If atheists simply “lacked a belief in God” and that’s all, they wouldn’t be continually trying to explain the world by espousing supposed alternatives to God. Dawkins. Hawking. Hitchens, Harris etc.
Of course we would. Your problem is in not understanding that the lack of belief in god (atheism), and explanations for things that do not involve god (a natural consequence of trying to explain things while not accepting a god-based explanation), are two separate things. What you're doing is equivalent to me declaring that because you don't believe in fairies, that therefore your explanation for how pizza is made demonstrates you don't just simply lack a belief in fairies. It's true, of course, you don't "just" lack a belief in fairies... there's much more to you than that. However, the fact that you lack a belief in fairies has absolutely *nothing* to do with the fact that your explanation for how pizza is made doesn't involve fairies. The same applies to atheists and explanations for the world and things in it. These explanations are simply based on scientific evidence, observation, and functional models... things which lack the presence of a god because a god is not observed/in evidence/required for the model to function... and *not* because an atheist assumes god does not exist and therefore arrives at a godless conclusion.
The only that defines me explicitly as an atheist is the fact I don't believe in god. Atheism is not a worldview. However, as a person I do of course *have* a worldview. Because I'm an atheist, this worldview will naturally lack a god. But this does not mean that my worldview and my atheism are the same thing.
That simplistic representation of atheism leads to a very strange conclusion. Atheism is logically compatible with theism.
Incorrect. It *is* however the case that atheism is compatible with some forms of religion. Which actually isn't a strange conclusion at all and one that most atheists accept as perfectly valid. Certain forms of buddhism are atheistic in nature, for example.
If “lacking a belief in God” is the definition of atheism and not “there is no God” then atheism is true even if God really exists.
So what word should we use for “there is no God” if not atheism?
That does not establish atheism as logically compatible with theism. You're engaging in a category error by equating 'theism' with the hypothetical scenario 'god exists'. These are two different things. Theism is the *belief* in god(s), not the existence thereof. As such, atheism and theism can not be compatible with one another; they are definitional opposites. It *is* true that one could be an atheist even if god exists... but of course one can also be a theist even if god does not exist.
As for the term used for "there is no god"; that is commonly referred to as Strong Atheism. A basic explanation of terms appears in order here:
The
default form of atheism, sometimes referred to as
weak or
negative atheism, is defined simply as a lack of belief in god.
Strong atheism, also referred to as
positive or
hard atheism, is the explicit belief that god does not exist.
Weak atheism is the default position, the one that makes no claims, and the one that can be logically applied universally to all god claims. This is why most atheists would describe themselves as weak atheists on the issue of a god existing period; since it is always possible that some kind of god exists that the atheist simply can not logically dismiss. However, most atheists (as do in fact, most theists) hold to the strong atheist position in regards to *specific* gods. It is perfectly logically consistent to state that the christian god does not exist on the basis of numerous arguments (it falls apart under its own internal logic, it violates observed laws of reality, its holy text is in direct conflict with history and known science... etc etc), while holding the weak atheist position on the concept of *some* kind of god existing.
Theists like yourself are, of course, also hard atheists. As a christian you reject the existence of all other gods but your own, making you a hard atheist about all gods except that one. The only difference between you and us is that we simply believe in one fewer god than you do.
Precisely. But this does not render them material. Their existence counters materialism.
No, it doesn't. Materialism/physicalism doesn't imply that abstract concepts can not exist. Furthermore, they're not immaterial; since these abstract concepts/entities exist only as patterns of energy in the brain (and energy is physical in nature).
You have yet to provide any rationale the renders the immaterial entities of the laws of logic to be material.
The laws of logic aren't actually "entities". They're simply explanations we have come up with (thus being patterns of energy, which are physical, in our brain) to try and better understand reality. You're engaging in another category error by assigning them some sort of existence that is separate from our minds.
Nothing is awesome.
but yet I still don’t believe in God, then what am I? Am I still an atheist anyway or have I been forced into being a theist regardless that I don’t believe in (or lack the belief that there is a) God?
