There are many definitions of atheism, but I think the most general one is 'a lack of belief that a deity (or deities) exist'. This is more positive than the agnostic uncertainty of the existence of a deity. In this view, there is no 'atheist philosophy/belief', which I suggest would be more correctly called 'antitheism'.

The question as to whether it's all over when you cease to function is more complicated - is it necessary to believe in a deity to believe in ghosts? (I don't know - I don't believe in either.) Does a deity have to be 'church-defined'? If so, what constitutes a church?

One problem with all these discussions is in the definition of terms. I have an understanding of 'faith', 'belief', 'god', 'religion' and 'church' which would not be shared by many believers of various faiths and religions, whatever they believe and whether or not they belong to or attend a church.

Another problem is that people of my persuasion argue from a base of logic, rather than the base of faith or belief used by those who have either. In an argument, you can come to a conclusion on the basis of logic, or on the basis of emotion, but it's not easy to come to a conclusion on a mixture of the two.

And that ends my foray into arguments about religion. I listened to and participated in many arguments over 60 years ago and came to my personal conclusion. I've seen no reason to change that conclusion since, and I have no interest in converting others to my point of view. I'm happy to accept that others have different views, and for them to live their lives in line with their views, provided they don't try and impose their values or lifestyle on me, for that way lies dictatorship and repression.

Phil