There is no agreement about the definition of atheism, not even in those who call themselves atheists.
Some authors say that atheism is denial of God. That is the most popular definition among non-atheists, and is often contrasted to agnosticism.
Others say that atheism is lack of belief in God, and that this lack of belief doesn't necessarily imply denial of the existence of God. This is the definition that is most used by internet atheists, and is used to effectively avoid the burden of the proof. These atheists say they don't have to prove the non existence of God. Those who claim that God exists are the ones obliged to prove that God exists, no the other way around. They elevate this to a general epistemological principle.
This definition of atheism as a lack of belief allows the atheist to appear neutral and ingenuous about the issue of God, without the need to call themselves "agnostics", label that is despised by atheists for being too weak.
In order to distinguish the definition of atheism as a lack of belief from atheism as as denial of God, some authors distinguish strong atheism from weak atheism. Strong atheism is outright denial of the existence of God, and weak atheism is merely lack of belief in God.
The adjective "weak" may be misleading. Weak atheism is thought to be a stronger epistemological position, technically unobjectable.
It is believed that the broad definition of atheism is not new, but is derived directly from its Greek etymology. The word "atheist" is derived from "atheos" which is directly translated as "no god" or "without god". Internet atheists say this means "without belief in god", although the Greek word doesn't include the word "belief".
Guthrie denounces this definition of atheism as historical revisionism. This definition of atheism would be a novel one, and its popularity among self-called atheists is due to internet diffusion.
But George Smith proves in this article that the definition of atheism as a lack of belief is not a new one, and was used by atheists authors even before the term agnosticism was coined.
Nevertheless, I suspect there is no big difference between the claim that God does not exist and the claim of "lack of belief" by a particular person, and this is because it's hard to remain neutral in the face of a sensitive and widely known topic like this one. This is what Matt Slick argues in this and this article, and I think he is correct. Therefore, weak atheism is reducible to strong atheism. Weak atheism is just a rhetorical device used to avoid the burden of the proof.
To complicate things even more, there's the issue of the definition of God: there are various definitions available, but most atheists use the definition of God of classical theism. It is at this definition that they direct their "lack of belief" and usually ignore other definitions or disdain them. Others refuse to give their definition of God. In this too they place the burden of proof in the believer, waiting for a particular believer to give his definition of God before they can smash it. This is the height of ideological escapism, for it makes atheism theoretically meaningless.
Some authors say that atheism is denial of God. That is the most popular definition among non-atheists, and is often contrasted to agnosticism.
Others say that atheism is lack of belief in God, and that this lack of belief doesn't necessarily imply denial of the existence of God. This is the definition that is most used by internet atheists, and is used to effectively avoid the burden of the proof. These atheists say they don't have to prove the non existence of God. Those who claim that God exists are the ones obliged to prove that God exists, no the other way around. They elevate this to a general epistemological principle.
This definition of atheism as a lack of belief allows the atheist to appear neutral and ingenuous about the issue of God, without the need to call themselves "agnostics", label that is despised by atheists for being too weak.
In order to distinguish the definition of atheism as a lack of belief from atheism as as denial of God, some authors distinguish strong atheism from weak atheism. Strong atheism is outright denial of the existence of God, and weak atheism is merely lack of belief in God.
The adjective "weak" may be misleading. Weak atheism is thought to be a stronger epistemological position, technically unobjectable.
It is believed that the broad definition of atheism is not new, but is derived directly from its Greek etymology. The word "atheist" is derived from "atheos" which is directly translated as "no god" or "without god". Internet atheists say this means "without belief in god", although the Greek word doesn't include the word "belief".
Guthrie denounces this definition of atheism as historical revisionism. This definition of atheism would be a novel one, and its popularity among self-called atheists is due to internet diffusion.
But George Smith proves in this article that the definition of atheism as a lack of belief is not a new one, and was used by atheists authors even before the term agnosticism was coined.
Nevertheless, I suspect there is no big difference between the claim that God does not exist and the claim of "lack of belief" by a particular person, and this is because it's hard to remain neutral in the face of a sensitive and widely known topic like this one. This is what Matt Slick argues in this and this article, and I think he is correct. Therefore, weak atheism is reducible to strong atheism. Weak atheism is just a rhetorical device used to avoid the burden of the proof.
To complicate things even more, there's the issue of the definition of God: there are various definitions available, but most atheists use the definition of God of classical theism. It is at this definition that they direct their "lack of belief" and usually ignore other definitions or disdain them. Others refuse to give their definition of God. In this too they place the burden of proof in the believer, waiting for a particular believer to give his definition of God before they can smash it. This is the height of ideological escapism, for it makes atheism theoretically meaningless.
Comments
I'm surely atheistic regarding all known Gods but that does not mean that I exclude the possibility of a form of existence that transcends ours. That's why I see death as the last big riddle :)
Finally death isn' the last big riddle. When your brain dies you go with it. Sorry. On the bright side there is no pain because you have no nerves in your brain.
But there are reports of near death experiences, and out of body experiences that suggests the existence of an afterlife. It seems that the materialistic conception of the mind is wrong.