Yes, this is where we definitely disagree. For me, both theists and atheists are people who take a stand on the existence of gods. There are people who fall into neither camp--the ones who, for whatever reason, have no position on whether they exist. It is worth noting that most of the people here who disagree with my definition of atheism are atheists by my definition. They just do not believe that their belief in the non-existence of gods is what truly licenses the use of the label "atheist". It is a very nuanced position, IMO.
But the problem is you've given no good reason why "atheist" should not apply to them. Why should "believes no gods exist" be necessary to be an atheist?
That's a legitimate argument, but I think that you have an exaggerated view of the numbers. There are grounds to believe that not even the majority of atheists use it that way.
I haven't exaggerated anything, and I'd love to see those grounds. At this point that's an empty claim.
Be careful here. We have a different view of who qualifies as an "atheist" and a "non-atheist". When you say things like this, you appear to be begging the question.
But with your definition you're excluding some people who are considered atheists by themselves and others. You define it in such a way that you're telling some people that they're wrong for calling themselves atheists.
Actually, almost all dictionaries give my sense of the word as the primary definition. Your "lack" word occurs more rarely and only as a secondary sense. I have only found a couple of dictionaries (out of about 30) that use "absence of belief" as a secondary meaning. And you may be putting too fine a point on how to construe the wording. In other words, your definition is, at best, a marginal usage.
And even if that's true, so what? What you're saying is that it's not a viable definition at all. Your stance is that it is incorrect. Even if only some people use it, and only some dictionaries specifically give that definition, you're now saying that they don't count. In essence, at this point, your claim is that dictionary definitions only count when they agree with you. That's special pleading.
I've raised the criticism of "etymological fallacy" against this type of argument, but it clearly hasn't dissuaded you from that kind of support for your position.
You're missing the point. It is not the sole reason I'm saying the word means what it does. What I'm saying is that that's the literal meaning. Since there are dictionaries that give that definition and people who use it that way, I'm saying this adds justification to their usage.
Thanks. That was a decent summary. I have given my responses, but you've seen those before. We can "agree to disagree" as the old cliche goes.
Thank you, but as I just posted about, do you think it's even worth debating this point considering even the belief that gods don't exist, as professed by the previous poster, is fairly inconsequential and unimportant?
As the video said, the rejection of atheists a lot of times is more rejecting the claim "God exists" based on the evidence given. Generally it's not saying "God does not exist". Most, if not all, of my debates about God's existence have been something like:
Me: What's the evidence for God's existence?
Theist: This, this, this and this.
Me: Well, this doesn't make sense, this isn't even true, this is based upon a misunderstanding of events and this is also not true.
It's usually not them saying "God exists, and here's why" and me saying "God doesn't exist, and here's why".
To me the most important feature is the rejection of a claim based on a lack of evidence, not the proposition of another claim.
