Yes. The way I see it, the term "atheism" is too loaded with its own contemporary meanings to allow reasonable discussion of the ancient world. Today, it is ass

Yes. The way I see it, the term "atheism" is too loaded with its own contemporary meanings to allow reasonable discussion of the ancient world. Today, it is assumed that it negates "The" "God" as we understand the current definition of "him", not "the gods" as the ancients understood them at the time. For the current believer, the ancients all haven't believed in his God. If one was to describe the gods at that time, they were "like humans, often with the superpowers, but primarily different from the humans by being immortal."(1) That's it. You don't have to completely negate the existence of such entities to claim that Zeus doesn't cause the thunder, or that there are natural laws which fully determine some phenomena. So the "natural philosophers" could search for such laws, negating the particular role of "the gods" but still not having to explicitly declare their complete non-existence. 1) And if you read the Old Testament, you'll find that beautiful scene that reflect the understanding of these times, where "the God" (as we understand him today) makes a visit to the guy, enters his house, sits with him, talks with him, eats with him... Fully comparable to what the gods do in the Iliad, for example. Not to mention that in the Old Testament the "sacrifices" were necessary, even "the God" was regularly "hungry" for the meat of the animals used to feed the "mortal" people. Again just like the gods in the Iliad.