No one has reversed that. I don't think that a lack of belief in gods entails the belief that gods don't exist. That's exactly what I've been trying to say. You're right that not all people who lack belief in gods hold the negative belief, but they're still atheists.
I wasn't accusing you of committing the original sin, only of trying to perpetuate it. Since it is true of all atheists that they lack belief in gods, it is very natural to use that as an off-the-cuff definition. Once that wording got enshrined, some people started to take it too literally, thus giving birth to an urban legend--that atheists could be anyone who lacks an opinion about the existence of gods. Your definition is an attempt to drive usage, not reflect it.
Nope. No one's trying to expand anything. The definition is what it is. If someone lacks the belief in gods, they're an atheist. That's not confusing, and there's no ulterior motive to wanting to be clear and accurate with definitions.
I agree with you that the definition is what it is, but your definition isn't what it is.
Your bald assertions contribute nothing to the discussion. What you really lack is a motivation for your definition, and that isn't just a Greek chorus singing it in the background. You need to establish an acceptable rationale for your definition. In the world of lexicography, that can only be usage.
Well, except for all the people out there using it this way.
I would agree that there is a minority of people in the community of people who habitually debate religion that supports your definition. It isn't really enough to sanction the definition, especially in light of the fact that many people from that same community reject your definition as a basis for their usage. It really is more of a slogan than a definition, because the usage has no traction beyond our specialized community.
Why do I care what Tugboat rejects? My methodology is that there are tons of people out there that use the word in this way. Er, what's that called? Oh yeah, common usage.
You ought to care, because he actually endorsed my position on common usage, but he denied that common usage ought to be the basis for a definition. He offered no viable alternative beyond etymological fallacies or the desired social effect the definition would have in softening the social stigma attached to "atheism".
I suppose for some people it may be.
Exactly, and those people who find definitions difficult are the people who do it for a living, not those who are unfamiliar with the traps and pitfalls. Creating an overly broad definition is way too easy a trap to fall into, and that is why it appears simple to you.
So should we just cherry-pick the ones that come up with the definition that you agree with? Is that your methodology?
I think that the validity of my definition is already quite well-established. It exists in just about every dictionary of English. What is less well-established is your definition, so you are the one who can be accused of cherry-picking a definition. In the few places where it does occur--e.g. Wikipedia--source materials identify your definition as controversial, and rightly so. Its popularity is driven by a relatively small group of speakers, and there is no uniform agreement in the speech community of that group on whether the definition is appropriate.
You seem to be suggesting that defining the term is simple... or at least simple enough that you can say with certainty that it's wrong.
To the best of my knowledge it is wrong, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise--for example by having people in the general English-speaking population answer questions like that in the "baby" survey.
BTW - a question for you: keeping in mind whatever weight you think that usage gives to correctness of the meaning (or definition ) of a term... is "IRS" an acronym?
Yes, but some would prefer to call it an "initialism". Typically, acronyms are technical terms vetted by a defining authority such as an agency of the government or a business organization, but they often make it into common usage. A society of atheists might wish to define the term "atheist" with your definition, but their authority to do so would be limited to their community of speakers.
