Well, at least we agree on something. I recognize that the prefix "-a" in atheism means "without [belief in god]". But it is taken too literally; it is the same as saying "I do not believe in god."
I was literally thinking the exact same thing. It's taken way too literally and some atheists justify their disbelief with a mere letter.
I mentioned this in another thread: Years ago it wasn't really common to use agnostic/gnostic in the same sentence as atheist/theist. Agnosticism, atheism and theism were typically considered separate belief systems, with the agnostic kind of being the "fence-sitter" on the matter. So I have this idea that when the atheist said they did not believe in god, the theist misinterpreted this to mean the assertion "I know god does not exist." In order to clarify that we were not asserting anything, we would stick to the literal "We lack a belief in god," to make it clear that we were not asserting anything. But now we know that we can be both agnostic and atheist, so sticking to the literal meaning is kind of outdated. Of course, this is all just an idea that I had. I could be wrong.
I'm still adhering to the fact that atheism in its broadest sense is a disbelief. If not then it shouldn't be called atheism. Everybody is born an atheist, you have to make a decision to become theist. If someone isn't a theist, then what are they?
Dawkins would disagree. He said in the God delusion that even atheism is a conscious decision. Think about it. You ask a child (who has never heard of a unicorn) if unicorns exist. They would say, "I don't know". But why? You have to introduce them to the idea and even still they would would not be entirely sure. I actually tried this with my 6 year old nephew last year. They simply say, "I don't know". What does the agnostic say about God's existence?
I really don't think it's wrong to say: Those who lack a belief in God are atheists. Why else would the word literally imply it?
Well, I think people get too tripped up on the word itself rather than the meaning. What would the word be for those who posit the non-existence of God? And how do you discern between those and atheists?
Yeah, the problem here lies in the fact that the theist makes an active judgment, and says "I believe in god." Yet on the other hand, the non-believer could either be one which makes the active judgment against the notion of god, or one who is completely unaware of the notion of god. It's really a trivial matter to begin with, but since the atheist is almost always regarded as one who make the active judgment against god, it's kind of misleading to call a baby an atheist. But whatever, no big deal.
You can only be one or the other lol (depending on the god). A gnostic atheist claims knowledge that there is no God. An agnostic atheist doesn't claim to know there is no God and simply has an absence of theism. If someone says "I'm an atheist", they should elaborate unless they literally mean to say they lack theism. and yeah let's get over it lolol
I can't speak for the context it's used in different situations. But in a literal sense, "the atheist" seems to imply agnosticism (since it doesn't assert any knowledge but describes the absence of a belief). Though everyone seems to use it for something else lol.
Since religion will always rely upon special pleading on matters where exact knowledge is not ameanable to science, I think it is inevitable that religions charlatans will continue their tyrannies and their folly. Owing to the lack of evidence which science has accumulated, many ridiculous dogmatic traditions have been able to send forth credible theologians who viciously defend the tradition creed. Examples are Thomas Aquinas, and William Lane Craig. Though many of their claims are not disprovable, I think it is absurd to assume that they are true. One Modernist modification of Chrisitianity proposes that God created the Universe with Man in mind, but that He is not omnipotent, but is trying His best despite facing great difficulties from the devil. There are no logical refutations of this claim to be found in any literature which has ever constructed. At best, as I said, we can show there is no positive reason in favor of these modernist revisions of old creeds.
Seriously, we divide yet demand unity and peace. It's ridiculous on a side note, have you heard of the experience machine?