Can a potato be an atheist?

[Ben Davis]

I've recently heard various people attempt to redefine atheism. I'm personally not cool with that. The act of one person enforcing their definition of atheism onto others seems very authoritarian and religious in its style. And I don't like atheists who try to turn atheism into a religion.

Agreed

But there is this popular notion that atheism is "merely a lack of belief in Gods".

That's because this is the fundamental, superior, etymologically accurate definition of the word. There are/have been other 'common use' definitions but they've all been created by various religious groups in order to position atheism as an opposition to their religion.

This definition needs teasing apart. Is anybody, or anything that possesses this property an atheist? What about rocks and plants and trees? Surely this definition isn't enough. It must be limited to people who lack belief in God.

It's the use of the indefinite article ('an' atheist) which makes the difference. I've referred to this in the past as 'the atheism of a stone' problem. At it's fundamental definition, the indefinite article is unnecessary to the function of the term; anything which lacks theistic belief is 'atheist', even if the object to which the term is being applied is incapable of belief. The atheism of a stone.

However the indefinite article does have a purpose in describing that the object has the capability for belief. It provides additional meaning

But okay, so maybe we all decide it's better to limit it to human beings.

No, we just need to be accurate when describing how we're using the term. Let's remember that the claim is 'theism'. Where such a claim doesn't exist is 'atheism'.

But here too, we have some problems. Are infants atheists? And senile old women atheists simply by virtue of not having the capacity of remember or understand, let alone believe? What about people in a coma? Are they atheists?

Not problems at all, just conflation of the two meanings due to inaccurate application of the indefinite article. Ask yourself the question 'Is this object claiming theism?'. If the answer is no, they're atheist. That doesn't mean that they're 'an' atheist as you haven't yet got to the point where you'r describing the capability for belief, just whether or not theism is an attribute of the object. This definition undelines the 'default position'.

Earlier in our history, the definition of atheism was quite different. When atheists were intelligent...

Were? Were?? Poor choice of words there ;-)

...atheism was typically defined as "A denial of the existence of God".

Actually, that was the first recorded abuse of the definition of 'atheist'; believers in the greek gods of Olympus used the word to describe anyone who didn't believe in the Olympian pantheon, even if they had other theistic beliefs. The original definition of the word was the fundamental one.

You see, when people were so-called strong atheists...

What's all this use of the past tense?

...I think rationality didn't matter. Whether or not there was evidence for the belief didn't matter. What mattered was what they believed, and how they lived, and what they wanted. And they WANTED to live without this God-concept.

Irrelevant. Rationality or a lack of it is a different question to whether or not one's beliefs contain theism. To use modern examples, philosophical buddhists are atheists as are many paganisms and spiritual superstitionisms. Not all of those are rational positions by any means but they are atheist. It doesn't matter what you want, just what your attributes are.

I think that is the essence, the spirit of atheism. A desire to live without the intervention of God into our daily conscious lives. And whether or not God actually existed was irrelevant.

Bollocks. Total and utter misrepresentation. Now eho's trying to redefine the word (something with which you claimed to disagree)? Atheism is the lack of theism and that's all. The position on the existence of god/s is all that atheism is related to and the attempt to attach other beliefs to the position is disingenuous.

Think about it- would any of us really be surprised or shocked if it turned out that God existed?

I would. But that's because the Abrahamic god can't possibly exist. That's one deity where I'm antitheistic.

Would we weep and mourn and cry and beg for forgiveness and try to become Christians hoping God wouldn't notice?

No. Assuming for a moment that the Abrahimc god existed, I'd want him arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.

Of course not. We'd remain atheists.

Not at all, I'd become a theist. I'd have no choice but to believe something that's really there. I'd still oppose his dictatorship but I would believe.

So let's not kid ourselves that we're doing this for the evidence. I know I'm not.

Well, that's your choice but don't pretend to speak for me when you state it. We obviously hold very different values, regardless of the fact that we're atheists.