Not been here for a while, but saw this and though it was worth commenting on, because it is a mistake so many people make.
This is not how many Atheists would describe themselves. The definition that many Atheists tend to use is that of Agnostic Atheist. This means: I don't believe the claim there is a God, but I don't/cannot know that the claim isn't true.
There are also Atheists who believe the claim "no God exists", but they are perhaps in the minority. This is a totally different claim to the first.
Yes, but the point is anything other than the correct philosophical definition, namely the claim that "no god exists" is not atheism.
This may appear to be picky or fussing over semantics, but there several important issues underlying this.
The word 'agnosticism' means "without knowledge"; it doesn't mean someone doesn't believe they have knowledge - it is frankly a claim that a belief in god is basically beyond human understanding.
People cannot simply go around taking a word and saying it now means something different!
There is a world of difference between the statements:
(i)"god or god(s) do not exist", and (ii) "i don't believe god or god(s) exist".
Theses two statements are only connected by the subject matter, and the later - the lack of belief is not atheism.
However, as you correctly point out a lot of pseudo intellectual "new" atheists only accept or acknowledge the second definition. Why is this? I have theory why this is the case.
Because if you use the philosophically correct definition of "no god or god(s) exist", then you are making just as much a claim to knowledge as the theist does when the claim the opposite.
In such discussions the burden of proof cannot be shifted in either direction. The burden of proof needs to reside on the side of the person making a claim, but when you have two sides both making equivalent claims, then
both need to justified and substantiated.
Now clearly, someone has very cleverly realised that if you tweak the definition of atheism to be "the absence of a belief in god or god(s)" then this no longer becomes a claim to knowledge. It simply acknowledges that someone lacks a belief, but it makes absolutely no claim in anyway about the topic of conversation - whether god or god(s) exist of not.
Why should a theist accept the burden of proof when faced with such an irrelevant and lazy definition?
And why has the atheist accepted the definition that only deals with a lack in belief in something? Is it because the real definition of atheism - the one you freely acknowledge only "a minority" now accept is actually a very difficult, and daunting prospect to defend?
Could I be so bold as to suggest that atheism has been forced in to an almost irrelevant and pointless re-definition of itself to deflect the fact that in it's truest form it is an almost absurd concept.
I don't think theists should stand for or accept the re-definition of atheism - it is a way of avoiding having to defend their own beliefs and position, and far too often theists get trapped in to accepting a burden of proof for defending their own position only to let the atheist get off scott free without presenting any justification or rationality for their own position.
It's an underhand method being employed by not only individuals, but atheistic organisations around the world.
Atheists should be challenged about the definition of what they believe, and if they can only provide a lack of belief in something then there is no opposing argument and should be completely ignored.
