MissThundra86

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What purpose would it serve in modern philosophy? If it didn't appear 12th - 19th century European philosophy, that may have been because the Christian god was taken for granted - indeed, had to be taken for granted, because questioning his existence was subject to punishment ranging from social disapprobation to public execution. In the definition you cite, there is a nod to other religions (gods) that would not have occurred to a European philosopher in the 1700's - they were all more theologians than philosophers: their categorization of thought-systems was quite different from those of the ancient Greeks, their Asians counterparts and modern ethicists. The god(s) thing is an afterthought; none besides Jehovah and his two alter egos is seriously considered as objects of faith between 400AD and 1900AD.

How do you know this? And why is it relevant?

Is this accurate? I don't think philosophical reference books do stop at that skimpy definition. For instance, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy:

It goes on to explore seven main aspects of the question in detail. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has a short entry (by William Clifford) that reads, in part:

So he's expressly putting atheism in opposition to one other belief, and not in any larger context.  

 If theism is referred-to as a 'positive state', that reveals a fundamental bias - one that was prevalent in Eurocentric philosophy of the 19th and early 20th century. It places one single belief at the center of a world-view which is not further elaborated. But the seeds of dissent were present in the late 19th, and non-, as well as anti-religious thought surged in the second half of the 20th century. Euro-phil is liberated from the Christian doctrine by Bertrand Russell and his cohort, c 1930. 

One idea does not make a philosophy. A belief in gods, ghosts, Manifest Destiny, Justice, Fate, the Unity of all Things, dark matter or the Rules of Acquisition, is but one aspect of a world view, a basis for one's attitude to life, other life forms, the physical world, moral standards, social organization and the drafting of laws.
A conscientious philosopher would not regard either the lack of belief or the denial - even the vehement denial - of a single proposition as an end in itself, but proceed to explore the conceptual worlds to which that proposition logically gives rise.  Of course, in the past century and a half, quite a few philosophers have done so.

Do most of the people you know, in cyberspace or walking life, describe their own conviction about anything in academic terms? I suspect your internet atheists describe themselves that way, because they have, at some point, broken with a religious dogma, but not troubled to build an entire philosophy of their own, and the  'activists' are referring to a particular political issue, rather than a fully formed world-view. They're limiting their definition to a specific issue or context. 

There's a lot to unpack here but I think you missed the central points of my claims.

Technically (at least from a philosopher's point of view) to withhold or suspend belief for whatever reason does not make one an atheist (at least not under the standard definition). 
The problem statement is, Does God exist? Theism give a positive answer of yes.
The "a" in a-theism should be considered as a negation, so if theism is construed as the proposition that God does exist, then atheism is an answer to the question by stating that No, God(s) do not exist.
And if theism is to be broadened to a set of religious beliefs then atheism is more broadly a rejection of all forms of religious beliefs, regardless of their position about the divine
The answer "lack of belief" is just a claim about the state of mind of the person, not a claim about existence/inexistence of God. It is not an answer to the question itself.

With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

Hello guys,

So it turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

You can check
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy( one of the most cited encyclopedia of philosophy)

Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica

some commercial url

The oxford companion to philosophy

oxford dictionary of philosophy

Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy

Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (the only dictionary to include the none-standard definition in a positive light but it itself holds to the standard definition as it's preferred one)

and so on

And it's what noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used. 

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.