I would like to contribute to this discussion briefly because I understand what Danny is trying to argue. I'm going to attempt being polite in this post (while being an atheist, even though I may not have updated my icons) because I feel diplomacy is absolutely important.
I can agree that atheists are mainly the only people who are saying that they simply "lack the belief in any god or gods." Many theists do not define atheists as this. The dictionary entry that was posted on here is an excellent example. Though I haven't researched this personally, it has been suggested to me that the word "atheism" has undergone a change in meaning within recent history to the point where it is becoming more and more common for it to be defined as simply a "lack of belief". (Just for the record, this is the position I hold as well.) If anyone has heard of the "New Atheists," they might notice that sometimes they are accused of changing the old definition. So to get down to it, here's what each party will usually say when defining atheism (this is generalizing, obviously):
Theist would say: the belief that there is no god or gods
Atheist would say: the lack of belief in any god or gods
What is most important is that we agree that there is a difference between the two definitions. It may be subtle but it is so critical to theists and atheists communicating effectively with each other. If we cannot agree that there is a difference between the two then there's no point holding a discussion (that comment is meant without hostility, it's simply suggesting how crucial it is).
I would propose that almost every atheist who has come to their views using their own thought processes (meaning NOT simply being raised that way) subscribes (at least nowadays) to the latter definition. Therefore, if someone calls him or herself an atheist, I would recommend assuming they mean the second definition unless they specify otherwise. If we do this then we'll have a much smaller chance of misinterpreting someone.
Now...
It was mentioned earlier in this thread, but I want to touch on it anyway. Yes, there exist different "degrees" of atheism, namely two -- weak atheism and strong atheism. I would like to make the next statement in bold not because I wish to appear as if I'm yelling but merely to draw attention to the statement.
Most atheists are "weak" atheists.
This means all they have is a "lack of belief". This is the absolutely only thing that such atheists have in common.
Few atheists are "strong" atheists.
This means that few atheists actually claim with perfect confidence that there is no god.
This statement was made earlier:
Atheist are collectively against the Idea of a God.
I must say that this is incorrect, and this is what Danny has been saying for a while now. Atheists are
not collectively against the idea of a god. In fact, a person who doesn't give the smallest care in the world about religion can be an atheist . . . because they lack any belief in a god or gods. A newborn baby is an atheist because it lacks the belief in any god or gods. A mentally retarded person can be an atheist because he or she lacks the belief in any god or gods. It is
not that they claim a god does not exist, it is that they just don't have a belief in one. If someone makes the claim without absolute certainty that a god does not exist then yes, they have a belief . . . but they would still be an atheist because they would lack the belief in any god or gods. This type of atheist (strong atheist, as stated above) is not common at all, however.
It was suggested that if the term is really as vague and meaningless as that (which it would seem to be), it shouldn't even exist. For example, we don't have a-fairyists, a-unicornists, a-reincarnationists . . . Why do we have "a-theists"? The term only exists because religious beliefs have come to be known as representing the majority of the world. Having a term such as atheist makes it easy to talk about people who aren't religious. Claiming that atheism (remember that most are weak atheists) is a belief is like claiming silence is a sound. We still have a name for it -- silence -- but it definitely is not a sound. It is merely the absence of sound.
----------------------------------------
Boy that was long. I apologize, I get long-winded on forums. I realize that debating in this forum is not encouraged so I will post an actual response to the OP's post a little later. I'm only trying to raise awareness in this post, not start conflict or hostility. I also apologize if I came across as impolite at any time. The bold is only to highlight points.
