which of these senses people assume when they use the word.
In practice, very few people remain in a pure, suspended “lack of belief” for long. Moving through the world, encountering religious claims, scientific explanations, cultural traditions, and personal experiences, we all form opinions about what is real. Some people see the patterns of their lives and the stories of their traditions as strong evidence for a god, and they become theists. Others notice the cultural variability of religions, the absence of publicly testable miracles, and the success of natural explanations in science, and they come to think that gods are highly unlikely. Atheists belong to this latter group: they may acknowledge that gods are logically possible, but they live as though none exist because, in their judgment, the evidence does not justify belief.
A useful way to clarify atheism is to distinguish it from agnosticism. Agnosticism is about knowledge: it says we cannot know for certain whether any gods exist. Atheism is about belief: it says that, given what we know, we do not believe in any gods. Many people, including many philosophers, therefore describe themselves as agnostic atheists: they do not claim infallible knowledge, but their considered conclusion is that there are no gods. A simple analogy can help: you can be agnostic about the existence of an invisible dragon in your garage—you admit you can’t prove its nonexistence with absolute certainty—yet still very reasonably live as if there is no dragon there. Atheism is this stance applied consistently to the various gods and supernatural beings proposed by different religions.
Within this broad picture, writers sometimes distinguish between “strong” and “weak” atheism. Strong atheism explicitly affirms that no gods exist; weak atheism simply lacks belief in gods without making a firm positive claim. There are also neighboring positions: apatheists are those who regard the god question as unimportant to how they live, while ignostics argue that talk of “God” is too vague or incoherent to evaluate. These nearby views share a family resemblance with atheism, but the central idea remains the same: in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in gods, it is more reasonable to withhold belief than to grant it.
2. What Atheists Believe (and Don’t)
Atheism itself is very thin: it answers exactly one question—“Do any gods exist?”—with “no,” or at least “no, not on the evidence we have.” Everything else people associate with atheism (views about science, ethics, politics, or meaning) comes from broader secular philosophies and personal reflection, not from atheism as a formal creed. Still, because atheists tend to approach the world in similar ways, there are common patterns in what many of them believe about reality, knowledge, morality, and human life.
The one “official” belief
If we define atheism as narrowly as possible, it has only one belief: that there are no gods or supernatural beings, or at minimum that there is no good reason to believe in any. This means atheism, by itself, does not prescribe a moral code, political program, set of rituals, or way of life; it is simply a stance about one class of proposed entities. A person could, in principle, be an atheist and still hold almost any other combination of views—though in practice, certain combinations are more coherent than others.
Common (but optional) views held by many atheists
Although atheism is only a position on gods, many atheists share certain background assumptions about how the world works. One of the most important is trust in science and empirical inquiry as our best available tools for understanding reality. Science is not seen as infallible or complete, but as a self-correcting process that tests ideas against observation, discards what fails, and refines what works. This fits well with the atheistic suspicion of claims that rest solely on revelation, authority, or tradition.
A second common view concerns how we gain knowledge in the first place. Atheists typically emphasize that everything we know starts with our senses—sight, hearing, touch, and so on—and is then interpreted by a fallible, limited brain. Because both our senses and our reasoning can go wrong, we need methods like repeatable experiments, peer review, and open criticism to filter out mistakes. Many atheists resonate with the idea that information can be “good” or “bad,” expected or unexpected, and that progress comes from actively seeking unanticipated facts that challenge our assumptions.
Third, many atheists tend to look for natural and social explanations where religious traditions appeal to sin, karma, or divine will. Instead of seeing wars, poverty, or injustice as punishments from heaven, they focus on concrete causes like resource distribution, institutions, psychology, and historical accident. From this perspective, the way to reduce suffering is not to appease a deity but to change material conditions, laws, education, and social norms.
Finally, atheists are often very aware of how much our starting worldview depends on culture and upbringing. Children raised in a religious environment usually absorb that religion long before they can reason about it, just as children raised in secular homes usually absorb a secular outlook. Many atheists have passed through a religious phase and can look back on how family, community, and authority figures shaped what once seemed obviously true. This reinforces their sense that we should hold beliefs lightly, examine them, and be willing to revise them when evidence or arguments demand it.
Atheism is not a worldview
Because atheism is only about gods, it does not, by itself, tell you what is right or wrong, what kind of society is best, or what gives life meaning. Full worldviews—religious or secular—include stories about where we come from, why we are here, how we should treat one another, and what we should hope for. Religious worldviews build these elements around a divine authority; secular worldviews build them around human beings and the natural world.
Many atheists adopt or build broader frameworks such as secular humanism, naturalism, or various philosophical ethics. Secular humanism, for example, holds that human beings can lead meaningful, moral lives without gods, grounding ethics in human flourishing and shared interests rather than in divine commands. Other atheists may lean toward utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or other philosophical systems to structure their moral thinking. These frameworks are not “part of atheism” but are worldviews based on the lack of a belief in the supernatural as a foundation. It’s just the opposite of a belief in the supernatural (theism) which is the foundation of religions.
Do all atheists think the same?
From the outside, it can look as if atheists all think alike, especially when they agree about science, reject religious authority, and share certain political or social concerns. There is some truth to the idea that atheistic worldviews are more homogeneous than religious ones, because many atheists grant a central role to science and shared human experience as authorities. However, once you look beyond the single question of gods, atheists diverge widely in their ethics, politics, and personal priorities.
Some atheists are politically conservative, others progressive; some are deeply engaged in activism, others are quiet and private about their views. Some adopt a strongly materialist philosophy that denies any nonphysical aspects of mind, while others are more agnostic about the details of consciousness as long as no gods are invoked. What unites them is simply their nonbelief in gods, not a uniform script for how to live.
How people become atheists
Most people do not start by choosing atheism after reviewing all possible worldviews; they begin by inheriting a religious or nonreligious outlook from their environment. Religious settings usually provide structured teaching, sacred texts, clergy, and tight-knit communities, which can make questioning difficult. Atheism, by contrast, is rarely presented as a complete package to children; it is often something people arrive at later by piecing together ideas from science, philosophy, and personal experience.
For many, the path toward atheism begins with specific questions—about suffering, conflicting scriptures, evolution, or unanswered prayers—that don’t get satisfying answers. As they encounter more information and alternative explanations, the religious framework that once held everything together can start to feel strained. Eventually, some reach a tipping point where belief in gods no longer seems necessary or credible, and they step into atheism—sometimes quietly, sometimes in a way that costs them community and social support.
3. Common Misconceptions About Atheism
Because atheism is often discussed from the outside, many people carry distorted ideas about what it is and what atheists are like. These misconceptions can make honest conversation difficult, especially when they question an atheist’s morality, meaning, or basic trustworthiness. Clarifying what atheism does and does not imply helps clear space for a more accurate and respectful understanding.
“Atheists think life is meaningless”
A very common claim is that without God, life must be meaningless, hopeless, or “just an accident.” From this perspective, if humans are the product of natural processes rather than a divine plan, then nothing we do really matters in the end. Many atheists strongly reject this conclusion. They agree that life has no built‑in cosmic script handed down by a deity, but they insist that meaning does not have to come from outside the universe to be real.
Instead, atheists tend to find meaning in concrete human realities: relationships, love, creativity, learning, helping others, and contributing to something larger than themselves. They see value in projects that improve human and non‑human life here and now, even if there is no eternal scoreboard. In this view, the absence of a supernatural purpose does not erase meaning; it shifts the focus from “What were we made for?” to “What kind of lives do we want to build together?”
“Atheists have no morals”
Another deeply rooted misconception is that without God, there can be no real basis for morality, so atheists must either be secretly immoral or have no reason to be good. Some religious arguments claim that only a divine lawgiver can provide objective standards of right and wrong, and that humans on their own are left with nothing but personal opinion. This can make atheists seem dangerous or untrustworthy in the public imagination.
Atheists respond in several ways. First, they point out that atheism itself is neutral on morality; it simply says there are no gods. Moral views must come from additional beliefs and values, just as they do for religious people. Second, many atheists ground ethics in human (and sometimes animal) well‑being: actions are good when they promote flourishing, reduce suffering, and respect others as ends in themselves, and bad when they do the opposite. Empathy, social cooperation, and the observable consequences of actions provide a rich set of reasons to act morally without needing an afterlife reward or punishment.
Third, atheists often note that moral behavior clearly exists across religious boundaries: people of many faiths, and of none, can be compassionate, fair, or cruel. This suggests that our capacity for morality comes from our nature as social, feeling, reasoning beings, shaped by evolution, culture, and reflection, rather than from one specific set of religious doctrines. From this perspective, tying morality exclusively to belief in God both misreads human psychology and unfairly dismisses the integrity of nonbelievers.
“Atheism claims to have proved no gods exist”
People sometimes describe atheism as the dogmatic claim that “it is proven that no gods exist,” and then argue that this is just as much an act of blind faith as religion, or that you “can’t prove a negative” so atheism is irrational. This picture does not match how most contemporary atheists understand their position. Philosophers and atheist writers usually distinguish between logical possibilities and reasonable beliefs.
Most atheists do not claim to have a mathematical proof that gods are impossible; instead, they say that given the available evidence, it is more reasonable not to believe in gods than to believe in them. They treat gods like other unverified entities—such as invisible dragons or undetectable fairies—acknowledging that you can imagine them but asking why they should be taken seriously without good evidence. The burden of proof, in this view, lies with the person making the extraordinary claim, not with everyone else to disprove every possible being.
The slogan “you can’t prove a negative” is also misleading. In many areas of life—science, law, everyday reasoning—we do rule out possibilities when claims repeatedly fail tests or conflict with what we already know. Atheism, as “agnosticism with an opinion,” reflects this ordinary pattern: gods are not logically impossible, but they appear so unlikely and so unsupported that it is reasonable to live as if they are not there.
“Atheism is just another religion/faith”
A final major misconception is that atheism is “just another religion” or “just another kind of faith” like Christianity, Islam, or other theistic traditions. This claim often arises when “religion” is defined very broadly as any deeply held belief system or life philosophy. Using such a broad definition, nearly any committed worldview—nationalism, environmentalism, sports fandom—could be called a religion, which blurs the differences the word is usually meant to capture.
Under more standard definitions, religions involve worship, rituals, sacred texts, clergy, and claims about supernatural realities, none of which atheism, as such, contains. Atheism has no official creed, no priests, no holy book, and no prescribed practices; it is a single belief about gods, not a comprehensive package of doctrines and duties. Individual atheists may be very committed to their conclusion and willing to defend it, but strong confidence based on evidence and argument is not the same as faith in unfalsifiable revelations.
When people insist that atheism is a religion, atheists often see this as a category mistake that hides important differences in authority, structure, and methods of forming belief. Correcting this misconception allows for a clearer comparison: religions are full worldviews centered on the sacred; atheism is a limited answer to one question that leaves the rest of life’s questions to be worked out by other, explicitly human means.
4. Is Atheism a Religion?
The question “Is atheism a religion?” looks simple but hides several different issues: how we define religion, what atheism actually claims, and why some people are eager to classify it one way or another. To answer it clearly, we need to look at traditional definitions of religion, newer expanded definitions, institutional criteria, and the role of dogma versus revisability.
Traditional, narrow definition of religion
In older, more traditional usage, religion is closely tied to belief in and worship of a god or gods. On this understanding, religions are systems organized around a supernatural reality: they affirm the existence of deities, spirits, or sacred powers and prescribe ways to honor, obey, or align with them through worship, prayer, ritual, and moral codes. Under this definition, atheism is straightforwardly not a religion, because it explicitly denies that such gods exist or withholds belief in them and involves no worship or ritual toward any supernatural being.
Even people who argue that atheism is “like” a religion often rely on a different, broader definition than this classical one. When you keep the focus on belief in and worship of gods, atheism and religion stand on opposite sides: one affirms divine beings, the other does not.
Broader, modern definitions and their consequences
In recent debates, some writers—especially in apologetics and politics—have pushed much broader definitions of religion. Instead of tying religion to gods or worship, they define it as any comprehensive belief system, any ultimate concern, or any passionately held worldview that shapes values and behavior. By this looser standard, a wide range of secular ideologies, political movements, and even intense fandoms could be labeled “religions.”
This is where the claim “atheism is a religion” typically enters. If religion is “any worldview about ultimate questions,” then a developed atheistic worldview—especially when coupled with secular humanism or similar philosophies—might count as a religion in that very broad sense. But this move has a cost: it blurs the distinctions the word “religion” is usually meant to track, such as belief in the supernatural, ritual practices, and sacred authorities. If we accept such a broad definition, we must also be willing to call many non‑theistic systems (certain forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, Marxism, some environmental movements) “religions,” even though they lack gods.
Recognizing this helps explain why arguments over whether atheism is a religion often go in circles; people are quietly using different definitions of “religion” without saying so.
Institutional criteria (e.g., IRS “church” features)
When governments and courts have to deal with religion, they face a practical problem: they must avoid endorsing any particular theology while still having some way to recognize religious organizations. Agencies like the U.S. Internal Revenue Service therefore use lists of functional characteristics rather than a strict theological definition to decide whether a group counts as a “church” for tax purposes.
Typical characteristics include: a distinct legal existence, a recognized creed and form of worship, a definite ecclesiastical government, a formal code of doctrine and discipline, an organization of ordained ministers, established places of worship, regular congregational meetings, a religious history, and schools for religious instruction. No single organization has to meet all these criteria, but the more it resembles this pattern, the more likely it is to be treated as a church.
If we apply this institutional lens to atheism as such, the fit is very poor. Atheism has no shared creed beyond nonbelief in gods, no universally recognized form of worship, no clergy with sacramental authority, no sacred texts that all atheists treat as divinely inspired, and no unified hierarchy. There are atheist and humanist organizations that do form communities, hold meetings, and even call themselves “congregations,” but these are voluntary social structures layered on top of atheism, not intrinsic features of the basic stance. In this institutional sense, atheism is clearly not a religion, though some atheistic groups may qualify as “churches” or religious non‑profits for legal purposes if they adopt church‑like structures.
The double standard: “Is theism a religion?”
A helpful way to expose hidden assumptions is to flip the question: if atheism is a religion, is theism—the belief that at least one god exists—also a religion? Theism, like atheism, is a single belief about the existence of gods; it does not by itself specify rituals, scriptures, or institutions. Historically, there have been many different religions that are theistic (Christianity, Islam, Hindu traditions, etc.), each with its own stories, practices, and authorities.
If someone insists that atheism counts as a religion simply because it is a belief about ultimate reality, then consistency would require calling theism a religion in the same sense. Yet in ordinary language we do not say “Theism is a religion”; we say that particular theistic traditions are religions. Highlighting this double standard shows that labeling atheism a religion often involves stretching the word in one direction only, usually for rhetorical or strategic reasons.
Political motives and why it matters
The stakes in this definitional dispute are not purely academic. In some debates, especially in the United States, the classification of atheism has legal and political consequences. Certain religious‑right arguments claim, on the one hand, that atheism is not a religion so that atheistic or secular viewpoints in schools or government can be portrayed as unfair “establishment” of nonbelief that should be removed. On the other hand, the same voices sometimes argue that atheism is a religion in order to subject it to the same restrictions and scrutiny as churches, or to suggest that secularism is just “another faith” competing in the marketplace of religions.
These conflicting uses reveal that the definition of religion is sometimes adjusted to achieve desired political outcomes rather than to reflect a consistent conceptual standard. Whether atheism is seen as a religion can affect issues like prison chaplaincy, school curricula, and equal treatment of religious and nonreligious worldviews under the law. For that reason alone, it is important to be explicit and consistent about what we mean by “religion” in these discussions.
A better distinction: dogma vs revisability
Instead of arguing endlessly about labels, it can be more helpful to notice a deeper difference between most religions and most atheistic worldviews: their attitude toward falsifiability and revisability. Many religions, as actually practiced, rest on core claims that are treated as non‑negotiable—such as the existence of a particular god, the truth of a revealed scripture, or the reality of an immortal soul. These claims are often insulated from disconfirmation: when evidence conflicts with them, the evidence is reinterpreted, compartmentalized, or dismissed, rather than prompting revision of the core belief.plato.
This pattern is not limited to theistic religions; some secular ideologies, such as certain forms of communism, can also function in a dogmatic, unfalsifiable way. What they share is not belief in gods but a commitment to axioms that are protected from being overturned by experience. In this broader sense, “religion‑like” worldviews are defined by their untouchable foundations, not by whether those foundations involve a deity.
Atheism, by contrast, is typically justified in a way that is in principle revisable. Atheists say, “Given the evidence we have, I do not believe any gods exist,” and many explicitly acknowledge that sufficiently strong, public, testable evidence for a god would change their minds. That is, atheism is a stance that could be falsified: if the world behaved in ways best explained by a powerful, intentional, supernatural agent, atheists would have to rethink their position. This openness to revision on the basis of evidence is a key feature that aligns atheism more closely with scientific skepticism than with traditional religion, even when atheists hold their views with conviction.
From this perspective, the most important distinction is not whether a worldview gets labeled “religion” but whether its central claims are protected from or exposed to potential refutation. On traditional, theistic definitions of religion, atheism is clearly not a religion. On very broad definitions, some atheistic worldviews can be classified alongside religions, but only by stretching the term so far that many non‑religious ideologies get swept in as well. Recognizing both of these points allows us to be precise: atheism is best understood as a nonreligious stance that, unlike most religions, bases its core claim on revisable judgments about evidence rather than on sacred, unfalsifiable dogma.
5. Atheism vs Religion: Core Differences
Atheism and religion both respond to big human questions, but they do so with very different assumptions, authorities, and structures. Where religions typically center on a sacred reality and its representatives, atheism centers on the natural world and human inquiry. Looking at authority, falsifiability, and community makes these differences clearer than abstract definitions alone.
Source of ultimate authority
In most religions, ultimate authority rests with something beyond ordinary human judgment: a god or gods, a revealed text, or a prophetic tradition claimed to originate from the divine. Believers may discuss interpretations, but at the end of the day, scripture, revelation, or sacred tradition has the final say on key matters of belief and conduct. To question these authorities too radically is often seen not just as an intellectual disagreement but as a spiritual or moral failing.
Atheism, by contrast, does not recognize any supernatural or sacred source of authority. Instead, it relies on human methods—reasoning, evidence, critical discussion, and shared experience—to decide what to believe. Claims are evaluated by asking whether they fit with what we already know, whether they can be tested, and whether they explain more than competing alternatives. This does not mean atheists always reason perfectly, but it does mean that no text or figure is treated as beyond question simply by virtue of divine status.
This difference in authority has practical consequences. In religious settings, people may appeal to scripture or religious leaders to settle moral or social disputes. In atheistic or secular contexts, people are more likely to appeal to consequences, human rights, well‑being, and empirical data to argue for their positions. The underlying question shifts from “What does God want?” to “What best promotes flourishing and fairness among actual beings?”
Falsifiability and openness to revision
Another core difference lies in how each handles the possibility of being wrong. Many religious claims are structured in ways that make them resistant to decisive disproof. If a prayer is not answered, for example, it may be said that God had a mysterious plan; if predictions fail, they can be reinterpreted symbolically; if historical or scientific conflicts arise, they can be assigned to human misunderstanding of revelation. In this way, central beliefs—such as the existence of a specific god or the truth of a sacred text—are often insulated from falsification.
Atheism, as usually understood, is more explicitly tied to the idea of falsifiability. Most atheists say something like, “I do not believe in any gods because there is insufficient evidence,” and many affirm that they would change their minds if strong, public, testable evidence for a god appeared. Their stance is based on a judgment about how well the god hypothesis fits our experience—not on a declaration that gods are logically impossible. In that sense, atheism is designed to be revisable: if the world started to behave in ways best explained by a supernatural agent, atheists would, in principle, have to adjust.
Of course, individual atheists can be dogmatic, just as individual believers can be open‑minded. But at the level of how beliefs are justified, atheism aligns more closely with scientific skepticism: claims are held tentatively, always in principle subject to new evidence or better arguments. Many religious systems, by contrast, treat their core claims as starting points that evidence must be made to fit, rather than as hypotheses that evidence could overturn.
Structure, community, and practice
Religions are not just collections of beliefs; they are also networks of communities, rituals, symbols, and identities. They often provide a complete “life package”: rites for birth, coming‑of‑age, marriage, and death; holidays and festivals; calendars of sacred time; and institutions like churches, mosques, temples, and monasteries. There are usually recognized leaders or clergy, formal teachings, and shared stories that give members a sense of who they are and where they belong.
Atheism has none of this built into it. There is no required set of rituals, no universal atheist holidays, no single organization that speaks for all atheists, and no sacred buildings dedicated to nonbelief. Some atheists join local groups, online communities, or humanist associations that create their own gatherings, ceremonies, or traditions, but these are optional and highly diverse. The overall pattern is decentralized and individualistic: people adopt or invent the practices and communities that suit them, rather than receiving a ready‑made system.
This difference has both advantages and downsides. Religious structures can offer strong support, identity, and continuity, but may also constrain questioning and enforce conformity. Atheism’s looser structure allows more freedom to explore and to combine elements from many sources, but it can also leave people feeling isolated, especially in heavily religious cultures. Many ex‑believers who become atheists report missing the community and ritual aspects of religion even while rejecting its beliefs.
Why atheism is often targeted more than “false” religions
Finally, there is a social and psychological difference in how religions tend to view one another versus how they view atheism. Religious traditions may disagree sharply, but they usually share a basic affirmation that some kind of spiritual reality exists and that faith or devotion to it matters. Even when they claim each other’s doctrines are mistaken, they often still recognize a common framework of gods, souls, and sacred truths.
Atheism, in contrast, rejects that entire framework. It does not just say “your god is not the right one”; it says “there is no good reason to believe in any gods at all.” This undermines not only particular doctrines but the very idea that religious institutions speak with special authority about reality or morality. For that reason, atheism can feel more threatening to religious institutions than other religions do, even when atheists are a small minority.
In many societies, this leads to atheists being distrusted or stigmatized more than members of “wrong” religions. Criticism of other faiths can sometimes be tolerated as intra‑religious debate, but criticism from atheists is framed as an attack on religion itself. Understanding these dynamics helps explain why the question “Is atheism a religion?” is not just semantic; it is bound up with deeper tensions about authority, identity, and the place of nonbelief in public life.
6. Atheism as a Logical Conclusion
Atheism is often portrayed as a mere reaction—rebellion against religion, disappointment with God, or a stance taken out of anger. In this guide, it is better understood as a logical conclusion drawn from how the world looks when we examine it as honestly and consistently as we can. Rather than starting from the claim “There is no God” and defending it at all costs, atheism starts from ordinary standards of evidence and asks whether gods are needed or supported by what we know.
From possibility to probability
Almost everyone agrees that we cannot prove with absolute certainty that no god of any kind exists. The crucial question is not bare logical possibility but probability: how likely is it that any of the gods described in human religions actually exist, given everything we have learned about the universe? Atheism says that once you take into account the diversity and contradiction of religious claims, the success of natural explanations, and the lack of publicly testable evidence for the supernatural, belief in gods becomes unnecessary and extremely improbable.
Analogies like Russell’s teapot or Carl Sagan’s “dragon in my garage” make this clearer. If someone claims there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun where no telescope can see it, or an invisible, intangible dragon hiding in their garage, you cannot disprove these ideas in a strict logical sense. But you are still reasonable if you decline to believe them, because no good evidence is offered and the claims have been adjusted to avoid any possible test. Atheism treats god-claims in the same way: not as impossible, but as unsupported to the point where disbelief is the rational default.
This is also why atheists often talk about the burden of proof. The person who asserts that a powerful, invisible being exists and intervenes in the world is the one who needs to offer reasons and evidence, just as with any other extraordinary claim. Atheism, as a conclusion, says that the arguments and evidence put forward so far do not meet that burden.
“Agnosticism with an opinion”
When people say that atheism is “agnosticism with an opinion,” they are pointing to the difference between what we can know in an absolute sense and what we are justified in believing. An agnostic may say, “I don’t know whether any god exists,” while an agnostic atheist says, “I don’t know with certainty, but given the current evidence, I live as if no gods exist.” This is the same pattern we use everywhere else in life: we cannot be absolutely sure that gravity will behave tomorrow as it did today, but we are justified in trusting it and building bridges accordingly.
Seen this way, atheism is not a leap of blind faith in the opposite direction of religion. It is a working conclusion, held with the same kind of fallible but serious confidence we bring to other well‑supported beliefs. Atheists are generally open, at least in principle, to revising their view if compelling, publicly accessible evidence for a god appeared—just as they revise other beliefs when strong new evidence comes in. Until then, they see no need to multiply invisible entities beyond what is required to explain the world we actually encounter.