Atheism: A belief?

[Magic Man]

When contradiction happens, uncertainty abounds.

When uncertainty happens, shoes begin to bloom.

 

[Where Is God]

I think it's a little bit of both?

 

[Magic Man]

I posted this on the word survey thread, but it belongs here, too.

I don't know why Wiki wasn't consulted earlier, but I went ahead and did it now. First is an excerpt from the entry on "implicit atheism":

"Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief."

You'll notice that, as I've said, the common thread in both of them is the lack of belief. The only difference is the conscious rejection of theistic claims.

From there, I checked out atheism on Wiki, and this is the first paragraph:

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]"

A couple of things should be noted.

1) When it uses the term "rejection of belief", it contrasts that with "the position that there are no deities", as if to say it's not actually considering the claim and then rejecting it, but simple choosing not to put belief in it.

2) The obvious point that it supports the "lacking belief" definition.

 

[Copernicus]

So you reject all mythical things and thereby reject all gods... fine, as long as you can say with certainty that anything that can be validly considered a god must be mythical. Unless you can exclude the possibility that someone might someday present you with some sort of god concept that's not mythical, then you can't say that you've rejected all gods.

First of all, I do not have to be absolutely certain that there are no gods in order to be an atheist. I just have to have some level of confidence in that negative proposition. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, we have ways of dealing with new usage or extensions of meaning.

None of this is relevant. I'm not saying that we don't have a general sense of what "god" means in everyday speech. I'm saying that unless you can be sure that everything that's rightly called a "god" belongs to some sort of category you've rejected, then you can't say you've rejected all gods.

I can report what I believe today based on my set of beliefs about reality. What I believe tomorrow will depend on different conditions.

Yes... and it's why it's near-impossible to actually reject an entire category of thing unless the category is defined in such a way that this vagueness is eliminated.

Well, you cannot eliminate it, and your expectation in this regard is unrealistic. You can make words more specific, and we do that all the time when we create slang, jargon, and special technical terminology. I have studied technical terminology for a long time, and I can tell you that vagueness and ambiguity simply cannot be eliminated.

What properties do gods have?

They are putative intelligent supernatural agents that can control some or all aspects of physical reality through mental effort and that are worshipped by mortals. I could expand on the definition, but there are quite a few properties in there to work with. When people try to remove anthropomorphic properties from the "god" concept, they come up with beings that are less and less like gods, but not necessarily any more believable.

Since you say use them as the basis for your rejection of them, you should be able to tell us what they are, right?

I just did. We can quibble over definitions, but definitions are nothing more than succinct descriptions of properties that delimit word senses. They are not the actual meanings that they represent. I have made these points several times in the past, but you keep asking me to repeat what you should already know.

Do they? I've run into people who have argued that their "God" was not supernatural.

So? People extend word usage all the time for all sorts of mundane categories. Why not for the word "god"? There is nothing special about that word from a linguistic perspective. You don't have to accept every idiosyncratic usage that comes down the pike, you know. You could accept their usage as a related, but separate, sense of the word "god", and you could even call yourself a "theist" with respect to that concept of "god". You have lots of options for dealing with such situations.

It's not up to me. When you defined atheism as the rejection of all gods, you took on the burden of proof of demonstrating that you actually do reject anything that could rightly be called a god.

Generally speaking, theists have the burden of proof, because it is usually easier to prove a positive claim than a negative one. It is just that it is really hard to prove the existence on an undetectable being. However, I have no problem with explaining why I reject belief in gods, even though most people believe that one or more such beings exist.

Remember... it's not enough to merely not believe in a particular god, because even babies are capable of doing that.

That's not my problem. I believe that all beings one could apply the label "god" to are implausible beings, and I am quite prepared to defend my opinion. Antony Flew was an atheist his whole life, and then he stopped being one in his dottage, because he could no longer defend atheism as a belief. It could happen to anyone.

You've got the definition of "skeptic" wrong, too.

Skepticism isn't automatic rejection of claims; it's the position that claims should not be accepted until supported. Lack of acceptance does not imply rejection...

Actually, it does, unless the "lack" is caused by ignorance. If someone does not know that Benghazi is a city in Libya, one would not say he is "skeptical" that it is a city in Libya. I think that you are making the same mistake with this word that you made with "atheist". You can only be skeptical of beliefs that you are aware of.

In fact, equating lack of acceptance with rejection misses the entire point of skepticism.

When did I do that? That's what you have been doing. Skepticism is rejection, not mere lack of acceptance. My usage of the word "skeptic" was totally correct. Your skepticism about my usage was miguided.

Also, atheism doesn't have to be a form of skepticism. Atheists are often skeptics, yes, but it's entirely possible to be an atheist for non-skeptical reasons.

I don't believe that it is possible. (Oops! What did I mean by that statement?) Anyway, your move. What "non-skeptical" reasons do you have in mind.

Good grief. My word choice didn't even matter! What was relevant to my point was the definition I gave. The word was just a label of convenience... a placeholder that I defined right in the argument; I could've used "dancing hippo" instead of "a-geology" and the point would've been the same.

Please don't get upset, but "dancing hippo" would not have worked because your argument was about the use of the negative prefix "a-". The word "dancing-hippo denier" would have worked, but my rejoinder had to do with the incorrect analysis of how "a-" works as a prefix in English. It does not productively attach to nouns.

The centuries-old usage in English is more like "non-Christian" than "person who rejects (or lacks belief) in all gods". Apparently, it can change to suit you, but no further.

I do not know what makes you think that "non-Christian" was thought of as a synonym of "atheist". Was it not applied to Muslims and Hindus?

We take them into account based on our assessment of them, sure. But if that assessment is wrong, then the reader doesn't get to wind back the clock, climb into the author's head and somehow change things so that the author meant something else.

I don't know what kind of conversations you have, but I often clarify or rephrase remarks when my audience misunderstands me. Dialog repair doesn't "wind back the clock", but it is the next best thing. After all, we use language to get thoughts from our heads into the heads of other people. That's how we communicate.

As an example from my own life: I often have to write reports for a technical audience. In that context, I often use terms that have one meaning when used in my field, but somewhat different meanings in common speech. Say I write a report for a technical reviewer with one meaning in mind, and then a member of the general public gets ahold of it and gets another meaning out of it... the meaning that the member of the public got from my report is likely not my intended meaning.

We have much in common then. One of my job functions is to help develop and maintain standards for clear technical writing. I know exactly what you are talking about.

I didn't put it anywhere. I'm saying that as an empty set, its location is undefined - I'm saying that we can't say where it is, and therefore that we can't say with certainty that it definitely isn't in any particular region.

Shades of Carnap, you can't be serious! Not all empty sets are the same. You can have equivalent sets in terms of membership but different intensions to define the sets. What disqualifies your set from the "rejected" space is that the intension that generates the empty set as its extension is not in the set defined by "rejected beliefs"--another set defined intensionally.

IOW, you had some knee-jerk responses that agreed with you, but once people put some thought into the matter, a significant number of them agreed with me?

I wouldn't categorize the initial responses as "kneejerk". I was quite surprised that people were not calling babies "atheists" at first, but I realized that that might have had something to do with the lack of a priming context. You know what "push polls" are, I'm sure. When you put a survey in a discussion group, the ensuing discussion can skew the results. The RF poll started out with votes by four of us who had already taken firm positions on the matter, with your side being in the majority.

How is it appropriate for a person to say to an atheist "you know, you're not really an atheist." Is that "appropriate" use?

That depends on the context. I've said that a few times to self-proclaimed atheists on religious forums who were apparently just theists undergoing a crisis of faith. In one case, a person actually admitted to me later that she had not really been an atheist. She felt that her doubt was equivalent to rejection, but then she changed her mind about that.

So what was the point of your surveys, then?

To give us some data about how people approach the "lacks belief" position. At this point, I would say that those surveys have confirmed my belief that there is a sizable segment (probably a minority) of the religion-debating community that feels babies ought to be classified as atheists. Whether or not they would actually say that in less specialized circumstances (a religious debate forum) is another matter.

 

[Copernicus]

I posted this on the word survey thread, but it belongs here, too.

I don't know why Wiki wasn't consulted earlier, but I went ahead and did it now. First is an excerpt from the entry on "implicit atheism":

"Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief."

You'll notice that, as I've said, the common thread in both of them is the lack of belief. The only difference is the conscious rejection of theistic claims.

From there, I checked out atheism on Wiki, and this is the first paragraph:

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]"

A couple of things should be noted.

1) When it uses the term "rejection of belief", it contrasts that with "the position that there are no deities", as if to say it's not actually considering the claim and then rejecting it, but simple choosing not to put belief in it.

2) The obvious point that it supports the "lacking belief" definition.

Thank you for posting that, Mball. Notice that "absence of belief that any deities exist" has a footnote. But let me reiterate (again ) that someone who rejects belief that gods exist can also claim to "lack belief in gods". There is an entailment relationship there, not an equivalence. So your position is still a bit of a stretch.

Now, notice the footnote [3] next to "absence of belief that any deities exist" phrase. Go read it. It says that there is no consensus on a definition, and it cites the Religious Tolerance web page on definitions of atheism. For your convenience, I post the lead-in paragraph on that page. Please read it. It takes the exact position I have taken with you and others in this thread. There is no ambiguity there. They side with my view, not yours. My only disagreement is that it suggests that the majority of atheists may take your position, but they do not back that up. I seriously doubt that even the majority of atheists agree with you.

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Overview:

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.​

[/FONT]

 

[Magic Man]

Thank you for posting that, Mball. Notice that "absence of belief that any deities exist" has a footnote. But let me reiterate (again ) that someone who rejects belief that gods exist can also claim to "lack belief in gods". There is an entailment relationship there, not an equivalence. So your position is still a bit of a stretch.

Now, notice the footnote [3] next to "absence of belief that any deities exist" phrase. Go read it. It says that there is no consensus on a definition, and it cites the Religious Tolerance web page on definitions of atheism. For your convenience, I post the lead-in paragraph on that page. Please read it. It takes the exact position I have taken with you and others in this thread. There is no ambiguity there. They side with my view, not yours. My only disagreement is that it suggests that the majority of atheists may take your position, but they do not back that up. I seriously doubt that even the majority of atheists agree with you.

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Overview:

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.​

[/FONT]

What does that matter? This isn't about how most people use it. It's about valid uses of it. If you're going to agree with their assertion that most theists agree with your definition, despite their failure to back it up, you then turn around and reject their assertion that most atheists agree with my definition because they didn't back it up.

You're also missing the point. Think of it like the word "theory". In everyday speech it has a certain meaning, but if you get into a scientific discussion, that meaning should be ignored in favor of the more precise scientific meaning. The same goes for atheism. When having discussions like this about the term, we shouldn't just go with the common meaning, but the most precise one.

Also, as you've pointed out, many people who at first agree with your definition, may agree to mine when presented with it.

 

[Willamena]

I'm saying that unless you can be sure that everything that's rightly called a "god" belongs to some sort of category you've rejected, then you can't say you've rejected all gods.

You can, with the concept.

If we sit down to discuss "the concept of 'a moon'," we are not going to discuss any particular moon. Particulars can be introduced, but our discussion would ordinarily centre around "a body, that falls within a particular mass range, that orbits a planet." That's the concept of 'a moon'. While theists may believe in particulars, the atheist need only be defined in that person that rejects the concept of 'god'.

Since it's (necessarily) problematic to define the concept of 'god' ontologically, and few similar particulars to point at in example, some really good epistemological approaches have been explored, but that's neither here not there to most atheists, who will define the word however they use it (i.e. what they mean it to mean).

On the other hand, rejecting a concept of 'god' is much simpler than rejecting the concept of 'a moon', simply because the latter has similar particulars from which it was derived.

 

[Ozzie]

You can, with the concept.

If we sit down to discuss "the concept of 'a moon'," we are not going to discuss any particular moon

Yes "we" are. Otherwise what moon do you want to discuss.

Particulars can be introduced, but our discussion would ordinarily centre around "a body, that falls within a particular mass range, that orbits a planet." That's the concept of 'a moon'.

Yep, that describes moons, not a particular "moon".

While theists may believe in particulars, the atheist need only be defined in that person that rejects the concept of 'god'.

It doesn't follow that atheists need only be defined in that person that rejects the concept of "god", any less than theists need only be defined in that person that accepts the concept of "god". (nonsense)

On the other hand, rejecting a concept of 'god' is much simpler than rejecting the concept of 'a moon', simply because the latter has similar particulars from which it was derived.

If I follow you, religion would not exist due to less "similar particulars" than does the moon, yet it does. How do you explain that?

 

[Falvlun]

You can, with the concept.

If we sit down to discuss "the concept of 'a moon'," we are not going to discuss any particular moon. Particulars can be introduced, but our discussion would ordinarily centre around "a body, that falls within a particular mass range, that orbits a planet." That's the concept of 'a moon'. While theists may believe in particulars, the atheist need only be defined in that person that rejects the concept of 'god'.

Since it's (necessarily) problematic to define the concept of 'god' ontologically, and few similar particulars to point at in example, some really good epistemological approaches have been explored, but that's neither here not there to most atheists, who will define the word however they use it (i.e. what they mean it to mean).

On the other hand, rejecting a concept of 'god' is much simpler than rejecting the concept of 'a moon', simply because the latter has similar particulars from which it was derived.

Exactly. Just like you can say "I'm not a dog person" even though you haven't met a representative of every breed of dog, or every specific dog individual. Your understanding of what a dog is allows you to make the statement based upon the general concept of a dog, without the need for experience with every possible dog.

 

[Orias]

Well, you've admitted atheism doesn't imply any specific beliefs, which is all I've been talking about this whole time. Nice to know you can admit an obvious error eventually.

If you actually read my posts instead of being a badger you would of realized this long ago

 

[Orias]

So the label just doesn't apply to them. The "lacks belief" definition is too broad to make sense for actual usage.

Let's not forget that "lacks belief" isn't the entire definition that they have been trying to push for the past 1000 posts.

The entirety of "atheism" involves, "lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)". Yet some how this justifies their assertion that "atheism" isn't a belief, because it merely "lacks belief (in the existence of "God(s)")"

 

[ZeusTheist]

I define atheism as rejection of belief in God, not a mere lack of belief. Babies are not atheists, but, once people define it as "lack of belief", they often insist that babies and people unaware of the god concept are also atheists. I think that that flies in the face of conventional usage of the term "atheist". Even weak atheists tend to believe that gods do not exist, but they prefer to rest on the argument that the burden of proof is on theists. I agree that it is, but I still see that position as a cop-out.

Firstly, babies are nothing; they are not theists , secular humanists, democrats, republicans, or free market capitilists. They are beautiful, innocent, immature human adults...the product of 4 billion years of random variation selected for by our environment. It is laughable to the extreme that you choose to describe atheist categories such a "weak" and "strong" without irony. You, a person who believes in an invisible supernatural being who you have neither seen, heard and to which you can not provide one shred of evidence that argues to the existence of. How can asking for evidence before we conditionally accept something as fact be a " belief"? Are you an Aboogeymanist? An Afairiest? An Atoothfairiest? Do you have a "belief" that the Toothfairy, Boogeyman and Fairies don't exist or are you a rational person (at least in this aspect of your life) and would DEMAND positive evidence of these myths before you provisionally concluded they were fact? Weak? Weak Sir is having to convince yourself of immortality because, at the very crux, you can't mentally accept your own annihilation.

 

[Magic Man]

Let's not forget that "lacks belief" isn't the entire definition that they have been trying to push for the past 1000 posts.

The entirety of "atheism" involves, "lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)". Yet some how this justifies their assertion that "atheism" isn't a belief, because it merely "lacks belief (in the existence of "God(s)")"

Yes, the fact that it is not a belief does justify our claim that it's not a belief. You seem to be the only one unable to understand that.

 

[Falvlun]

No. The broad definition of "automobile" includes cars with gas engines. The broad definition of "atheist" includes "one who believes God doesn't exist".

It's incorrect to call atheism a belief because that would have to mean that the atheists who simply lack the belief are not atheists. That's why the definition "one who lacks belief in gods, and often also actively believes gods don't exist". That covers everything, but by that definition, atheism is not a belief.

OK, if you understand this, then you should understand why atheism itself is not a belief. Atheism is the yellow circle, which is not a belief.

Atheism is also the orange circle.

Atheism Definition 1 (Yellow circle): The lack of belief in the existence of gods
Atheism Definition 2 (Orange circle): The lack of belief in the existence of gods and the belief that gods do not exist. (Negative Belief; it includes the yellow circle definition.)

Would it be incorrect to say that "cars have gas engines"? It would only be incorrect to state that "All cars have gas engines". Likewise, it is only incorrect to state that "all forms of atheism include a belief".

Depending upon which definition of atheism you are using, atheism can be described as a belief or not a belief. The "broad definition" is not always useful or descriptive. There are two definitions for a reason: both have a meaning that can be useful in different situations. If you never use the "negative belief" definition-- or deny that it can ever be used-- then you are essentially denying that there is more than one valid definition of atheism.

To recap: When I say that atheism is a belief, the definition I am using for atheism is the "negative belief" form. Atheism has more than one definition; the context determines which definition is the correct one to use.

 

[Falvlun]

It was!

Here's a diagram more representative of the information I work from:

Belief takes a second place to the picture we've painted of the world: if we feel it's an accurate picture, we're going to invest belief in it; if there's uncertainty, we'll just claim, "I don't know."

So where, you might ask me, does "the atheist" fall in that diagram? Depending on what a person's image of "God" might be, it could be the yellow, it could be the yellow and the green, or it could be the yellow, the green and the purple.

Do you have a specific color(s) for those who simply lack belief (are indifferent, undecided, or have no concept of god), or would they all fall under the green "I don't know"? In other words, does this diagram include every possible person, or could there be other bubbles not pictured?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying that we make a decision about how the world is, and then belief follows. But what is this "decision": if it's not knowledge, is it not a belief itself?

Also, in response to those who thought the green "I don't know" can't be an overlapping of the two circles, I can see how it works: If you don't know, you could simultaneously hold "God" and "no God". Regardless, it does represent how we tend to vocalize the "I don't know stance": they are "on the fence", "in the middle". It's a visual representation of what we are saying; not necessarily a depiction of logical possibility.

 

[Copernicus]

Firstly, babies are nothing; they are not theists , secular humanists, democrats, republicans, or free market capitilists. They are beautiful, innocent, immature human adults...the product of 4 billion years of random variation selected for by our environment. It is laughable to the extreme that you choose to describe atheist categories such a "weak" and "strong" without irony. You, a person who believes in an invisible supernatural being who you have neither seen, heard and to which you can not provide one shred of evidence that argues to the existence of. How can asking for evidence before we conditionally accept something as fact be a " belief"? Are you an Aboogeymanist? An Afairiest? An Atoothfairiest? Do you have a "belief" that the Toothfairy, Boogeyman and Fairies don't exist or are you a rational person (at least in this aspect of your life) and would DEMAND positive evidence of these myths before you provisionally concluded they were fact? Weak? Weak Sir is having to convince yourself of immortality because, at the very crux, you can't mentally accept your own annihilation.

Er, that was quite a tirade. You do realize that I am a strong atheist, don't you? You seem to have jumped to the opposite conclusion.

 

[Magic Man]

Atheism is also the orange circle.

Not exactly. The orange circle is also part of atheism, but I wouldn't say your sentence. Atheism is both circles, but if you're going to define it, you have to use a definition that includes both circles, since atheism isn't one of the other.

Would it be incorrect to say that "cars have gas engines"? It would only be incorrect to state that "All cars have gas engines". Likewise, it is only incorrect to state that "all forms of atheism include a belief".

It would be incorrect to state "Cars are vehicles with gas engines". It is similarly incorrect to state "Atheism is a belief".

Depending upon which definition of atheism you are using, atheism can be described as a belief or not a belief.

How about if we use the best definition, which is "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". In that case, it's not a belief, but it includes everything.

The "broad definition" is not always useful or descriptive. There are two definitions for a reason: both have a meaning that can be useful in different situations. If you never use the "negative belief" definition-- or deny that it can ever be used-- then you are essentially denying that there is more than one valid definition of atheism.

No, I'm denying that that in and of itself is a definition for atheism. The belief that gods don't exist is always, without fail, accompanied by the absence of the belief that gods exist. The reverse is not true.

To recap: When I say that atheism is a belief, the definition I am using for atheism is the "negative belief" form. Atheism has more than one definition; the context determines which definition is the correct one to use.

And that's incorrect. If you want to say that strong atheism is a belief, I'll agree to it. But atheism is not a belief, just as cars aren't vehicles with a gas engine.

 

[Copernicus]

What does that matter? This isn't about how most people use it. It's about valid uses of it...

How do you define "valid use"?

If you're going to agree with their assertion that most theists agree with your definition, despite their failure to back it up, you then turn around and reject their assertion that most atheists agree with my definition because they didn't back it up.

Read what they actually say. They hedge their assertion that most atheists agree with your definition, but they seem to have that impression. I have a different impression. Of course, I could be wrong. I don't really know what the majority of atheists think. Indeed, there would be a difference of opinion on how many atheists we count in the majority under your definition, wouldn't there?

You're also missing the point. Think of it like the word "theory". In everyday speech it has a certain meaning, but if you get into a scientific discussion, that meaning should be ignored in favor of the more precise scientific meaning. The same goes for atheism. When having discussions like this about the term, we shouldn't just go with the common meaning, but the most precise one.

We are having a dispute about which definition is more correct or precise. I have disagreed with you that your definition is more technically correct.

Also, as you've pointed out, many people who at first agree with your definition, may agree to mine when presented with it.

I agree, but I believe that that is because your definition is considered politically correct, not necessarily accurate.

 

[Magic Man]

How do you define "valid use"?

A use that is valid.

Read what they actually say. They hedge their assertion that most atheists agree with your definition, but they seem to have that impression. I have a different impression. Of course, I could be wrong. I don't really know what the majority of atheists think. Indeed, there would be a difference of opinion on how many atheists we count in the majority under your definition, wouldn't there?

That doesn't even matter, although we can see from your survey that it seems a majority of atheists do agree with me.

We are having a dispute about which definition is more correct or precise. I have disagreed with you that your definition is more technically correct.

What you're arguing is that lacking belief in gods is insufficient to be an atheist. That is unsupported by Wikipedia, among other things.

I agree, but I believe that that is because your definition is considered politically correct, not necessarily accurate.

Of course that's what you believe. It can't be because it's accurate. There must be some other reason for it. At this point, you're showing that you're not open to being wrong. You have an excuse for everything. I don't see how either meaning would be politically incorrect. One is simply more inclusive. It's like someone defining a car as "a vehicle with four wheels and a gas engine", and then you reminding them that some cars have electric engines, and they agree to a new definition.

 

[ZeusTheist]

Er, that was quite a tirade. You do realize that I am a strong atheist, don't you? You seem to have jumped to the opposite conclusion.

Er...sorry working on my phone.

Er...could you reply to my "tirade"

I guess my assumption was based on your definition of Atheist. That is the typical disparaging definition theists use in clumsy attempts at turning the argument around to us and it is irrational. I'm surprisedd a "strong" atheist would use it. You may want to rethink.