What is the definition of atheism?

Atheism definition ; “Atheism” is defined in two ways- “lack-theism” or “disbelief in God.”^[1]Even babies or rocks lacks theism so therefore are they atheists? Even if we grant that it is only applicable when it comes to those entities who can think. We still have 2 problems for example (if the person believes in God 50-50 that’s not atheism or 48-42 that’s not atheism either)^[2]Even if we grant that it is only applicable when it comes to those entities who can think. We still have 2 problems for you might not get any metaphysical answers. On the contrary, if you accept “disbelief in God” then that entails the fact that you are subscribing to “there is no God” and you have proof for that.

But one can say that he could define atheism however he wants but there is a problem. Philosopher Michael Huemer articulated this issue in his book beautifully.^[3]Contemporary scholars do not take lack-theism definition.

He said that one cannot define things in his own terms and if he does he/she face some really good problems:

1. This causes confusion for other people who are familiar with the ordinary English use of the word.

2. Ordinary usage usually serves important functions. Human beings, over the millennia, have found certain ways of grouping and distinguishing objects (that is, certain conceptual schemes) to be useful and interesting. These useful conceptual schemes are embodied in our language.

3. It is actually almost impossible to escape from the conceptual scheme that you’ve learned from your linguistic community. If you use a common word, such as “know”, it is almost impossible to not be influenced in your thoughts by the actual usage of that word in your speech community. People who try to come up with new concepts usually just confuse themselves; they sometimes use the word in the new way they invented, but then slip back into using it in the normal way that others in their speech community use it.^[4]The definition of agnosticism and atheism collapses.

So as you can see one can face many problems if they try to define terms in their own way. If you take the definition of “lack theism” then some other problems arises-

1. Even babies or rocks lacks theism so therefore are they atheists?
2. Even if we grant that it is only applicable when it comes to those entities who can think. We still have 2 problems for example (if the person believes in God 50-50 that’s not atheism or 48-42 that’s not atheism either)
3. Contemporary scholars do not take lack-theism definition.
4. The definition of agnosticism and atheism collapses.
5. Doesn’t solve the metaphysical problem of whether God exists or not. ^[5]Doesn’t solve the metaphysical problem of whether God exists or not.

Even atheist philosophers define atheism as ontological proposition. William L. Rowe (also an atheist) writes, “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief” [6]

So if you are supporting “lack-theism” then good luck buddy. Academics will not give any value.

Faith and Theology (faith-and-theology.com)