Nothing at all. It is just a generalization that you can make about atheists--that they all believe they are mortal. It is obvious that the implication only goes in one direction. It is true that all atheists lack belief in gods, but it is not so obvious to everyone that you cannot reverse the generalization and claim that all people who lack belief in gods are therefore atheists. Nevertheless, it is the same logical mistake.
But that's not the "path" by which I came to the conclusion... It certainly would be a mistake to assume that, since all atheists lack the belief in god, all who lack the belief in god are atheists.
Well, the position that one lacks a belief is itself a "belief", but that misses the point. You and I both agree that it would be utterly silly to define a theist as one who lacks a belief that gods do not exist. Theism just entails that lack of belief. The lack of belief does not encapsulate what theism is. Similarly, atheism entails a lack of belief in gods. Lack of belief in gods does not encapsulate what atheism is. Theism and atheism are polar opposites. People who lack any belief at all with respect to gods fall outside of the scope of those words.
But that's exactly what you're doing with atheism, which starts out as being simply the rejection of the theistic belief system and pushing it towards being a belief contrary to that belief/system. You're a theist because you believe in god, you are an atheist because you do not believe in a god. You are not a theist because you lack disbelief in a god, neither are you an atheist because you hold the belief that gods don't exist. Both descriptions are silly.
How do you reject a claim without holding an opinion that the claim is false? I honestly do not understand how that is supposed to work. If I had no opinion about the truth of a claim, I would not say that I "rejected" the claim.
I do have an opinion about the truth of the claim, but it's not that direct. Imagine someone rolling a dice in the dark and then making the claim that it was a "six". I reject that claim as a matter of principle, not because I necessarily believe that it wasn't a six, but because there is no justification for such a belief. Not all claims are made equal.
I understand what you are trying to say here, but I think that you are trying too hard to include people under the label "atheist" who really aren't committed to any proposition with respect to the existence of gods. Again, I think that the more appropriate term here is "agnostic", not "atheist". If one actually crosses the line and claims "rejection" of a belief--as you seem wont to do--then that person holds an opinion with respect to the existence of gods and can be reasonably called an atheist. I am assuming here that you would agree with an earlier definition I gave for atheism--and a definition that was rejected by many others here--"rejection of belief in the existence of gods." Rejection is not neutrality. One can easily find theists who reject the idea that there is evidence for the existence of gods yet still are inclined to believe in one
I agree that atheism is the rejection of theism, but I disagree about what that implies. I reject the hypothesis being put forth, that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily making an absolute statement about the truth value of the conclusion. Just as I can agree with you that it would be a mistake to conclude that all who lack the belief in god are atheists on the basis of the fact that all atheists lack the belief in god, without actually making any truth claims about the actual conclusion apart from the argument. You want me to not only reject the hypothesis, but also accept the alternative conclusion in order to be called an atheist. I don't think that's necessary - but I do think it is necessary for one to actually be confronted with a god claim and have them reject it before they can be labeled an atheist. That gets rid of all the baby nonsense.
Now, you might be using the word "reject" in a different way, in which case we are not in agreement that atheism is the rejection of theism.
I got into a big discussion with Penguin already on what it means to call something a "god". If you are willing to claim that a god can be an orange peel or a milk carton, then both of us would have to be considered theists, because we believe that those objects do exist. Penguin seemed unwilling to be pinned down on what could be called a "god", but I don't think that that was really germane to a common-sense definition of atheism. For all practical purposes, we reject belief in the entities that most people describe as a "god". I am perhaps less willing than him to trust descriptions that theists sometimes give their gods. It is not unusual for theists to deny anthropomorphism but behave towards their deity as if it had anthropomorphic properties.
One problem at a time, shall we?
But this is another reason why it's much more resonable to reject specific arguments for god/specific god beliefs than it is to hold the belief that god, which to me doesn't really mean anything apart from what I know it means to other people, does not exist.
Because atheism is a negative belief, we keep getting caught up in these nasty sentences with multiple negation. I'm trying to figure out what "disagreement" would commit me to here.
You might reject an argument that a deity exists without actually rejecting belief in that deity. You might also reject a commitment to any belief at all with respect to the existence of that deity. In that case, I would say that you were "agnostic" with respect to that god. Rejecting the validity of arguments is not the same as rejecting the truth of conclusions. Theists can reject the validity of arguments in favor of the existence of deities. So rejecting an argument is not what defines atheism. It is rejecting the truth of the conclusion.
They can also reject the truth of the conclusion - and they do for all but one god (usually). That's not what defines atheism either. The difference is very simple imo... An atheist rejects god claims he is confronted with and also lacks the belief in a god, a theist accepts at least one god claim and believes in god(s). To imply that someone would have to go out of their way and "disprove" the existence of a god to the extent that they would be justified in a belief that god(s) do not exist in order to be an atheist is certainly not my idea of atheism.
So you and I are in 100% agreement on this, right? Atheism is rejecting the claim that gods exist, not just rejecting the arguments that they exist.
What's the distinction between rejecting the claim and rejecting the argument. Neither of those gets you to where you want to get. If by rejecting the claim you mean making a truth statement about the conclusion, rather than the argument, then - no, we're not in agreement.
How could you even make a truth statement about the conclusion for which you have no outside reference. It's not like "Amy is taller than Mike", "Mike is taller than John", therefore "Amy is taller than John" or whatever, when I can have an actual real-life reference and see directly whether or not Amy is taller than John and therefore take a position on the truth value of the conclusion rather than the validity of the argument. There is no such thing when the argument is about the existence of god. How could I possibly conclude from an invalid argument that the christian god does not exists if the only reference I have of the christian god is that and other arguments.
It seems that your argument would make the definition of "atheist" fit only to those who claim to have falsified the unfalsifiable...
