Not sure why this needs explaining over and over to be honest, it is possible to be an atheist without holding any beliefs, newborn babies for example. This does not mean atheists don’t hold beliefs. Atheism however is not a belief, though atheists can and do have beliefs, and some of them hold the belief no deity exists, no one here has claimed to hold this belief, and the dictionary definition suggests this is true for the majority of atheists.
You’ve answered the question in the question? They hold a belief no deity exists and I do not.
Of course that’s because they are both atheists, so the definition that atheism is a lack or absence of belief encompasses both, the archaic definitions would exclude people who disbelieve in any deity but did not hold a believe that no deity exists, which is no doubt why the definition has evolved to be more accurate.
Yes you did I quoted you. You do know what the word cannot means right?
Right there, I have stated unequivocally that I have no belief in any deity, nor do I need to define any deity, so your claim is telling me my atheism cannot mean what I and the dictionary say it means.
Firstly it’s not “my preferred definition”, I don’t compile the dictionary, that is done through common usage; and no the dictionary definition obviously doesn’t exclude atheists who also hold a belief no deity exists, why would it since they would by definition lack belief in any deity?
I have never claimed this, in fact I stated precisely the opposite? That the dictionary definition would include all atheists, but the old definitions you are citing would not obviously. I and all the other atheists here would be excluded for a start. If someone believes there is no deity they would by definition also lack belief in any deity.
Not at all, if I lack belief in a deity, but don’t hold a belief no deity exists, then your archaic definitions would exclude me from being an atheist, and that is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Whereas the dictionary definition that atheism is the lack or absence of belief in a deity, would not exclude those who also held a belief no deity existed, why would it?
Sigh, that’s not a no true Scotsman fallacy, as I made no such claim, nor have I excluded anyone from defining themselves as atheist, by using the dictionary definition since it would apply to those who also held a belief no deity existed, not sure why you’re failing to understand that, is it deliberate? I even stated carefully more than once, that atheists are a subset of atheism, and might hold differing beliefs, but all fall into the category of atheism? You are the one insisting we use an archaic definition that excludes atheists, and even telling us we cannot define ourselves as having no belief in any deity, unless we express a belief no deity exists and or define a deity (which one one wonders?). Now that is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy, and a lame attempt to reverse the burden of proof from those making a claim, to those disbelieving that claim, the word clown was aimed at those using such idiotic and dishonest semantics, not at any atheists.
You do realise this correct assertion directly contradicts your previous ones right? Atheism is the lack of belief in any deity or deities, this then obviously would include atheists who also held a belief that no deity exists, why wouldn’t it?
Correct, since they are both atheists, and that is the definition of an atheist, and your question would impart this fact. Now paradoxically if you asked two people do you believe no deity exists, and one answered no and the other yes, you would be unclear using the archaic definition whether one of them was in fact an atheist. Hence the problem with using that archaic definition, and why common usage has now changed, where most people understand atheism to mean the lack or absence of belief in any deity. .