None of them have the words "deny", "denial" or "denier". I have not claimed they do. Grow up.
But that is the whole point isn't it - you are changing your tune because the whole point of this discussion was over the terms deny, denial or denier, which you claimed to be part of an accepted definition of atheism and I said weren't. And I think I have been proved right on that one, don't you.
This is one of the most bizarre discussions I have ever taken part in.
Yes, the actual
words "deny", "denial" and "denier" are not in any of the four definitions you quoted from different dictionaries. Are we not discussing the
meaning of the words "atheism" and "atheist" though? Let me repeat yet again that, yes, some of the definitions are that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods/God. However, some, e.g. the Chambers definition of "atheist", i.e. "atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')" and the Mirriam Webster one, i.e. "one who believes that there is no deity" are of what would be termed "strong atheism". They go beyond the meaning that most on this board would use both of themselves and of atheists in general.
Please note that I did not write either the Chambers or the Mirriam Webster definitions. I am not trying to redefine anything, as has been claimed, I am just pointing out that there are two significantly different meanings of the term "atheist."
As for the term "deny", yes, it is a bit of a loaded term. As I said in a post above, the OED definition of "deny" is "State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of:" Particularly, the term "in denial" implies someone is refusing to acknowledge a statement or belief generally accepted to be correct. However, the definition of "deny" itself is more ambiguous. It does not state whether the person doing the denying is correct to "refuse to admit the truth or existence of" whatever. If the use of the word "deny" is the stumbling block, then let's just go for the definitions as you quoted,
including the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones. As I have said several times before, all we need to do is clarify what is meant when we use the term "atheist" or "atheism" if the ambiguity of the term could cause confusion. Thus if the discussion were
Mad theist: "Atheists really believe in God."
Non-mad person: "No, atheists do not believe in God."
No need to disambiguate there. However, if someone writes
Asserter: "Atheism does not entail a belief."
then that is ambiguous. All the asserter needs to do is write
Asserter: "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism does not entail a belief."
It really is that simple, folks.
Are you arguing that the Stanford article-writer thinks that God does exist and that an atheist is someone who states that they refuse to admit the truth of the existence of God (as the article-writer sees it)?
I have no idea what the author of that article believes, and of course nor do you. That isn't the point - the point being that he isn't engaged in the business of lexicography, i.e. defining words so his beliefs and how he might define atheism in a non standard and not broadly accepted manner is irrelevant to the discussion.
See above. I am happy to stick to the dictionary definitions if that will help us conclude this discussion before the next general election.
