But I don't think it's a valid test - I think it's interesting and I certainly agree that a lot of the time people (including myself, I'm sure) will misuse definitions of words, intentionally or unintentionally, to fit with their way of thinking. So wouldn't you say it's important to look at various definitions that fit various contexts ranging from very broad descriptions to very specific examples and from that gain an understanding of the meaning of the word, rather than trying to form one "average" or "common usage" definition that fits everything?
Yes and no. It is important to look at a broad range of usage and to try to sort out different word sense "buckets". That's what lexicographers are hired to do. They are also hired to produce definitions that reflect broad, average usage. The real complication in all of this is that word meanings shift around in discourse, and it is possible to make generalizations about how they shift. What I don't like about the "absence of belief" definition is that people take the words too literally. Every atheist has an absence of belief in the existence of gods, but every atheist has an absence of belief that they are dead. It would be ludicrous to claim that everyone who has an absence of belief that they are dead is an atheist. It does not sound as ludicrous to claim that everyone with an absence of belief in the existence of gods is an atheist, but it is the same kind of Procrustean thinking that drives that logic. Definitions define usage. Definitions do not prescribe usage.
Would you argue that it would be incorrect to say that atheists are also people who merely lack the belief in a god or that atheism is not necessarily a belief?
Atheism is very definitely a belief. It represents skepticism of the claim that there are gods. If we need a word to describe lack of opinion about the existence of gods, we usually use "agnosticism", although that word can also have a usage that is perfectly compatible with atheism. Almost everyone has an opinion about whether gods exist, so it is hard to find someone who literally has no belief at all with respect to their existence. Theists can be said to lack belief that gods do not exist, but they still possess a belief with respect to gods. Both atheism and theism describe a belief with respect to the existence of gods. They are incompatible "isms".
For instance, I see no problem with what Wikipedia has to say about the subject (not that I'm offering up wikipedia as any kind of authority on this matter):
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
This Wikipedia definition was discussed several pages ago. A few folks--Mball in particular--seized on the expression "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
[3]" Notice that there is a footnote. I bothered to read the footnote, but Mball did not. It is worth reading that footnote and following up on the references, particularly the Religious Tolerance web page called
Definitions of the term "Atheism". Read the first paragraph in the Overview section. The only thing in it that I disagree with is the claim that atheists who "mesh well" with popular usage "may be in the minority". That appears to be a gratuitous assumption on their part. I do think that there is at least a vocal minority of atheists who do not want to be associated with the common usage definition, but that is a separate issue from whether or not it is an accurate description of common usage.
I don't think any one of these is "the one", only as a whole do they accurately convey the meaning of the word. And I have to say, I don't think it's correct to say that atheism isn't also merely "the absence of belief that any deities exist" and thus not necessarily a belief. Babies notwithstanding.
Hmm. That language is an utter train wreck of piled up negatives, but I'll try to sort it all out.
I think you are saying that atheism is
also "the absence of belief that any deities exist" and thus not necessarily a belief. A positive belief always entails absence of belief in its negation. Therefore, it is not inaccurate to claim that all atheists have an absence of belief that gods exist. That makes sense. What I think is inaccurate is to claim that an atheist can be someone who has an absence of belief that gods
do not exist. Entailment is not a symmetrical operator, and atheism merely
entails absence of belief that gods exist. So you cannot infer an actual absence of belief in the sense that babies have absence of belief that gods exist. Babies also have absence of belief that gods
do not exist. That is why it is ludicrous to call them "atheists". This is a subtle point, I know. Nevertheless, it is the point that this entire debate has been hung up on.
