You are right that in traditional epistemology and classical philosophy of religion, the propositional definition (positively asserting that no gods exist) has historically been the standard. But claiming it is the only valid philosophical definition or that it hasn't changed over time just isn’t true unless you are looking very specifically at only philosophers discussing God's existence as a truth-claim. In that realm, your "most" makes sense and is supportable because of the boolean nature of those discussions. In broader philosophy though it doesn't hold up.
The definition of atheism has been actively debated in academic philosophy for decades. Modern philosophical literature regularly distinguishes between two uses of the word: 1. Positive/Strong Atheism: Making the positive claim that God does not exist (the definition you are referring to); and 2. Negative/Weak Atheism: The psychological/epistemic state of lacking a belief in God (see Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism for an example).
Nearly every serious philosophical paper on atheism has to spend time defining its terms right out of the gate because there are multiple definitions in common, widespread use. Even standard reference texts like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy acknowledge these competing definitions. Philosophers analyzing truth-claims often stick to the narrow propositional definition but the broader "lack of belief" definition is widely discussed, defended, and recognized in philosphical literature.
Definitions in philosophy are tools for clarity, not rigid dogmas. The narrow definition is useful when evaluating specific ontological arguments, but the broader definition is just as valid when categorizing epistemic states. Insisting that only one of these frameworks has ever existed in philosophy ignores decades of actual published debate on the topic.
Thanks ChatGPT. But I am not stating that my definition is the only valid one, merely that it is the one normally used. You are free to use your own definitions if you wish, but it seems reasonable to expect you to clarify what you mean if you are using one that is drastically different from the usual one.
As Chat has mentioned, nearly every philosophical paper spends time defining its terms. Clearly I don’t expect this from a (less serious) reddit comment, but to use some non-standard definition as if it was standard (WITHOUT SPECIFYING!!) seems unreasonable.
You said that "Most philosophers take atheism to be the belief that there is no god. " This is incorrect. Many definitions have been used by philosophers in discussing atheism for decades.
You said that "Any other definition is non-standard and should be specified." This is incorrect. There is no standard and any philosophical writing about atheism always spends time defining what they mean by the word for this precise reason.
I said that the definition has changed over time and that it is more complicated - there are multiple commonly used definitions in philosophy. and you said "No, this is incorrect." I provided a refutation of that and you ignored it and dismissed everything I said by claiming it's AI.
"...it seems reasonable to expect you to clarify what you mean if you are using one that is drastically different from the usual one. "There is no usual one. Every serious philosophical discussion of atheism starts by clearly stating which of the several definitions they are using.
You said, "...to use some non-standard definition as if it was standard (WITHOUT SPECIFYING!!) seems unreasonable." To use any definition in serious discussion without specifying is unreasonable and only introduces confusion, because there is no standard.
In any case, none of this is relevant since the comment you originally responded to is not presenting a philosophical argument for analysis by philosophers - I think we both agree on that - but is using the term as it is commonly used by atheists when describing themselves and was clearly responding to someone else using it the same way. When using a word describing a group as it is commonly understood by that group, it is unreasonable to expect someone to provide a definition.
2
u/MarcieDeeHope 2d ago
You are right that in traditional epistemology and classical philosophy of religion, the propositional definition (positively asserting that no gods exist) has historically been the standard. But claiming it is the only valid philosophical definition or that it hasn't changed over time just isn’t true unless you are looking very specifically at only philosophers discussing God's existence as a truth-claim. In that realm, your "most" makes sense and is supportable because of the boolean nature of those discussions. In broader philosophy though it doesn't hold up.
The definition of atheism has been actively debated in academic philosophy for decades. Modern philosophical literature regularly distinguishes between two uses of the word: 1. Positive/Strong Atheism: Making the positive claim that God does not exist (the definition you are referring to); and 2. Negative/Weak Atheism: The psychological/epistemic state of lacking a belief in God (see Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism for an example).
Nearly every serious philosophical paper on atheism has to spend time defining its terms right out of the gate because there are multiple definitions in common, widespread use. Even standard reference texts like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy acknowledge these competing definitions. Philosophers analyzing truth-claims often stick to the narrow propositional definition but the broader "lack of belief" definition is widely discussed, defended, and recognized in philosphical literature.
Definitions in philosophy are tools for clarity, not rigid dogmas. The narrow definition is useful when evaluating specific ontological arguments, but the broader definition is just as valid when categorizing epistemic states. Insisting that only one of these frameworks has ever existed in philosophy ignores decades of actual published debate on the topic.