I think that you probably have been very consistent, but that doesn't mean that your writing or my comprehension were perfect. I appreciate your efforts to clarify your thinking. That "large population" is only relative to these internet discussion forums. I think of the general English-speaking population as quite a bit larger. Sometimes we get a skewed idea of how people use language from our own limited experiences. I enjoyed Teapot's video, which I thought did a very good job of conveying the "absence of belief" position. It took the position that rejection really was rejection of the argument, not the truth of the conclusion. My impression about atheism, though, is that most people see it as a rejection of the proposition that gods exist, not just theistic arguments. I think that my impression is supported by the majority of dictionary definitions.
That's lovely. Let me stress this again - neither my definition, nor yours, have anything to do with how the "general population" understands the word. They neither think that a belief that god does not exists is necessary for one to be an atheist, nor that a lack of belief is sufficient. This is a complete red herring.
An atheist doesn't believe in a god - that's it, that's all there is to it for most people. So when I say there is a large population of people (relative to the atheist minority, of course), who describe themselves as being atheists (and are acknowledged as being "atheists" by other atheists), while not claiming to hold a belief that a god does not exist, I'm not trying to argue that this is the mass of people that gets to decide what the general meaning of the word is. They are, however, those on which the decision of whether or not atheism is more accurately described as "absence of belief" or "rejection of belief" must be based. These are
both details, both completely irrelevant to the "general population". So, insofar that only one of them is to be used in the definition of atheism (which I think is a mistake), this internet-discussion-forum-sized group which you are, in my opinion, grossly understating, is
the relevant group.
Dictionaries are usually compiled by people who know what they are doing, but a dictionary definition can be good or bad for a number of reasons. You won't find the "lack of belief" language in a lot of dictionaries, but you will find it in some. I've explained why I think it is there--because people know that atheism entails lack of belief, and that seems to describe people whose rejection of belief is relatively mild. The reason I dislike that wording is because of the way people have turned it around to jump to conclusions about usage that just aren't supported by the facts.
Yet you're still proposing your definition despite the demonstrable presence of atheists who do not claim to have a belief that god does not exist. Don't you think "rejection of belief" could just as easily be misused to characterize atheists as dogmatic and unresonable by that much larger "general English-speaking population"? If what you perceive to be misuse is the reason you want to change the definition (or argue in favor of your definition), how could you possibly argue that "believes that god doesn't exist" would achieve that? You know perfectly well that the misinterpretation of that has lead to atheists stressing "lack of belief" in the first place. Otherwise, it would have been a non-issue to begin with and we would have gone on quite happily as "he/she doesn't believe in a god".
I don't agree. Definitions can be good or bad for a lot of reasons, and lexicographers can get into some bitter arguments with each other. What settles those arguments are experiments and citations of usage. Then, of course, there is always the nagging question of whether to go for a broad-brush definition or finer-grained ones.
Copernicus, I agree with you - that's why I found it strange that you had offered up two different dictionary definitions as your arguement, instead of explaining why you thought the one you were using was appropriate.
Sorry, I thought that you had agreed to that. This is where I get the impression that you dance away every time you find me saying that we are in agreement on our understanding of "atheism".
Well, let me ask you. Do you believe that all atheists consider gods to be implausible beings? If not, can you describe an atheist who does not think them implausible?
I can. Meet Johnny. He does not concearn himself with religion or god (funnily enough, he does enjoy some choral music) but is, at a certain point in time confronted with the claim that god exists - let's say by a friendly Christian. He (briefly) considers the idea and concludes that the paradoxal nature of an all-merciful, all-just being is enough to reject the claim, so he stops his analysis. Such a being cannot exist. He carries on, blissfully unemcumbered by religion and a belief in a god and is, for all intents and purposes, an atheist.
However, he cannot be said to hold the belief that god does not exist or that gods are implausible - not even if we establish a relativelly simple definition of god. He has not rejected the idea of a supreme being, nor of a creator of the universe, nor anything of the sort. He would much rather continue listening to his choral music than pondering about whether or not a creator god is plausible. He does not care.
Now, whether or not all atheists, bombarded by the religious claims and frustrated by the effects of religion on their lives, eventually put in the brain-hours and come to the conclusion that gods (let's say these are beings that create universes of the complexity of our own) are implausible is, I think, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Is Johnny an atheist?
