Impressive, now go and google anti-theist and agnostic.

Who cares what Wikipedia says? Why should Wikipedia volunteers be expected to have any deeper understanding of atheism than the average man on the street?

Most people, including almost everybody on philosophy forums, blindly chant the memorized definition "atheism equals lack of belief in God" without bothering to ask where that lack of belief comes from, what is it built upon, what is it's source?

Atheism is no more merely a "lack of belief" in gods than theism is merely a "lack of belief" in Christopher Hitchens. — Jake

Wikipedia/atheism then goes on to say that in a very narrow sense, atheism means a positive claim that no Gods exist.

It is quite clear that atheism has a broad meaning, and a narrow meaning. The OP concerns the broadest meaning.

Wikipedia/atheism then goes on to say that in a very narrow sense, atheism means a positive claim that no Gods exist. — VoidDetector

Atheism is a positive claim that human reason is qualified to analyze questions the scale of god proposals, just as theism is typically a positive claim that some holy book is so qualified. Each party is referencing their preferred chosen authority, neither of which can be proven qualified for the task at hand.

What complicates the above is that while theists typically understand that they are operating from a faith based relationship in their chosen authority, atheists typically don't understand that they are in the same position. Usually the atheist's faith in their chosen authority is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take the qualifications of their chosen authority to be an obvious given which requires no inspection or challenge. And thus we see recurring misleading discussion themes such as religion = faith vs. atheism ≠ faith.

Given the number of ways that reason can indeed be very useful, such misunderstandings are understandable, especially given that within the forum realm they are typically being articulated by young people. Indeed, many very bright fully mature highly educated adults have fallen victim to the same misunderstandings. You know, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc are not stupid people. They're just not objective people, not fully loyal to their own chosen methodology, and thus have fallen victim to some of the very human failings that have often caused religious people to get sucked in to holy wars of various kinds.

Personally, I don't expect the typical scientist to have much of anything useful to contribute to such investigations, just as I don't expect Catholic clergy to uncover the secrets of the quantum realm etc.

Is this in contrast to Ancient Science, where belief in deities was common? Or else, when was science, modern or otherwise, ever concerned with deities?

Atheism is a positive claim that human reason is qualified to analyze questions the scale of god proposals, just as theism is typically a positive claim that some holy book is so qualified. Each party is referencing their preferred chosen authority, neither of which can be proven qualified for the task at hand. — Jake

Wikipedia/atheism states atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in Gods.

One doesn't require authority to lack belief in something, although one would perhaps require evidence to otherwise make positive claims. The broad definition of atheism is not a positive claim.

• Of course, you can define atheism to your personal liking, but that does not change the facts. Facts don't care about your feelings.

this definition from "American Atheist"

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods"

Can someone explain to be the difference between " a lack of belief in gods" and "an affirmative belief there is no god" - which they differentiate.

Theist - I propose there is a God
Atheist - I do not believe you
Theist - Then you believe there is no God
Atheist - I didn't say that - i said I don't believe there is a God
Theist - so you are saying you are not sure there is no God
Atheist - I didn't say that either
Theist - I am confused - Do you believe there is a God
Atheist - No
Theist - do you believer there is no God
Atheist - No
Theist - Are you undecided, un convinced of either of those answers
Atheist - No
Theist - I am confused

Google “Russels Teapot”. That will put you on the right track.

thanks and I agree the person making the assertion has the burden of proof. However I believe the statement " there is no God" is also a positive assertion, that also has a burden of proof. It seems the only case where this position seems problematic is when we speak of God. No one has any issue with it when making an assertion like there is no Santa Clause or Unicorns. They are happy to provide a reasoned argument that we have been looking for a long time and we have not seen either Santa Clause or unicorns, therefor I believe it is a reasonable belief that they do not exist. Where it is still impossible to state as a matter of absolute fact that neither Santa Clause or Unicorns do not exist.

To be clear - while i believe the agnostic position to be weak - I have no argument against the position of I know the theist arguments, and I am unconvinced. That is different than a positive belief that my belief that God exists in false, with a passive response that your counter position requires no support.

“There is no god” and “i lack belief in god” are not the same thing.
If someone claims god exists, the person who lacks belief is still is waiting on the burden of proof, starting with what god is. Once they do that they might say something like “there is no god” but it would have to be based on what was proffered. For example, if someones claims god exists and defines god as (in addition to whatever else) as a benign force of nature that protects all children from harm then the person might look at harm befalling children and say “i do not believe in god” on the basis that harm is befalling children and have a reasonable basis for doing so.
So thats the distinction between the two.

“There is no god” and “I lack belief in god” are not the same thing. — DingoJones

Actually, one is a statement of belief, the other a categorical assertion. The two are irreconcilable. Either can coexist with the other. The need for good definitions them comes to the front. Without them the discussion is a variety of nonsense.

...irreconcilable and they coexist?

“There is no god” and “i lack belief in god” are not the same thing. — DingoJones

From an internal perspective - how one identifies oneself based on what one believes to be true and what one does based on that truth belief - i see nothing but a semantic difference in the two statements.

Would one believe or act differently from one to the other ? I don't see how. Yet again, I am unconvinced that " i lack belief in god " is anything much more than a passive tense declaration of the more assertive " there is no God" - with the very beneficial purpose of some belief that it relieves the "non-believer" of any requirement to provide a reasoned argument why he chooses not to believe, something many other chose to believe.

Well, it is a sort of semantic game but I think it is the believer who makes it that way, by calling “disbelief” a belief. The goal is to create a false equivalence so the believer doesnt have to support their position. Then, in order to correct that fallicy the non believer is forced to get into the semantics.
I mean, it IS a passive tense version in some sense thats the point. (That you arent making an assertion or claim).
Also, I think its a similar error to say “chose/choose to disbelieve”. I dont know how one can do that and make it distinct from a delusion. Same with “choosing to believe”. You are either convinced or you arent, you dont really make a choice.
Im sympathetic to what you are saying, these sorts of arguments are tired. This is because people on both sides muddy the waters by misunderstanding these sorts of arguments. They regurgitate what they have heard other people on their side of the debate say, repeat the same arguments but do not really umderstand them. Ive had this exact same conversation with atheists who were actually using the argument!
For myself, there are other more convincing or interesting arguments to have than this one but it always seems like this one and some variation of “no one is certainof anything so I dont have to defend my belief”, which is another false equivalence and uninteresting imo

One doesn't require authority to lack belief in something, although one would perhaps require evidence to otherwise make positive claims. — VoidDetector

You're making a positive claim, you just don't realize that you are.

this definition from "American Atheist"

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods" — Rank Amateur

Rank, you can't rely on most atheists to explain atheism to you, as they don't understand it themselves. In 20 years of discussing this on a variety of atheist and philosophy websites I've rarely encountered an atheist who understands, and will admit, that they are making a positive claim which requires a defense, just like the theist positive claim. Like most theists, they are typically just repeating memorized phrases they've heard from others.

Well, it is a sort of semantic game but I think it is the believer who makes it that way, by calling “disbelief” a belief. The goal is to create a false equivalence so the believer doesnt have to support their position. — DingoJones

Belief in God is based on trust in the qualifications of some authority, typically a holy book.

Disbelief in God is based on trust in the qualifications of an authority too, typically human reason.

The qualifications of both of these authorities are reasonably challenged. That process is called "reason".

Insisting that the other fellow bears the burden of proving the qualifications of their chosen authority, but that we bear no burden of proving the qualifications of our chosen authority, is called "intellectual dishonesty". Such a process is not reason at all, but merely ideology....

.... the very thing which probably alienates you from religion.

Hilariously flawed, you are talking right out your ass.
First, you tell me im trusting an authority called reasoning and therefore my view is no more or less justified than the view of the one not based on reason but ancient books written by primitives and what is your basis for doing that? Reason!
Spectacular failure. Not to mention I just got through explaining exactly why your assertion here is wrong.
Cherry on the cake? You dont even know what intellectual dishonesty means!
Congratulations sir, you have the proud distinction of the single, most profoundly ignorant post I have ever bothered to respond to. What can I say, i had a good long laugh.
We are done here, you go ahead and have the last word.

Hilariously flawed, you are talking right out your ass.
First, you tell me im trusting an authority called reasoning and therefore my view is no more or less justified than the view of the one not based on reason but ancient books written by primitives and what is your basis for doing that? Reason!
Spectacular failure. Not to mention I just got through explaining exactly why your assertion here is wrong.
Cherry on the cake? You dont even know what intellectual dishonesty means!
Congratulations sir, you have the proud distinction of the single, most profoundly ignorant post I have ever bothered to respond to. What can I say, i had a good long laugh.
We are done here, you go ahead and have the last word. — DingoJones

Let me guess... You're 22, right?

Oh well, Rome wasn't built in a day. In your defense some very bright leading minds have spent their entire lives stumbling around in the confusion you are expressing.

without bothering to ask where that lack of belief comes from — Jake

The thing is that with respect to whether atheism obtains or not, where/how the lack of belief arrives is irrelevant.

One doesn't require authority to lack belief in something... — VoidDetector

You're right: authority is neither required nor relevant. Justification is a different matter. To discard a theory or idea requires exactly as much justification as accepting it. No more, no less. ... If you're working with logic and reason, that is.... :chin:

Agree completely - furthermore the entire reason for this semantic difference is purely tactical. Which is fine, if your objective is to win an argument - useless if your objective is some exchange of reasonable ideas in an honest search for a truth.

Google “Russels Teapot”. That will put you on the right track. — DingoJones

To the continued point, I have no hesitation at all in saying " There is no china teapot orbiting around the sun". With my limited understanding of the the make up of china tea pots, and the nature of the physical environments around the sun. I see no way that a china tea pot could be put in such an orbit, or survive in those conditions. For these reasons, I challenge the proposition that a small china tea pot is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, and assert my reasonable belief that "there is no china teapot orbiting around the sun"

I am however open to arguments for the existence of a china teapot being there, and if convincing, would be happy to admit my prior truth claim was in error.

Ok, so you are wanting atheists to have a similar position towards god as you do towards the teapot? To assert there isnt a god? Is that right?

my point is, it is an equal truth claim to believe something, anything, is or is not. And one should have a reasonable basis for such a belief. And further, one should be willing to share those reasons with others. Because it is through these exchanges of differing ideas that there is a hope it is a path to truth.

I disagree with your first sentence. Not believing in something is not a truth claim. This is what the teapot analogy illustrates. This is precisely the semantic game we discussed, not believing in something is the absence of a belief not a belief in something. A baby is in this state concerning all kinds of belief, what you are saying by not making the distinction is that as soon as the baby becomes aware of ANY claim no matter how preposterous or unsupported he becomes automatically bound by some sort of burden of proof for an absence of belief that hasnt changed at all since he was ignorant of it in the first place. This is a very poor way to go about it, and is not the way its done for any other beliefs as you yourself pointed out.
But I was actually hoping you would answer my question directly. You’ve obviously heard these explanations before and not been convinced. I doubt I can put it clearer than anyone else that understands it.
So, I was hoping to get a clear idea of where exactly you are coming from and where you stand.

yes - we will have to just disagree on this.

To answer your question directly - which I thought I had. I do believe " not believing in the existence of God is an active act. It is not that you are un-aware of the concept of God as in your baby example. I have all along made the assumptions you are aware of the concept of God, have heard the basis for these truth claims, and actively reject them, presumably for some reason. I think people in such a position, who feel a need to articulate this active disbelief to others, should be willing to defend this claim.

The purpose of the baby example was to illustrate what it means to not have a belief about something. I guess it was a bad example because it wasnt meant to make a comparison anout knowledge of god.
So lets forget about what I think about this and address your thinking in it.
You said “not believing in the existence of god is an active act”. Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? I'm not trying to trap you here but if you answer yes that seems problematic to me.

You said “not believing in the existence of god is an active act”. Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? — DingoJones

Yes - it is an act of thought to - be presented with a concept as a truth, understand the concept as presented, and then reject that concept as false. If you wish to express that belief that you hold that the concept is false to someone else - you should be willing to support that.

I have basically said the same thing now a few times - not sure how to say it differently.

We can just agree to disagree as you suggested if its getting frustrating. I was just trying to track your view here and started from the beginning, but I get not wanting to repeat yourself.

agree - have a good day