As has been discussed here (and a few other places!), a-theism starts with the premise of theism, and then just says "not that." But who wants to be defined by a negative? I want a "that" that starts with the premise of a mechanistic (yet quantum-based (probably)), spontaneously self-created universe which has evolved through physical processes to its current state: no creator, no divine hand on the wheel, no supernatural. "Supernatural" I consider an oxymoron: if something exists, if something happens, then that something is by definition, by existence, part of nature. There is nature, and we understand parts of it; if there's something we don't understand, then that doesn't mean that it's not part of nature. I'll grant that the tendency to come up with supernatural explanations for something with unknown (at the time) causes must have conferred some evolutionary advantage to individuals or groups at one or more points in human evolution, since that tendency is baked so deep into our behavior and beliefs. And it's that supernaturalism/theism/religion that's always set the terms of debate about itself. Now, like Harlan, I'm way past debating on those terms. Unfortunately, I guess, no one has come up with the apposite opposite, and I'm not sure "opposite" is actually apposite for what I'm trying to get at. I suppose the Bright movement of twenty years ago was an attempt, but not a very good one. Like the man said, they don't even have a word for it. But I've been living it for a long time, as long as I can remember. I'm not an apostate; theism (for lack of a better word) never took in me, not even as a small child. Whatever it was that did take, remains, for now, nameless.