Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

-->@oromagi

So, when you made your topic read "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" you didn't mean simply at all.  You meant "Atheism is sometimes a lack of belief."

Atheism is ALWAYS "a lack of belief" which can sometimes be paired with "a strong DISbelief" (among other related and incidental beliefs).

Perhaps more precisely, "not a theist".

-->@oromagi

Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans

Complete nonsense, it does the exact opposite.

This is the result of a failure to understand the most basic elements of critical thinking; No claim should be accepted without valid evidence.

"God exists" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.

"No gods exist" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.

No valid evidence exists for either claim, therefore neither claim should be accepted.

The overwhelming majority of atheists understand this. If theists understood how this works we would increase communication, not decrease it.

Noun

atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)

1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
   
2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
   
3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
   
4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
   

Usage notes

The term atheism may refer either to:

• (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
  
• (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
  
• (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
  

(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible 

(THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself.

(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed 

(THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"

and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY

and also not "simply a lack of belief."

I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.

This, 3RU7AL conceded is already true under the current defintion, therefore no re-definition to "a lack of belief" is necessary or justified.

In fact, you've argued since the beginning that "lack of belief" should NOT be included in the dictionary definition.

And as it turns out, apparently, the lexicographers agree with me.

-->@oromagi

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.

The term "logical-coherence" has been mentioned more than a few times in the course of this discussion.

Deliberate deception.   I have defended the current definition of ATHEISM.  At no time have I suggested any modification.

Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.

You have repeatedly argued to EXCLUDE "lack of belief" (from the definition of "atheism") specifically saying it is, "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs."

-->@oromagi

Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.

Nobody has argued that words themselves should be removed.

Only that confusing and incoherent DEFINITIONS should be removed.

You yourself have made this argument.

The definition of "christian" as "one who professes belief in the teachings of jesus christ" is not a logically incoherent definition.

-->@oromagi

and also not "simply a lack of belief."

Everyone on earth (except you apparently) understands this is vis-à-vis "theism".

-->@oromagi

I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.

A ridiculous red-herring which I chose not to pursue.

I agreed with you, specifically I agreed with you that the dictionary sources I found ALREADY include "lack of belief".

That is not the same as "conceded".

-->@oromagi

• Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
  

Yes.

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.

I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.

-->@oromagi

Let's get something straight... The current definition of atheism is in fact, a lack of belief.

Google the damn word.  I just did, here are the results:

1st: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

Google (taken from Oxford)

2nd: "The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"

Miriam-Webster

3rd: "This generates the following definition: atheism is

Plato.Stanford.

4. atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

- Britannica

5. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Wikipedia

So four out of the first five definitions that pop up include lack of belief as the definition, and if you actually ask any atheist they will explain to you what the word means.

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.

Nor was I talking about it there. I was explaining why the  definition you advocate for does not work according to your own criteria.

You claim lack of belief will increase confusion,

but only those who already don't understand basic critical thinking are the ones who will be confused by it. That's not an increase of confusion, just moving the confusion to a new concept and one which they would all be better off understanding.

I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.

Your criteria was literally the same as his

• Y and Z are ideologically unsound and
  
• Y and Z are sufficiently similar to X to just be redefined as X
  

Why would I argue in favor of any change by specifically saying that change "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs"  Does that sound like an argument for modification to you?  

The definition of ATHEIST in the strictest sense is perfectly clear: "Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). " and Double_R is clearly arguing that the dictionary must be corrected for exclusively ideological reasons.

Simply "lack of belief" means something radically different than "lack of belief in gods or deities" or " disbelief or lack of belief in gods or deities."   

Look- you start by arguing A should only equal X when traditionally A=XYZ.

(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself

There's your conditional statement.

(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever,

especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"

and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY

Does miscommunication = logically incoherent?

Is this a joke?

it literally means the exact same fucking thing. 

Y and X both include a lack of belief, because it is logically impossible for one to believe in the non-existence of any dieties without lacking belief in the existence in any dieties. Therefore X is a subset of Y.

False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief,