But that's not my definition. I didn't make it. It's the definition for atheists /atheism. 

Your academic paper is a complete different issue. Here is the thing. Atheists is usually applied to humans with a more complex thought process and awareness of its environment. Animals, plants and human babies don't belong in them, because they don't understand the question nor the concept. So, you won't get an answer out of them, ever. And thus, actually no one really cares.

But as the definition of atheism /atheist currently is, it can be also applied to them. Simply, because they all lack the believe in any god. That's it. They fit the definition.

If you really want to write an academic paper then of course you start with the history of the word, the change of meaning / definitions, genetic fallacies, requirements and so on. And if I logically follow it, you will reach the moment where you test the definition on babies and pigs. But if the conclusion is: " Babies and pigs don't actively believe in any god. This also applies to a lot of adults. But one are called atheists and the others nothing while both apply to the same definition", then this results in special pleading. 

A baby can't be a monotheists as much as they can't be a president (Despite Trump proves it otherwise). But they can be (not a theist) and (not a president.) Whereas for this first we got the word atheist which equals to (not a theist).

Also, the atheistic default position is a counter argument to apologist who claim that babies are theists.  

Did you just messed up the quote? Are you answering for Zoombael? 

I understand that based on the definition you are using, babies fit.  But, I'd say that makes it a bad definition.

There is not an official definition for atheist.  The definition is whatever we (we meaning the people who are using the term) agree on.  That's why the definition changes over the year as you mentioned.  We notice "hey this definition doesn't quite capture what we mean" and then they propose a different one.  That's what I'm doing.  

That being said, it's not like I'm making up a new definition.  From Merriam Webster:  "one who subscribes to or advocates atheism". I don't think this one is perfect either, but I'd say it's much better at getting to what we really mean.

You said that when we are talking about atheists, what we are actually interested in is humans with complex thought processes that can evaluate the question, and no one cares about babies.  So then, wouldn't it be better to have a definition that includes only humans with complex thought processes, and excludes babies?  Isn't a definition that applies to what we actually care about better than one that includes things we don't actually care about?

As for it being a counter to theists, it's not really a good one.  I think that claiming babies for either group is just leaning into their method of thought.  You could say they're not theists, which is different from saying they're atheists.  I prefer Dawkin's counter-argument.  To paraphrase it's something like "There is no such thing as a Muslim child or a Christian child.  There are only children born to Muslim or Christian families."  I think this is a much better response.  I think "child born to a Christian family" is a much more apt label than atheist, and it also subtly conveys the idea of indoctrination.

No, he messed up the quote.

(...)

HIV Negative and HIV positive are direct negations of one another. (Also, those terms are adjectives and not nouns and so they skirt the issue altogether since we always have to attach them to something specific).  However, atheist is not a direct negation of theist.  Everything that exists either has to be a theist or not a theist. This is a law of logic called the law of the excluded middle.

(...)

"I think that claiming babies for either group is just leaning into their method of thought.  You could say they're not theists, which is different from saying they're atheists." 

I have the feeling that you have rather an issue with the label atheist itself. Calling babies atheists or not doesn't change for the fact that they don't believe in any deity. You trying to exclude babies for the simple fact that you don't like to call them atheist, because they have no option of choosing one over the other. But that's just how it is. Same as not believing in anything else out there. Because we don't have a label for everything doesn't mean it won't apply on them because they are babies. Hence, we call them babies and not not adults. What does adult mean anyway? Not everyone who reaches the age of an adult behaves like one. As if there is a standard on how an adult has to behave. 

This is pure semantics, and I don't wanna go deeper. I can also call them HIV negative unless they are HIV positiv. Or if you want to, not HIV positive. 

Just get over it. I'm done here. 

In this case, I actually was kind of hoping someone would chime in.  I thought I was being fairly clear but since two people misunderstood me in the exact same way, I had to wonder.  You're allowed one more crack about the future Super Bowl champion New York Jets and future Hall of Famer Sam Darnold. 

You're actually really close to getting my point with the last thing you said.  Although, you're a little off.

HIV Negative and HIV positive are direct negations of one another. (Also, those terms are adjectives and not nouns and so they skirt the issue altogether since we always have to attach them to something specific).  However, atheist is not a direct negation of theist.  Everything that exists either has to be a theist or not a theist. This is a law of logic called the law of the excluded middle.

 However, there are things that belong to that category not a theist (a sandwich for instance) that don't fall into the category of atheist. So "not a theist" and "atheist" are not the same thing.   Your definition of atheist seems to be the same as not a theist, and that's what I object to.   

Is it nitpicky?  Well yeah. But I kind of like being nitpicky. I'm interested in semantics and the intricacies of language.  I'm an English major with a heavy interest in logic.  I also quite like debate.  I find conversations on topics like this interesting. If you're not and don't, then by all means don't participate in a conversation about semantics.  But I don't appreciate you saying things like "get over it" or implying I have a problem with the label atheist.  It implies I'm being unreasonable or wrong, and I don't believe I am. Saying your not interested in semantics just means you're not interested in semantics.  It doesn't mean my argument about semantics (which is pretty well supported imho) is wrong.

You have presented a definition of atheist.  So have I.  Both can be found in legitimate sources.  We can choose to use either one.  I believe mine is a better definition.  I have explained why that is.  You have simply insisted that your definition is *the* definition, without explaining why it is more useful.  Despite acknowledging that it can apply to things you don't care about when you're talking about atheists.

So it's a simple question.  We have two choices of definitions.  Why is yours better?  This is the question I've been trying to get an answer to.

The Jets have the second highest point differential in the NFL, which clearly proves they are the second best team.  Checkmate.

But, on topic, the considerations of babies and stuff can't necessarily be shelved.  Once we agree that atheist does not mean "not a theist", we have to decide how we should define atheist.  We can define it in such a way that would include such things.  I'm arguing that we shouldn't, because that's not really what we mean when we're talking about atheists.

What's the definition of "not a theist"?

What's the definition of "atheist"?

The definition of not a theist is not a theist.  I don't know how to define it more clearly than that unless I'm given a definition of theist.

If we define theist as a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, then "not a theist" is literally everything that does not fit that definition.  A bean bag chair, a light bulb, a pig, a baby, a guitar, a star, a taco, a fabric swatch, a worm, my left foot, the instruction manual for Wario Ware, etc.  

Atheist is not a direct logical negation, so it doesn't have such a clear cut definition.  Atheist is a label that we are using to define a group.  It's up to us to create the label in such a way that it describes the group we want it to describe.

I would say a good definition for atheist would be "one who holds the position of atheism".  I would define atheism as "The position that the proposition "a god or gods exist" has not been demonstrated to be true."  This definition would I believe include everyone we mean to talk about when we talk about atheism, and would exclude everyone we don't.  For example, you acknowledged that we do not really care about babies when we're discussing atheism.  So, this definition would exclude them. 

I think this is a pretty good definition that accurately conveys what we mean to talk about when talking about when we use the term atheist.  Do you have a definition that you feel better conveys what we mean?  If so, what is that definition and why?

I would basically agree with that.

The only quibble I would have is whether we should say "has a grasp of the concept of god(s), or "has the capability to grasp the concept of gods".  

Like, if there was a person in some remote culture that truly has no concept of god, I don't know if I would classify them as an atheist or not.  Although, I'm not sure a culture like that exists, so it may be a pointless distinction.  But yeah, otherwise, I'd agree with that.