But that's not the "path" by which I came to the conclusion... It certainly would be a mistake to assume that, since all atheists lack the belief in god, all who lack the belief in god are atheists.
It may not be the path by which you came to the definition, but I believe it is the path by which the definition came to you.
My point is that people are now using the redefinition to try to reshape usage, but the context in which it is promoted is too limited to have much effect beyond a small community of speakers. In most contexts, atheism still refers to skepticism about the existence of gods, which does not include mere ignorance of gods.
But that's exactly what you're doing with atheism, which starts out as being simply the rejection of the theistic belief system and pushing it towards being a belief contrary to that belief/system. You're a theist because you believe in god, you are an atheist because you do not believe in a god. You are not a theist because you lack disbelief in a god, neither are you an atheist because you hold the belief that gods don't exist. Both descriptions are silly.
I distinguish between rejection of an argument and rejection of its conclusion, which does not depend on the argument being rejected. An atheist rejects the conclusion that gods exist. Now the rejection of that conclusion my be based on relatively weak "burden of proof" grounds, but it is still a rejection. If someone honestly does not reject the conclusion that gods exist, but just all the known arguments that lead to that conclusion, I would not call that person an atheist. I would call her or him an "agnostic", and most people would know exactly what I meant. After all, theists can be agnostics who reject all logical and empirical arguments in favor of a god. Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism, because it rejects the arguments, not the belief.
I do have an opinion about the truth of the claim, but it's not that direct. Imagine someone rolling a dice in the dark and then making the claim that it was a "six". I reject that claim as a matter of principle, not because I necessarily believe that it wasn't a six, but because there is no justification for such a belief. Not all claims are made equal.
If it were a coin flip, I would reject the conclusion, because the chances of it being heads or tails would be even. I would be a pure agnostic, although I might be less of an agnostic if I were more of a gambler.
If it were a die being cast, I would reject belief, because I would have good odds for rejecting the truth of the claim. This is a good example of how I reason about gods. The odds are really very slim that such entities exist. The other guy tells me that he knows it is a "six", but I am still left wondering how he can see in the dark what I cannot. I suspect that he is more of a gambler than I am.
...Now, you might be using the word "reject" in a different way, in which case we are not in agreement that atheism is the rejection of theism.
Good point. I think that you are using it to mean rejection of arguments in favor of theism, and I am using it to mean rejection of the conclusion for whatever reason. Most of us believe that failure to meet the burden of proof for a positive assertion is grounds for rejecting the assertion, other things being equal. But other things are not usually equal when it comes to burden of proof. Take Russell's teapot, for example. You don't reject the assertion that one is in orbit around the sun merely because there is not evidence of such a thing. You reject it because you know things about teapots and objects that usually orbit the sun. This is not a case of "other things being equal". The same is true of gods. We believe a lot of things about reality that would need to be addressed before we could accept the existence of what people normally think of as a "god". It is never merely just a matter of theists not meeting their burden of proof on one or two arguments.
One problem at a time, shall we? But this is another reason why it's much more resonable to reject specific arguments for god/specific god beliefs than it is to hold the belief that god, which to me doesn't really mean anything apart from what I know it means to other people, does not exist.
You do not know the meanings of any words apart from what you know they mean to other people. You are verging on a slippery slope, I fear. Watch where you step.
They can also reject the truth of the conclusion - and they do for all but one god (usually). That's not what defines atheism either. The difference is very simple imo... An atheist rejects god claims he is confronted with and also lacks the belief in a god, a theist accepts at least one god claim and believes in god(s). To imply that someone would have to go out of their way and "disprove" the existence of a god to the extent that they would be justified in a belief that god(s) do not exist in order to be an atheist is certainly not my idea of atheism.
Perhaps, but the word "atheism" is only useful insofar as it can be used in a broad community of speakers. No individual usage defines it, nor does an agreement by a limited speech community to use it in one way obligate the rest of the speech community to conform to their usage. Such limited usage might deserve a footnote in an unabridged dictionary, but it is wrong to insist on it as the "correct" meaning of the word. Usage determines correctness. Nothing else.
What's the distinction between rejecting the claim and rejecting the argument. Neither of those gets you to where you want to get. If by rejecting the claim you mean making a truth statement about the conclusion, rather than the argument, then - no, we're not in agreement.
Too bad, but I trust you will continue to re-evaluate your position, as I will mine.
How could you even make a truth statement about the conclusion for which you have no outside reference. It's not like "Amy is taller than Mike", "Mike is taller than John", therefore "Amy is taller than John" or whatever, when I can have an actual real-life reference and see directly whether or not Amy is taller than John and therefore take a position on the truth value of the conclusion rather than the validity of the argument. There is no such thing when the argument is about the existence of god. How could I possibly conclude from an invalid argument that the christian god does not exists if the only reference I have of the christian god is that and other arguments.
How? Someone has rolled a die in a dark room and told you what the number is. You calculate the odds and arrive at your best guess--that it is probably not six. You look at what it means to call something a "god" and what people believe about that entity (e.g. that it is undetectable except to a few lucky people). You form your opinions on that basis, just as you form opinions about all sorts of things in the real world that you might be wrong about. I do not know that my house will be waiting for me when I return home tonight, but I believe that it will. If it isn't, I'll revise my opinion.
