True Definition of Atheism

[LoneMateria]

However, it's much easier to argue against theism if one doesn't have to at the same time defend a position for which there is not much more evidence than your opponent's. And as I explain below, I don't fully qualify for the strong atheist position. lol thats because in conversation (at least this holds true in the conversations I've had) when you start to back a theist in a corner trying to shift the burden of proof is often a defensive tactic they use to get out of it.

As far as I can tell from the rest of your post we are in agreement ^_^.  Were you just playing theist's advocate?

I just want to comment on the comment you made that both definitions don't define atheists well.  Thats part of the reason why I stick to the contemporary definition.  Since atheists vary so much everywhere I tend to stick to the lack of belief the most general of the two.  Within that category you have people who deny the existence of the being, people who never heard of religion, people who believe in other patently insane things just not a god but all go by the title of atheist.  The thing is I don't want to fall into the no true Scotsman fallacy.  Like Christians who say someone isn't a true Christian I don't want to be an atheist who says someone isn't a true atheist because they didn't hold value x or they didn't have belief y.  Atheists have tried to separate themselves into better, more defined categories such as brights.  It's just not that successful and you start walking toward the no true Scotsman fallacy.


(Edited to repair quote tags. -- R