This entire discussion also assumes that dictionaries are in some way authoritative on this subject, which is really a claim you have to demonstrate (since they wouldn't be considered such on other complex and difficult subjects) Anyway, this definition is also clearly a part of common usage in a variety of countries from the US and UK to Germany (which has similar terms like Starker and Schwacher to the strong and weak I'll discuss below), but it's a part of all academic discourse that I've encountered from the Cognitive Sciences (psychology, neuroscience, cognition, evo anth and so on), to philosophy, to the humanities. This is an excellent marker that the writer is mis- (or un-)informed.

The author studies philosophically professionally, specifically history of philosophy. Do you really believe that he is misrepresenting the way terms are used in his field and throughout history?

The mistake here is that the poster is assuming (without justifying) that only 'strong' ('positive', 'disbelief') is really atheism. That's not true. The point of those divisions, which are well established in academic philosophy and elsewhere, is to distinguish between different types of atheism. They're all atheism.

This is a fine example of begging the question. One of the largest critiques of the "new atheist" definition of atheism is that it includes agnostics in a movement often that does not share the same reasons for their distrust of religious systems.

A further nonsense idea about weak atheism referring to rocks. Obviously only conscious entities that are potentially capable of believing can be considered unbelievers. And whether or not rocks can be unbelievers is so, well, unbelievably irrelevant, that it shows nothing but a bald attempt to discredit the view.

I'm glad that you recognize that "rock atheism" is stupid. He was only trying to address a common argument made by many atheists trying to demonstrate how atheism is the "default" position.

It's so hamfisted that I can only assume that the writer knows nothing about etymology as a whole. Etymology is irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't think the writer believes that etymology is an appropriate defense either, but it's a common

What's wrong with the etymology anyway? I mean, it can't be more hamfisted than the a-theism approach often adopted online.

That's because first, the use of that in debate would be largely rhetorical, and secondly, atheism as unbelief at its core works exceptionally well as a reportive definition, which is why it's used in most academic discourse.

This argument is contingent on critique 1, which you have not thoroughly developed yet.

Imprecision of language.

Once again, you're begging the question. In fact, most critiques of the "new atheist" definition revolve around its lack of appropriate precision, the categorical errors made by lumping in various meta positions with strong atheism, and the easy possibility of abusing the various definitions of atheism in order to get the upper hand in religious debates.

Grouping together one position due to their lack of belief in God is somewhat arbitrary, since it artificially combines positions that are at odds with each other in order to frame the debate against theists. Why should agnosticism, a position which requires the lack of belief and lack of disbelief in God, be incorporated with strong atheism, a position which it contradicts? Frankly, I don't understand how incorporating agnosticism and other meta positions under atheism somehow provides for a better debate, which is not true. For starters, this would provide theism with an unequal burden of proof compared to atheism (unless atheism is specified as strong. It would also allow atheists to disingenuously believe strong atheism while resorting to defenses of weak atheism when questioned on their believes. Finally, it encourages the "degree of certainty" defense, which is also disingenuous because certainty isn't required for knowledge, yet so many people will refuse to defend their position, even if they believe it strongly, if they can somehow get away with "lack of certainty" in a display of faux-intellectual honesty.

On sum, most atheists do disbelieve. Well, the answer to that is simple.

If the movement consists of mostly strong atheists, then you don't need to incorporate weak atheists (agnostics), who lack belief in God for all of the aforementioned reasons provided (reasons that are usually quite different from strong atheists).

ronically, after their waxing rhetoric about precision, they go ahead and assume that atheism is rational, and fail to recognise that atheism says nothing about rationality per se, since there are many reasons to be atheist, and many forms of atheism.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Most of his argument was based around the notion that belief (or even knowledge) does not require absolute certainty, but rather the best argument. A lack of certainty does not absolve you from defending your argument

I really would like to see you rigorously address /u/wokeupabug's position in a rigorous format, especially regarding your assertion that the academic definitions of atheism are different, which you have failed to defend with any sort of citation.

Honestly, I think you've wasted your time, failing to address most of his arguments with any gusto and failing to refute the rest of his arguments with any sort of clarity or evidence. Honestly, this entire post reeks with a special kind of ignorance one could only gain by either being completely ignorant of online discussions and their philosophical implications, or being deliberately disingenuous in order to further promote a deliberately disingenuous definition.