How to tell if someone is an atheist.

One of the most ridiculous and yet still most frequent argument between atheism and theism is the definition of atheism itself. It is sad that not only some theist don't understand what it means but even other atheist get confused. This happens for different reasons for each group. For the theist (especially if they are fundamentalist christian), want to shift the burden of proof on the atheist. That some how the atheist is making a claim that is equivalent to theism is making. For atheist, it just really over whether or not babies count as atheist.

The theist tries to define atheism as "the denial of god(s) existence" or "the belief that there is no god(s)". The first one is extremely dishonest because it does not give the benefit of the doubt to the atheist. They have to believe in god. It just that they are denial about it. If you said that you believed in god, it is no problem for me to accept that but if I said I don't believe in god, then I am a liar.  Then some theist wonder why they get disrespected so much... The second definition makes a false dichotomy between believing that god is possible and believing that god is impossible.  While believing god is impossible is one way to be an atheist (namely strong atheism), it is not the only way nor it is the way that describes the majority of atheists.

Now most atheist define atheism as "the lack of belief in a god." While this is close it is still vague enough to cause some misunderstandings. What does it mean to "lack a belief"?  This leads to the idea that this can encompass inanimate objects. Thus making the definition silly. Can an object have a belief? No. So it "lacks a belief." The problem is similar to babies because the lack the ability to understand what it is to believe.

This brings me to my definition. A theist is "one who affirms the existence of a god" and an atheist is "one who does not affirm the existence of a god". On the surface this may still seem to have the same problems, however, this implies that one must have the potential to affirm something in the first place. This prevents inanimate objects from being categorized in this way but still allows for babies to be atheist. If babies are going to be atheist, then they are only implicitly and not explicitly like myself. This is why we don't talk about babies being atheist or apolitical or any other a-word. They do not do so with any conscious forethought.

The strength of my definition is that it can encompass both implicit and explicit atheism as well as both strong and weak atheism. Thus resolving all conflicts, and making the definition both meaningful and accurate.