Clearly, your above definition of atheism is so broad and loosely outlined that babies and butterflies and elephants and lions and rhinos can fit right into it!
Of course it does, it fits to a T! non of them have belief in god, thus atheists!
I understand that you're a uniter NOT a divider; and I do appreciate your strategy of forming a united front of non-theists against all theists. But this very loose definition just doesn't hold water.
It holds water, as long as non of those species you mentioned do not believe in god. The only species to think of god, is the consciousness of human brain, if one does not accept the belief of god, one is an atheist, if one doesn't know the god of Christianity or any monotheist god, or rejects the notion of their existence then one is an atheist. There's nothing broad about it, just like Sarkus mentions above!
For any person to be qualified as an atheist, he/she must be legally competent and capable of making legally binding decisions. He/she, also, must be a competent thinker and able to accept and reject ideas & hypotheses for good reasons.
True, and the main reason is lack of evidence.
An adequate definition of atheism, therefore, must reflect these basic requirements.
Not necessarily, atheism means without religion. Thus if a person denies any kind of religion, monotheists or polytheistic that person is considered atheist. On the other hand if that person knows of no god, or has no knowledge of any kind of god for whatever religion, or is completely unaware of cultural beliefs in religion of a region that person is said to be atheist. If a person is born with out a consciousness, lass a human vegetable, that person is an atheist, when a baby is born, his immature mind can't comprehend belief or is unaware of religious beliefs, he/she by default is an atheist. Thus atheism is simply (with out religion)
As you pointed out in your comment, theists cannot come up with any empirical evidence to support their hypothesis that 'all-powerful God does exist'. But what is exactly the empirical evidence that you're looking for, in this particular case? Can you specify it?
Sure it would only take a supernatural phenomenon that every one in the planet, with a consciousness and a reasonable mind can perceive the phenomenon. And even then, you'll have the doubters. But hey If I win the 500million$$ Lotto without buying a ticket, I'll believe!
However, even if the challenged theists, as expected, fail to provide you with the empirical evidence you're asking for, their failure will not falsify their hypothesis.
They have had 3 millenniums by now you figured they would have worked it out. There is 1000's of gods, 33000 sects of Christianity alone, thousands of religions, most in conflict, the "hypothesis" has brought nothing more then human damnation and despair, stagnation to human advancement in many fields, truly religion has been nothing more, then an attempt at manipulating the masses.
In my view, empirical evidence belongs exclusively to natural sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, geology…etc.) and plays no role whatsoever in theology, philosophy, logic, and mathematics. Nonetheless, it's a very wonderful 'catchy phrase' to throw on the bewildered and the confused theists in this Scientific Age; right?
Then theology must by default quit trying to explain the origin of the universe, life, and trying to dictate their moral code on the rest of us!
The burden of disproof, therefore, is on the challenging atheists
That is a canard. A claim always has to be proven by the one making the claim, not the other way around. Atheists simply deny claims made by theists, thus the burden of proof, is on their shoulders. Which brings us back to the point of "weak atheism" thus since I can't provide you with the evidence of what god is, or if it exists or not, then by default I don't claim "god does not exist" I simply claim I don't believe a god exists on the evidence or lack there of shown by theists.
With regard to your remark on communism, I agree with you that it's a kind of religion. There can be no doubt about it. And this presents us with a formidable PROBLEM. That is to say, we can get rid of religion, but we can't get rid of religious feelings and attitudes.
No humanity just needs to further evolve, some of us already have!
I'll refer you to a book on a theory of consciousness and how it evolved, from a primitive mind "bicameral" to a conscious mind.
http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php
Mind you it's controversial theory, but non the less worth the time to read it.
Every past event, in this regard, indicates that the energy of religious emotions, in every society, is physically conserved, so to speak. And this emotional energy, simply, transfers itself to another similar belief system (ideology) upon the successful demolition of a particular religious system.
It's that "demolition" of different sects of beliefs by other theological sects which brought me to atheism in a way. After reading the so many atrocities done in the name of god, I started to disbelief in such religious rhetoric. After learning more, and growing more, I realized that religion has been nothing more then a tool to manipulate a society, an ideology of competing clans over control of the masses, and still to this day, we continue, to try and force one ideology upon another.
So what do you think, godless? Are you going to put up with the Christians whose ideology you know very well, or to take the risk of confronting another ideological system completely unknown to you? You, probably, will shrug and dismiss this observation of history as unfounded; but that is okay; you don't have to make your pick right now; since your fellow Christians are still very strong.
I think, that if our human society had chosen another path, and by the time of Jesus birth, airplanes were flying between continents, he would have been locked up as a lunatic. If humanity would have rejected mysticism of Plato and embraced objectivism of Aristotle we would be 2000 years more advanced today then we are now. However we are at a threshold. Its called the "nuclear threshold". As a human society if we continue on the same path, we will have to make that choice, to survive as a human species or to embrace mysticism or reason!
