How on earth has the The Royal Institute of Philosophy got itself involved in this drivel? I actually feel a bit sorry for the author – he (presumably) has a hard-won reputation as an engineer yet he’s made himself look a complete plum by straying so cluelessly into (supposed) philosophy. Perhaps if he didn’t assume his premise a priori by trying to argue that “atheism should be better used as the propositional denial of God” and rather started with atheism actually being the refutation of the arguments attempted for “god(s)” he’d at least be on firmer opening ground. As the old Irish joke has it: (motorist stops to ask a local for directions) – “Excuse me, how do I get to Limerick please?”; “Well sir, I wouldn’t start from here if I was you…”.
This is the bit from the article I like the best:
In his concluding paragraph he makes the following assertion:
'Nonetheless, all the major dictionaries quoted above have used ‘atheism’ to mean the
denial of God’s existence.' (my emphasis).
Helpfully in an appendix he quotes the dictionary definitions he has used in his article (actually only three) which are as follows (direct words from his appendix).
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MWD)
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God
Cambridge Dictionary (CD)
someone who believes that God does not exist
So only one of the three uses the word 'denies', and even then in an either/or context - yet according to the ex chemical engineer - 'all the major dictionaries quoted above have used ‘atheism’ to mean the
denial of God’s existence'.
