It rounds out the definition.
First, an encyclopedia article such as that cited is much better for defining such an invovled concept, and second definition 2. is not anywhere near as adequate at capturing the definition of atheism.
It shows that mere disbelief in a god or gods can be called atheism. You have, by your selective and distorted reading, taken a part of the full definition and then attempted to pass it off as the true or only definition. In fact, by interpreting "doctrine or belief" to mean "certainly a doctrine", you've failed to grasp even the first part of the entry.
The point of the dictionary is, in general, to give the briefest and usually the widest possible range for a given word. Atheism can mean a simple disbelief in god or the gods. However, even this simple definition involves a system of belief, because it involves a cosmology/theology/philosophy wherein gods do not exist. This is a statement of belief concerning the nature of the universe (unlike your intellectually sterile comparison with a belief concerning RFK).
It should not be necessary to do so -- but fine, here you go:
I did not ask for a complete range of the use for this suffix, but for you to indicate which one fits atheism better than the usage I cited.
From the Encarta Dictionary:
1. action, process
mesmerism
volcanism
Nope.
2. characteristic behavior or manner
despotism
Nope.
3. state, condition
conservatism
gangsterism
Not really. Not a "state."
But then conservatism isn't a "state" either but a belief system/political philosophy.
4. unusual or unhealthy state
caffeinism
Nope.
5. doctrine, system of beliefs
defeatism
Calvinism
And here it is.
Nope.
. distinctive feature or trait
Southernism
vulgarism
And no again. The only one that fits is the one I gave. Nice try.
[Via French< Latin -ismus< Greek -ismos]
Already stated this.
This would be disturbing if it weren't so damned funny. I am the one who is insisting on a broader definition of atheism which encompasses the semantic range of the word.
Wrong. I am insisting rather that the broadest range fails to capture the usual usage, and (moreover) that atheism is a belief system.
You are the one who is insisting on a single, narrow definition which encompasses only a small part of that range.
Wrong. The fact that I state it is a "belief system" does not narrow down a single definition. This belief system can be as dogmatic as that of Dawkins or a simply as simple not emphatic disbelief in god(s).
And you have utterly failed to demonstrate that atheism is in itself such a system.
I quoted britannica for you, not to mention another article, as well as the only possible usage for the suffix.
What kind of nonsense is that? I don't disbelieve in supreme beings "because I don't believe in supreme beings." In fact, I believed in god for most of my life. I only came to abandon the belief when I realized I had no reason to believe in it.
You misunderstood my use of "because." I wasn't causally linking the first clause with the second, but rather linking the first causally with the third via repitition. In other words, "because you do not believe in gods (and believe in a universe/reality in which gods do not exist, you subscribe to a particular system of belief."
That is not "systematic exclusion of the possibility,"
Yes it is. The fact that you remain open to the fact that your current belief system may be incorrect does not change the fact that, currently, it systematically excludes the possibility that gods exist. If you allowed for the possibility for gods to exist, i.e. believe that it is quite possible they do, you are not atheist but agnostic.
Maintaining that empirical exploration is impossible is the only approach that allows for an approach backed by empiricism? Now you're just babbling.
Maintaining that the existence or non-existence of gods is outside the realm of empirical observation is the only approach which limits a belief into the nature of reality to empiricism, and acknowledges that the rest is unknowable. Atheism denies that god or gods exist (at the least), and theism posits god or gods do exist. Agnosticism is the position that neither can be known.
Please explain how disbelief in the god goes beyond the evidence in a way that disbelief in the penetrability of the mystery and the possibility of empirical investigation does not.
Disbelief in god or gods invovles a belief in a reality in which these entities do not exist. Otherwise it isn't disbelief. However, this belief is not based on empirical observation or science, as the existence of such entitites is outside of emprical observations. Science cannot confirm the existence of god or the non-existence. So atheism goes beyond what can be confirmed, as does theism, by making a positive belief-statement (X is true, Y is not) about the universe, while agnosticism makes no such statement (X maybe true, Y may not be true, or the reverse, or neither).
The semantic range of "Christianity" is wide enough to include Mormonism, but that does not mean that all Christians are Mormons.
I am not limiting atheism to "mormons" (metaphorically) but (to extend your metaphor) I am excluding "satanic christians" as truly being christians.
He says, "Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief."
Nielson also states that atheism rejects "the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and
Buddhism."
The article doesn't really support your argument.
It absolutely does. My argument is:
1. Atheism is a system of belief, which the article certainly supports and
2. Atheism generally refers to more than simply a system of belief in which gods do not exist, but rather usually refers to a lack of belief in religious concepts in general.