What is an atheist?

[Tempus]

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

[Faith No More]

But they are not an atheist any more than a rock or a pancake or a ceiling fan is an atheist.

A human being is an atheist if they have rejected the belief in god regardless of how much thought they have put into it.

This destroys the very basis of defining someone as an atheist- it makes it a property of inanimate objects.

False again. The basis of defining someone as an atheist is to represent their opinion on the existence of god. It is not a commentary on how they came to this opinon or how rational that opinion is. You are trying to put your own spin on the word atheist, which you previously said should not be done.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Now there is a difference between simply lacking belief in God versus rejecting belief in God.

In fact, rejecting belief in God is almost a necessary contradiction to your own definition of atheism, as one does not even need to think about the issue long enough to reject it in order to be an atheist.

This has to be cleared up, I think.

[Faith No More]

Yes, lack of belief in god is probably the better definition. When I was typing that out, I thought that the rejection of belief would solve the problem of inanimate objects being atheists, and it puts to rest the idea that we're all born atheists, which is not an argument I particularly care for. Lack of belief, however, is probably a more proper defintion. Regardless, either position, rejection or lack of belief, does not require rational or intellectual thought, correct?

This has to be cleared up, I think.

Good luck. It's nearly impossible to get a consensus among atheists on any subject.

[Red Celt]

As such, atheism has typically been a position on the existence of God.

Traditionally? No it hasn't. The Ancient Romans referred to the earliest Christians as atheists. To them it meant "disbelief in our god" (the emperor).

Do you wake up each morning and think "You know... today, I want to be more wrong than I was yesterday..." (switches on PC)?

[downbeatplumb]

Atheism is a reaction to theism.

If enough people believed in fairies and lived their life by 'a fairy code' then I would have to declare myself an 'afairyist'.

Without theism atheism wouldn't be a thing.

[Whateverist]

I don't like merely asserting definitions, or seeing people that like to merely assert their own definitions.

It is regrettable but completely common within the normal evolution of English usage. "Atheist" is the go-to word for lots of people with a variety of stances toward religious believe. It isn't even the only word whose usage is causing the problem.

What counts as a "belief"? Are we only talking about considered beliefs or are implicit beliefs also part of the discussion?

Whether and to what degree knowledge plays into it also varies. Some scarcely think about it epistemologically. For those of us who do, atheism as the presence or absence of belief in gods is really the only way we can discuss it at all.

At the heart of the problem is the murky definition of gods themselves. "Ignosticism" has been coined for those who are agnostic and would just as soon pass on the discussion of 'gods'.

Throw into the mix such descriptors as "divine" and "supernatural", and you have even more ways for us to diverge in what we mean by what we say.

So I disagree. When it comes to discussing atheism, the only hope is to pinpoint what you mean on a number of fronts .. and that won't be easy.

[IATIA]

[Whateverist]

If atheists are characterized by infants and toddlers, it will only harm the movement.

Oh geez, now we're a movement? No wonder we can't help talking past each other.