Hi Michael,
I'm don't think that is quite right. Here's a post I made a couple of years ago in a thread called [post=1168116]Weak Atheism. What a joke.[/post].
---
Etymologically:
"atheism" is derived from "atheos".
"atheos" means "without gods" or "godless".
"-ism", in this context, means "belief".
So "Atheism" strictly means a
belief in something - a
godless belief.
It's atheos-ism, rather than a-theism.
EvilBible.com:
...some atheists on the Internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.
...
A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.
These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.
In practice, there are
some people who self-identify as "atheists", but claim only a lack of theism, rather than a belief in atheos. So it's a bit murky.
But, saying that babies are atheists is not correct, and smacks of militant anti-theism.
Not that it really matters, of course. Attaching labels to people doesn't change their belief, or lack of it. Rather than worrying about what
label to attach to yourself or someone else, it's more productive to consider their actual point of view, free of labels.
