rationalskepticism.org

THWOTH wrote:

romansh wrote:

THWOTH wrote:
I guess that's their business, but for those that don't identify as atheists, even though to all intents and purposes they are, there's no reason for them to forward a definition of atheism is there(?).

This assumes we have an agreed upon definition does it not?

Why/how does it assume we have an agreed upon definition? Is anyone in any real doubt what it means to be an atheist in either the explicit or casual sense? Seems to me the only people who try to muddy the waters here are the religious, their lackeys and lap-dogs.

If "we" agree that someone to all intents and purposes behaves like an "atheist", but does not self identify then it seems like we (on the outside) have an agreed upon concept of atheism.

It would seem in "The Case Against God", by George H Smith (1979) ... popularized the implicit definition. That is not to say this meaning was not in the general population's vocabulary, just that it had not reached a density to be included in dictionaries of that time.

That this was popularized by an atheist (implicit or explicit) and to blame the religious on maintaining the "old" meaning as muddying waters seems strange to me.

Again I don't particularly care which meaning we choose so long as it is clear. Atheists do make claims about the non-existence of god - just not all.