Difflugia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
At this point, I think (hope?) that nobody is genuinely confused.
Indeed, nobody here is likely
confused by this (or any other) definition of atheism.
Difflugia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
It looks to me like the argument is because theists want "you can't prove it" to be an argument against atheism
I don't know what you mean by this.
The argument that I see people making -- both here an in earlier threads -- is that this
broad definition of atheism is not as precise or meaningful as the older, narrower definitions of atheism. Those older definitions continue to be the primary ones used in philosophy, which may be a good reason for us to use them as well.
Difflugia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
From the standpoint of word construction, "atheist" means "not a theist,"
That's not really the etymology of the term, though. Rather, it's derived from the Greek work
atheos meaning "without God" or "godless." The word 'atheist' actually predates the word 'theist', and so was not coined as a-theist (not theist) but as athe-ist (one who is godless).
At any rate, the definition in the OP concerns not 'atheist' but rather 'atheism,' which, from the standpoint of word construction, as you put it, would lead us to the expectation that we are describing an '-ism,' a doctrine or set of beliefs. Instead, the definition presents us with a "condition," which makes any appeal to the superiority of this definition based on etymology rather fruitless.
Difflugia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
From a descriptive standpoint, "atheist" clearly has (at least) two valid definitions, one of which is "not a theist." Absolutely every time it comes up in this forum, Tcg explains, usually eloquently and at length, that that's what he means; it's in his sig, for crying out loud.
Okay, but notice that the quote from American Atheists in Tcg's sig is not just
defining the term "atheism," it's actually
advocating that the older, narrower definitions are
wrong ("Atheism is not . . . "). That is not the kind of neutral
clarification of a term that you are describing here, so much as an
argument that will invite debate. It seems odd then to complain that people are doing just that.