CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Alpha Privative in Greek..
I'm tired of people always claiming themselves to be atheists because they are "not theists," claiming that the alpha privative is simply a "not." This is not how the alpha privative is used. In Ancient Greek, there is a word called "tim-ey," which means "honor" (noun). The verb for this word is "to honor," while the negated, alpha privitave form, "a-tim-ao," (verb) means "to dishonor." It does not simply mean "not honor." Indeed, it is a strong negation. This is why the word "gnostic" with an alpha privative in front of it does not simply mean "not knowledge," as in "us not knowing what the truth is," but it is a stronger negation. This is how atheism and agnosticism have classically been seen to mean. Thus, atheism is not merely "not theism." Indubitably, it is "dis-theism."
While translating Homer's Iliad, the word "honor" comes up a lot. I just had to ask about the alpha privative here, and my suspicions were confirmed. "Not theists" are misusing the term, "atheist."
It doesn't just mean in opposition. It is also used to mean without.
For instance: an asexual lifeform doesn't rally against sex, it just doesn't have it.
Atypical simply identifies that something is not typical for the category it inherits.
And so on. As a prefix, a- means, "not, without." It can be used oppositionally, but this is not universal.
People who do not believe in God AND people who believe there is no God are categorically congruent because they are both without God. And a- is a prefix that covers both of those.
These are all from the 1800s. They were using the alpha privative incorrectly. So, in essence, they made up their own prefix. The prefix, thus, for the previous words was not a Greek, but an English prefix of "a". This is how modern language is confused.
It gets the same essence across. I'm not denying that sometimes one can use it as "without." I'm saying that it is a strong negation, not a neutral or apathetic one. The English prefix "a" is neutral, not Greek.
Take the etymology of "a-" from the site: apo in Greek means "away from." Its a directional aspect, not merely being outside of it. It is a strong negation.
I'm sorry, but I just went through 8 entries on "alpha Privative" (including 2 by Greek Language experts and even one from a Christian source) and NONE of them supported your notions.
Care to share those sources? I can even give you another example of the strong negation: "thanatos" is dead, but "athanatos" is not merely "not dead" but it is immortal and undying. It is a strong negation. My source is actually knowing Greek, having many examples in my favor, and a Greek professor who has been doing it for 40 years.
Likewise, the etymology of the prefix on that etymology site shows us that it is from "apo" which means "away from"
"not X, unX, imX" Thats the idea that is being portrayed. It isn't just some passive, neutral, ambivalent notion; it is a strong negation, which is why we can say "immoral" for the alpha privative from Greek, and not just a-moral, which is from the English misusage of the alpha privative.
If you didn't know, in Greek, the way to simply do "not" in the sense that you are using it is "ou". This would get your notion across of simply being "not" or "a lack of". But the prefix "a-" is attached to the word itself, unlike "ou", which is from "apo" meaning away from, which is a strong negation.
How does "away from" mean anti or oppositional? It simply means not a part of the category under discussion.
Neither of your sources mention such a strong inclination.
And I NEVER said a- cannot mean a strong oppositional, simply that it isn't always used that way.
Anyway, if you want to really stick to the meaning, you would be arguing that self-respecting atheists shouldn't call themselves atheist at all, since the word was originally used as an insult.
Apo is a directional term. It is contrasted to ek (out of), en (in) and eis (into). It is a directional term. It doesn't simply mean "I am away from" but it means "going away from". Ek and apo use the same case: genitive. This means that they have the same idea, but are different in parts. Ek started inside, while apo is out of, but going away from.
Neither of your sources mention such a strong inclination.
Yes they do...
Anyway, if you want to really stick to the meaning, you would be arguing that self-respecting atheists shouldn't call themselves atheist at all, since the word was originally used as an insult.
I'm saying that "atheists" are using the term incorrectly.
If you assume language is static then sure, however languages are not static. Common useage of the word in question today is FAR removed from its roots. To use the old definition in contemporary times would be an innacurate framing of how the word is used now. Would use of the word "gay" be incorrect in todays use due to the meaning of the words use in the 1800's? Or how about the use of the word "bad" and its root from old english? Of course not, to argue for the use of those words in contemporary times based on their ancient roots would be silly. Why choose one word to argue for this concept but not others?
To be clear I am not saying your take on the words use in the specific historical time is innacurate, just that using outdated definitions is innacurate. Language changes over time.
Furthermore do we ask Muslims to define Christianity or do we ask Christians to define Christianity? This depends on where you are and who holds power. As always the minority struggles to define itself rather than be defined by the majority. To try to impose a definition on a group is a power issue, perhaphs this is another example of the Christian normative trying to exert control over other groups.
One cannot simply stipulate a definition. There has to be a reason behind the usage of a word or term, or phrase for that matter. I can't simply stipulate, "all colors that are not green are called 'feg' now." Simply because I am this arbitrary non-green thing, it does not mean that I have a right to say that I am feg. This idea is especially true when it comes to words that already exist. We don't say take a word that already exists, meaning X, and shift it to mean Y. Thats just dishonest, similar to how Lawrence Krauss said that quantum mechanics shows that something can come from nothing. Its just dishonest to say that it is "nothing," yet he did it. You can't honestly say that something is X, when "X" has meant Y for years. Non-theists have no right to say that they are atheists.
I'm not saying that language static, but the only reason it shifts is because of reasonable distinctions. I can't simply start calling all things that are not green as feg. There is no basis for that. I can't, likewise, start calling all 4-legged creatures, "dogs." Its dishonest to call a cat a "dog," even though I have stipulated the above. You have to have reason for it, and it has to be generally accepted among the culture to shift. There is no cultural continuity and generality with regards to the word "atheist." Why? Because only the new atheists have considered themselves to be "non-theists" in order to get out to the burden of proof. Non-theists have no right to say that they are atheists.
and it has to be generally accepted among the culture to shift. There is no cultural continuity and generality with regards to the word "atheist."
Already addressed this with common useage, which seems to be what you disagree with. You are arguing for an outdated use to be used in contemporary times and you are doing so in a manner that has one group labeling another instead of allowing the freedom of that group to self govern.
No one has commited the definitional fallacy you keep outlining nor was it in any of my points. Common useage is not equivalent to what you outline. A large body of people using a similar definition is not calling all 4 legged animals dogs as you are trying to say it equals. Now if an EXTREME minority of the population used the term atheism as you suggest then you would have a valid comparison. However as it stands your comparison is innacurate.
You are arguing for prescriptive linguistics rather than descriptive linguisics. So I ask again, why do you feel this way about the word in question but not others, like for instance the words "gay" and "bad" in my examples?
Just wondering why you are not logically consistent here.
You are arguing for an outdated use to be used in contemporary times and you are doing so in a manner that has one group labeling another instead of allowing the freedom of that group to self govern.
Groups cannot name themselves something arbitrarily. I cannot name myself "Mormon" even though I do not conform to their religion. It is dishonest to do so.
No one has commited the definitional fallacy you keep outlining nor was it in any of my points. Common useage is not equivalent to what you outline.
In no way is atheism commonly used to refer to "not theism." It has only been recently used by new atheists.
You are arguing for prescriptive linguistics rather than descriptive linguisics. So I ask again, why do you feel this way about the word in question but not others, like for instance the words "gay" and "bad" in my examples?
"Gay" is accepted by the overwhelming populace, both non-gays and gays. It is dishonest for a gay man to say that he is "straight" because he wants to go by that term. He has to have a reasonable right to do so.
Just wondering why you are not logically consistent here.
I'm being logically consistent. Maybe wrong phrase?
You're not seeing whats going on here. Language shifts, sure. But it doesn't shift in radical manners, arbitrarily. Non-theists cannot say that they are atheists without being dishonest; most people do not considered "atheists" to be merely "non-theists." Who cares what they want to be called?
Again the change in useage is not arbitrary as you claim. I already outlined where your comparison is innacurate. Without addressing my logic and points you keep asserting this with your poor analogy. Now you reword this analogy saying a gay man cannot say he is straight, but this is clearly not what atheists are doing. No large group of gay men identify using this definition as atheists do with theirs. A false equivalency is being continually forced here by you.
...most people do not considered "atheists" to be merely "non-theists." Who cares what they want to be called?
Errrr, common useage posits just that, atheists are generally non theists, to say otherwise mislabels the group. The majority of atheists are in the group "I don't see evidence of a god or gods" rather than "there is no god". I think you mean many Christians don't feel this way about non believers, your continuation of labeling the group as dishonest shows where you stand. You still have failed to show this change was arbitrary.
And you don't care what a group wishes to define themselves as and want some sort of majority rule? Something tells me if the roles were reversed you would feel otherwise, any minority movement shows this. If we were to accept your logic many minorities would still be described with perjoratives by the majority. You are arguing for 'might equals right".
Errrr, common useage posits just that, atheists are generally non theists, to say otherwise mislabels the group. The majority of atheists are in the group "I don't see evidence of a god or gods" rather than "there is no god". I think you mean many Christians don't feel this way about non believers, your continuation of labeling the group as dishonest shows where you stand. You still have failed to show this change was arbitrary.
That is not true. You know that to be false. Most people, included within the group atheists and theists, say that atheism is a strong negation, not merely "not theism." You're not understanding the point: a person, or even group, can say that they are X, but if the rest of the populace does not agree with that definition, then those who are trying to change the word are in the fault. They misuse language. Language is primarily to communication, but they stipulate a definition that is controversial and generally accepted as non-true. You cannot do it without being dishonest. I'll say this again: the primary point of language is communication, which means that everyone involved with the term must generally accept it. You cannot say that you are X, even if it is reasonable and desired to do so, if the rest of the populace does not agree with that definition. This is just practical wisdom and philosophy.. common sense. You cannot say that atheists are merely non-theists without being dishonest, since no one but new atheists agree with that definition. Old atheists agree with our definition, and most of the populace does too. You cannot say this without being dishonest.
The point we seem to disagree on is what the common use of the word is.
Your analogies do not hold true. The majority of the debates on this site also show the atheists on this site are as how I described the group to be and not as you claim.
Dictionary definitions do not agree with how you label the group either as they often allow for both ideas to fall under the word. Dictionaries often side with common useage. Your claim that the use of the word is not common useage only seems to be supported by christian sites. You cannot make your claim unless you ignore the body of evidence...you may have practice at this :) You cannot make your claim without being academically dishonest.
a·the·ismˈāTHēˌizəm/noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos godDate: 15461 archaic : ungodliness,wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Your analogies do not hold true. The majority of the debates on this site also show the atheists on this site are as how I described the group to be and not as you claim.
1) Most of the atheists on this site are new atheists.
2) As I said, who cares what they want to call themselves? The majority of the rest of the populace does not take the definition you are taking it to mean. I can say that I am a Mormon all I want, but if I say that I am a Mormon to others, when "Mormon" is not merely Christianity, then I am being dishonest. Language's primary concern is for communication, and the majority of the populace does not take it to be as such.
Dictionary definitions do not agree with how you label the group either as they often allow for both ideas to fall under the word. Dictionaries often side with common useage. Your claim that the use of the word is not common useage only seems to be supported by christian sites. You cannot make your claim unless you ignore the body of evidence...you may have practice at this :) You cannot make your claim without being academically dishonest.
"Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities."
"Atheism is a belief or worldview that denies the existence of any supernatural deity."
Christian sites do not claim atheists are "non-theists." You are lying here. The mere fact that people are always disagreeing on what the definition of atheism is shows that you are wrong about this.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Dictionary definitions do not get the full context of everything. Homophobia is defined against the cultural norm. Murder is defined against how it is normally used. Happiness is defined assuming the point. Dictionary definitions are not good uses of how language is to be interpreted. You have to use cultural context. And the cultural context is against you. You are being dishonest.
You are wrong about this.. plain and simply.
And if you do want a dictionary definition of "atheism," then here is Merriam-Webster's definition:
So I say that christian sites agree with you, then I say that common useage and dictionary definitions agree with me....then you show that and say I am wrong. Your claim of dictionaries not being good for definitions is laughable, isn't that what they are for? Dictionaries show common useage as well as historic useage, if this were not true words like "gay" would be not properly culturally defined in dictionaries. Many of your claims such as that fall apart when compared to reality.
Finding a dissenter also does not change common useage nor dictionary definitions. The false equivalency you keep trying actually works here, you have an extreme minority trying to use a word out of cultural context. Words change meaning over time, get over it. As for the dictionary definitions...
Disbelieving in gods and saying gods do not exist are not equal statements. Dictionaries list them both under the term atheism. They both fall under the dictionary use and common use of the word (strong versus weak). You seem to only agree with part of it and claim anyone who feels the whole of it works is being dishonest.
Much in line with the rest of what you do here you are just using this as an excuse to call people names and attempt to bully them into agreeing with you. This is shown by your insistence on it not mattering how groups identify themselves (even within the common and diftionary use of the words) and insist they allow you to do it for them.
And as for the "stop it" bit...make me. If it angers you someone won't cowtow to your extremist views get over it; common and dictionary useage shows there is strong and weak atheism. No one is telling you what to think but you are teling others what to think. Just as I said, it is about power to you. You are not happy unless you see others under the yoke you choose and it upsets you that others can resist and 5hink for themselves when you cannot.
You are being logically inconsistent in you application of prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics. If you wish to discuss semantics and language you should crack a few books first rather than rely on biased sites or an extreme minority for your position.
What we disagree on is if the term is common use or not. You say no with no evidence, you just keep asserting it. I say yes with evidence of dictionary definitions.
I can fill in your responce here, "nuh uh, you are (insert perjorative)" seems to be your bread and butter. If you manage something with substance I will return. Until then have fun with your fallacies and name calling.
There is a large group of people across the world using the definition you disagree with, get over it. Minority groups will always struggle to define themselves despite your attempts to oppress them, get over it. The majority that support your side are religious extremists, the majority of the religious do not care. Get over it. The group I ascribe to call themselves atheists, get over it.
So I say that christian sites agree with you, then I say that common useage and dictionary definitions agree with me....then you show that and say I am wrong. Your claim of dictionaries not being good for definitions is laughable, isn't that what they are for? Dictionaries show common useage as well as historic useage, if this were not true words like "gay" would be not properly culturally defined in dictionaries. Many of your claims such as that fall apart when compared to reality.
If it is supported by Christian sites, then your positing that atheism is simply "not theism" is wrong. It is dishonest, and it goes against that which communication is driven. Likewise, dictionary definitions do not give the full range of context. I showed you examples, but you ignored them.
Finding a dissenter also does not change common useage nor dictionary definitions. The false equivalency you keep trying actually works here, you have an extreme minority trying to use a word out of cultural context. Words change meaning over time, get over it. As for the dictionary definitions...
The "not theism" is the extreme minority... I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
Did you not read the dictionary definitions that I gave you? Almost unanimous support was for my position.
Disbelieving in gods and saying gods do not exist are not equal statements. Dictionaries list them both under the term atheism. They both fall under the dictionary use and common use of the word (strong versus weak). You seem to only agree with part of it and claim anyone who feels the whole of it works is being dishonest.
Disbelieving is a strong negation. It is not merely an apathetic definition, as you are trying to portray. You even implicitly understood that when you said, "Dictionary definitions do not agree with how you label the group either as they often allow for both ideas to fall under the word. Dictionaries often side with common usage....
a·the·ismˈāTHēˌizəm/noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos godDate: 15461 archaic : ungodliness,wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
You had an implicit understanding that lack of belief is different from disbelief. Disbelief is stronger than a mere lack of belief.
Much in line with the rest of what you do here you are just using this as an excuse to call people names and attempt to bully them into agreeing with you. This is shown by your insistence on it not mattering how groups identify themselves (even within the common and diftionary use of the words) and insist they allow you to do it for them.
This does not follow in any way.
And as for the "stop it" bit...make me. If it angers you someone won't cowtow to your extremist views get over it; common and dictionary useage shows there is strong and weak atheism. No one is telling you what to think but you are teling others what to think. Just as I said, it is about power to you. You are not happy unless you see others under the yoke you choose and it upsets you that others can resist and 5hink for themselves when you cannot.
This does not follow in any way. It is not common and dictionary usage. You are lying here, yet again.
What we disagree on is if the term is common use or not. You say no with no evidence, you just keep asserting it. I say yes with evidence of dictionary definitions.
That is a lie, and you know it. You have shown one dictionary definition. I have shown many, and Christian sites and the mere fact that Christians disagree with atheists on what the definition is of "atheism." You're not understanding: who cares what X person wants to be called or what X person wants others to be called? If it goes against communication, then it is dishonest. You are being dishonest.
I can fill in your responce here, "nuh uh, you are (insert perjorative)" seems to be your bread and butter. If you manage something with substance I will return. Until then have fun with your fallacies and name calling.
I have yet to present a logical fallacy. Wrong word?
There is a large group of people across the world using the definition you disagree with, get over it. Minority groups will always struggle to define themselves despite your attempts to oppress them, get over it. The majority that support your side are religious extremists, the majority of the religious do not care. Get over it. The group I ascribe to call themselves atheists, get over it.
The "large majority" is only the new atheists. You are wrong on this, plain and simply. You're in denial. Your arguments here are just pulling on string with no evidence, but one dictionary definition, out of the many.
The only person being dishonest here is you. You do this often on these issues, could be extreme dissonance. You are ignoring evidence saying the change is new when the use of the word has been the same since early 1800's. Between 50 -140 years before the use of the word "gay" changed, which you accept to be correct in common use above. This is where your logic shows itself to be inconsistent as the word atheist has been used as I described much longer than the word gay. The fallacy you repeatedly use is a false equivalency claiming the change was new and not in common use with your examples of definitional fallacies that do not fit. Here is just some atheistic writings, religious scholars, and a dictionary from around the 1800's that show your claim to be false.
Free thinkers agreed on the use of the word I outline historically.
Paul Henri Holbach:In 1772, Good Sense,
"All children are atheists, they have no idea of God."
Charles Bradlaugh: 1876 in his book The Freethinker's Text Book "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says 'I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."
Annie Besant: 1877 book The Gospel of Atheism, "The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny 'God,' which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.".
G.W. Foote:What Is Agnosticism (1902): "Refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God.... Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the "A" before "Theist" really means."
How about from the writings of theists from a similar time period?
Richard Watson:1831 A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: "Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature. It is compounded of the two terms ... signifying without God."
Robert Flint:1885 Anti-Theistic Theories:"The atheist is not necessarily a man who says there is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. ...every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God."
Flint in another book he wrote, Agnosticism, 1903: "The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less."
Dictionaries from the late 1800's also disagree with you (as well as now).
Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language, 1903. Comprising the issues of 1864, 1879, and 1884.
atheism: 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.agnosticism: That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither affirms nor denies. Specifically: (Theol.) The doctrine that the exisence of a personal Deity, an unseen world, etc., can be neither proved nor disproved, because of the necessary limits of the human mind (as sometimes charged upon Hamilton or Mansel), or because of the insufficience of the evidence furnished by psychical and physical data, to warrant a positive conclusion (as taught by the school of Herbert Spencer) — opposed alike to dogmatic skepticism and to dogmatic theism.disbelieve: not to believe; to refuse belief or credence to; to hold not to be true or actual.
Now as for your unsubstantiated claim of why the word changed from its greek roots, I would love to see you prove that. Everyone knows you cannot.
links to the source material can be found on atheism.about.com as well as the books mentioned. You probably wouldn't see those though as they wouldn't be on any extremist christian sites.
I am done...last word is yours. Keep grasping straws!
You're still not understanding. My point is not that is has only recently been used, though I would still argue that. My point is this, as I already told you: who cares what some people think? If the majority of people do not think X means A, then it doesn't matter what X wants to be called, nor what Y wants to call X. It matters what the majority of the people want to call them, and that is atheism being a strong negation. I'm not denying that is a negation, but it not merely a lack of belief. It is a disbelief, which is a strong negation. You're missing this point.
"The Presumption Of Atheism" 1997
Antony Flew
"Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God'"
You see, what most people do when they argue that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god, they argue the alpha privative position, which is what I'm here showing to be not merely a lack but a strong negation. For example, G.W. Foote (from your post) does that, which is why he argues for your position; and it is wrong. But who cares what the truth of the word means or what it is desired to mean? We know what it has meant originally, and we know what it means now, as Flew says, and what the dictionary says. It is not merely a lack of belief, but it is a strong negation of disbelief.
Do not attack straw men, which this clearly was. I'll repeat again what my position is: there is no etymological basis to define atheism as the lack of belief merely, but it must be a strong negation, and there is no basis for it being used this way in modern/contemporary times, as the vast majority use it as a strong negation, making it dishonest to use it any other way.
So, you have three ways to not be considered dishonest: (1) always clarify by stimulative definition what you mean by "atheism", (2) attack the etymology, giving good reason to use it, despite common usage, or (3) prove that it is used mainly as merely a lack of belief. You have done neither 2 nor 3. Etymology is against you for 2. Dictionary definitions, common usage, Christian sites, the mere fact that there is always a debate on what atheism means, and philosophical sites go against you to point 3. You only have point 1 left. Take it, or attack the position. No straw men.
My point is not that is has only recently been used, ...
Moving goal posts now...this was one of your points. Dishonest move here.
who cares what some people think?...It matters what the majority of the people want to call them, and that is atheism being a strong negation...
It is and has been common use for a long time as the way I described, the majority feel this way you are just in denial. Your claim it is not is 5unsupported. I just showed this but still you persist with your style of debate that is equivalent to "nuh uh".
You have not proven your points but ask me to disprove them. Another dishonest move. Example, look at your number 3, I just shown that theologians dictionaries and free thinkers have agreed with me for far longer than other words you accept as common useage. This proves my point about your logic being inconsistent.
As for the strawman claim, you keep finding christians who claim most atheist are in the boat you say, but quote no atheists. That is pretty telling. You need to leave the citcle jerk and find real evidence and not made up ones.
You need to prove your claim to the contrary for your claim to be true, not ignore mine and say you are right. Your number 2 seems to agree it is in common use though. And as for number 1, my evidence already showed this.
You are sticking your fingers in your esrs and just saying "you are wrong I am right, you are dishonest lalalalalalala".
bwahaha, seriously I am done. As with debates on evolution when you are shown by any reasonable means you are wrong you will never admit your err and continue to name call as you look a poor fool. There is no reason to continue as you lack the ability to be even the slightest bit objective on these issues.
You showed a few people from the 1800s. Sure, it might have been prevalent then among intellectuals to say that atheism is "a lack of belief", but it is not so in modern times. But, who cares what certain people have thought at times in the past?
You are still attacking straw men. Who cares what the people have said in the past? Their reasoning for it, in the 1800s, was based in Greek language, though Greek language used it as a "dis-belief" not simply as a "lack of belief." They were wrong in their etymology, giving them no reasonable right to say it. Now, the question might arise: "who cares what their reasoning for it was? The majority did believe it." I say in response: who cares what they did believe? They had no reasonable right to believe it, and they might have in general believed atheism to be a lack of belief, sure. But that is irrelevant to how it is used now. I'm talking about in present times. You have one time period of history in which atheism was used by a few certain people, unjustified, to mean "a lack of belief." I have etymology and modern usage. You are still attacking straw men.
Can you attack the claim that we, in modern times, use it primarily as "a lack of belief"? No. You cannot.