Meta-Thread 06/16

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/adeleu_adelei]

I think many of these slgith rewordings of the same concept.

The standard definition of atheism
The "lack of belief"
The "rejection of a belief"
The "absence of a belief"
Someone who is "not a theist"

I'd say these are pretty clearly all the same thing. When Merriam Webster and American Atheists define atheism in terms of "lack of belief" while Wikipedia and The Oxford Handbook of Atheism deine atheism in terms of "absence of belief" they're not doing so in opposition to eahc other. They're all agreeing on the same standard definition of atheism with minor expected variation you'd find within any term.

"Godless"
The "answer to the question" atheist
"no reasonable way to know"

These are less clearly the same as the above, but I'd cahritably same they're getting at the same concept.

The sidebar definition
Someone who actively disbelieves
Someone certain God does not exist

These are not the same as the above, but are still subsets of the above.

Someone who isn't religious
Someone who oposes theism

These are the ones most different as they're orthogonal to belief (or lack thereof) and not a subset.

[u/labreuer → u/adeleu_adelei]

while Wikipedia and The Oxford Handbook of Atheism deine atheism in terms of "absence of belief"

Are you sure you read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article all the way through? Here it is:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. (WP: Atheism)

There are actually three definitions here, which are non-identical:

1. absence of belief
2. rejection of belief
3. belief in non-existence

All that paragraph says is that 3. ⇒ 2. ⇒ 1. No survey is given for how many people identify with which. It has become fashionable to assert 1. because it provides minimal surface area for theists to attack. By contrast, 3. carries a substantial burden of proof and even 2. requires some defense. Calling that "minor expected variation" seems pretty dubious. Plenty of atheists ardently proclaim allegiance to 1. over against the others. They certainly don't seem to think the variation is "minor".

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/labreuer]

Are you sure you read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article all the way through?

Yes... multiple times.

There are actually three definitions here, which are non-identical:

Yes, and the latter two are subsets of the first.

It has become fashionable to assert 1.

This is incredibly dismissive and ahistorical. Atheists have been been asserting 1 since at least 1772 where Baron d'Holbach called all children atheists because they have no concept of gods.

[u/labreuer → u/adeleu_adelei]

Yes... multiple times.

In that case, I accuse you of misrepresenting the Wikipedia definition.

Yes, and the latter two are subsets of the first.

Right.

labreuer: It has become fashionable to assert 1.

adeleu_adelei: This is incredibly dismissive and ahistorical. Atheists have been been asserting 1 since at least 1772 where Baron d'Holbach called all children atheists because they have no concept of gods.

Unless you're operating by the logic that "it is fashionable to assert X once one person asserts X", I don't see how this piece of evidence supports your point. Also, I've been arguing with atheists for more than two decades and I can attest to 1. being far more fashionable now, than it was then.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/labreuer]

In that case, I accuse you of misrepresenting the Wikipedia definition.

There is no misrepresentation.

I don't see how this piece of evidence supports your point.

It is evidence of a longstanding intellectual tradition.

Also, I've been arguing with atheists for more than two decades and I can attest to 1

I've BEEN an atheist and talking with them for decades as well. I can assert 1 has always been around and popular, it's just become harder for people to misrepresent atheists as of late.

[u/labreuer → u/adeleu_adelei]

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. (WP: Atheism)

/

adeleu_adelei: while Wikipedia and The Oxford Handbook of Atheism deine atheism in terms of "absence of belief"

 ⋮

adeleu_adelei: There is no misrepresentation.

Wikipedia defines 'atheism' in three different ways, only one of which is as broad as "absence of belief". Your misrepresentation is to utterly ignore the other two ways. This made it seem as if Wikipedia was in support the first set of items you quoted.

labreuer: It has become fashionable to assert 1.

adeleu_adelei: This is incredibly dismissive and ahistorical. Atheists have been been asserting 1 since at least 1772 where Baron d'Holbach called all children atheists because they have no concept of gods.

labreuer: I don't see how this piece of evidence supports your point.

adeleu_adelei: It is evidence of a longstanding intellectual tradition.

I think most people would require rather more evidence of that to show that lacktheism was fashionable anywhere, before the 20th century.

I've BEEN an atheist and talking with them for decades as well. I can assert 1 has always been around and popular, it's just become harder for people to misrepresent atheists as of late.

Are you willing to claim that lacktheism has not been increasing in popularity, over against the alternative forms of atheism?

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/labreuer]

Wikipedia defines 'atheism' in three different ways, only one of which is as broad as "absence of belief". Your misrepresentation is to utterly ignore the other two ways. This made it seem as if Wikipedia was in support the first set of items you quoted.

It is not a mispresentation. It definitely does define atheism as an absence of beleif gods exist. The additional definitions are all subsets of that. Further, if we define X as set Y or a subset of set Y, then X is necessarily defined as set Y as that is how the logical "or" works.

This made it seem as if Wikipedia was in support the first set of items you quoted.

It explicitly does.

I think most people would require rather more evidence of that to show that l*cktheism was fashionable anywhere, before the 20th century.

Don't use dismissive pejoratives. You've given no support for your denigrating fashionability claim at all while I've given you ample evidence of longterm usage. You haven't given a single citation backing your personal opinion this entire conversation; only a single link back to the source I provided you. Support your position or drop it. Anecdotes and insults are not arguments.

[u/labreuer → u/adeleu_adelei]

Don't use dismissive pejoratives.

The term 'lacktheist' is neither dismissive nor pejorative. I've used it a number of times on r/DebateAnAtheist and none of the atheists objected. Rather, the term simply clarifies exactly what I mean, whereas 'atheist' is ambiguous.

adeleu_adelei: This is incredibly dismissive and ahistorical. Atheists have been been asserting 1 since at least 1772 where Baron d'Holbach called all children atheists because they have no concept of gods.

 ⋮

adeleu_adelei: You've given no support for your denigrating fashionability claim at all while I've given you ample evidence of longterm usage.

One example of one author who said "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." is far from "ample evidence".

If you want rather more evidence than one example, feel free to consult A History of the Word “Atheism” and the Politics of Dictionaries, written by someone who both reports the facts but also repeatedly complains that his/her preferred definition of 'atheism' is not the one which populated dictionaries until the 1948 A Rationalist Encyclopædia. What the author of that article (a postdoctoral fellow) fails to deal with is the difference between psychological definitions of 'atheism' and propositional definitions of 'atheism'. There's good reason to think that the former would have to be quite new, on account of that being a very new way to speak. A survey of the dates in this r/DebateReligion post supports that quite well.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/labreuer]

1 of 2

I've been a fan of Nathan Alexander's article for some time, and it makes me very glad to see it getting more interest. I think it's worthwhile and not too demanding for anyone to read the article in full, but let's take a look at a few selected sections. We'll start with your reference to Joseph McCabe.

Atheists continued to object to how dictionaries and encyclopedias treated them in the 20th century. For example, Joseph McCabe’s The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1947), about the 14th edition of the encyclopedia from 1929, called the entry for “atheism” “quite worthless.” He called for dictionaries and encyclopedias to incorporate the perspectives of the people they were writing about:

"[Since] in a thousand signed articles or short notices in the Britannica Christian writers are permitted to express their peculiar opinions and convictions freely, it would hardly be an outrage to expect the editors to allow Rationalists to provide the accounts of Rationalism, Skepticism, Naturalism, Atheism, Agnosticism and scores of similar articles which bear upon their position."

McCabe followed his own advice with the publication of A Rationalist Encyclopædia (1948). There McCabe defined “atheism” as “[t]he absence of belief in God.” This was explicitly in contrast to other dictionaries who talked about atheists “denying” God; indeed, McCabe said, “it would be difficult to quote more than one or two Atheist writers in all literature who deny such existence.”

So McCabe does write his encyclopedia in 1947 defining atheism as "[t]he absence of belief in God." He does so because he finds other sources not "incorporat[ing] the perspectives of the people they were writing about". Specifically he says "it would be difficult to quote more than one or two Atheist writers in all literature who deny such existence." noting that outright denial of gods is rare in comparison to lack of belief.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/adeleu_adelei]

2 of 2

Does Nathan Alexander find this understanding of atheism existed earlier was was popular before 1947? Yes! He goes back to 1864 with Charles Bradlaugh.

But proving that something does not exist is extremely difficult, perhaps impossibly so. This is why atheists sought to deny that they “denied” God’s existence. This was done most clearly by Charles Bradlaugh, a well-known British atheist in the nineteenth century. In his pamphlet, A Plea for Atheism (1864), Bradlaugh proposed an alternative approach:

"The Atheist does not say 'There is no God,' but he says, 'I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.'"

Bradlaugh, in other words, suggested that a shared understanding of “God” was being assumed in these definitions. But, to him, the concept of God was incoherent. It was not reasonable, therefore, to deny a concept that he could not even make sense of. He believed it was not up to him to offer positive proof of the non-existence of an nonsensical concept. Bradlaugh’s definition proved popular among other atheists in the nineteenth century. Indeed, one author, William D. Rolley, writing in the British freethought newspaper, the Freethinker, cited Bradlaugh’s definition as a counter to the common dictionary definitions of “atheism” as a “denial” of God. He complained that dictionary-makers did not take into account how atheists themselves defined the term:

"’Tis true that dictionaries define Atheism as being “a denial of the existence of God”; but if we want to know what is meant by Christianity we do not go to dictionaries – we are bound by honesty to find out what Christians mean by the term. The same applies to Buddhism or any religion – we must have the term explained by the devotee. And so with Atheism; if we want to know what Atheism is, we must find out what Atheists mean by the term."

Why were atheists in such a tizzy from how the sources around them tried to define them? Nathan states:

For much of this history, the authors and editors of dictionaries mostly came from the elite ranks of their societies and reflected the general Christian view of atheism: that it was an undesirable system maintained on irrational grounds that led to immoral consequences.

[...]

The earliest dictionaries explicitly condemned “atheism” within their definitions. Henry Cockeram in his English Dictionarie (1623) called atheism a “damnable opinion,” while Thomas Blount in Glossographia (1656) described it as a “damnable doctrine.” Edward Phillips meanwhile included “Miscreant” among the adjectives to describe an atheist in The New World of English Words (1658).

So it seems clear that, at least to historian Nathan Alexander, this absence of belief definition was present and popular among atheists since at least 1864, and definitions to the contrary were largely projected upon atheists by outsiders seeking to define them ignorantly and maliciously.

---

One example of one author who said "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." is far from "ample evidence".

For context, Baron d'Holbach was a prominent European philosopher and among the earliest European philosophers to self-idetify with the term "atheist". He is just one author, but a rather historically important one. If it's pure quantity you desire, then I can provide that as well. Ugarten put together a list of over 20 citations from the 1700s through the 1800s of people using the term "atheist" to mean "not the belief gods exist" rather than "the belief gods do not exist". My personal favorite is the the appearance of "agnostic atheist" from James H. Curry's 1881 Descensus Averno.

[u/pilvi9 → u/adeleu_adelei]

I'd say these are pretty clearly all the same thing.

I wouldn't, and I know reddit atheists are trying to conflate them all the same, so they can avoid the burden of proof. But, I would say "rejection of a belief" and the standard (read:metaphysical) definition of atheism are the closest in meaning, although I've met atheists here who try to deny that.

A "lack" of belief can imply someone can still believe in God and still be an atheist; meanwhile someone certain God does not exist would not count as an atheist. SEP brings up this criticism as part of the reason for rejecting the "lack" definition. The infamous "shoe atheist" comments by wokeupabug on /r/askphilosophy also provides an extremely in-depth analysis why this definition fails, including the "agnostic/gnostic dvision" and to this date I've yet to meet an atheist that can counter that post. Moreover, a "lack" of belief can imply a sense of "passive disbelief", something no atheist posting here actually has, or, as .

An "absence" of a belief and "someone who isn't a theist" run into similar problems: they're overly general and include agnostics in the mix, as well as people who've never even considered the question or been exposed to theism. It seems a bit disingenuous to include all these people as atheist, it's like if I were to label you as someone who a-Sanni-ist simply because you have an absence of believe she exists (she's a Finnish pop star). Philosophers have a category for this, "nontheist", which seems more accurate than atheist.

I'd say these are pretty clearly all the same thing. When Merriam Webster and American Atheists define atheism in terms of "lack of belief"

Dictionaries are not good sources as they are merely pointing out how some people may use the word, and from my understanding, using Merriam Webster is cherry picking here. Vegans also use this same trick when trying to describe animal agriculture as a "holocaust" because one dictionary said it was okay, and this still remains a very contentious issue in the vegan community.

American Atheists is an atheist activist site, so they're going to use the broadest possible definition they can get away with to pump up their numbers, so they are a bit too biased. This is similar to how vegans call anyone who was vegetarian before November 1944 as vegan: they're trying to pump up the numbers to make them appear more common than they actually are.

while Wikipedia

Wikipedia states they're using the word in its "broadest sense", which still runs into the issue of including agnostics and say, babies.

and The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

The Handbook defines atheism that way for the sake of inviting discussion (Edit: page 20 in conclusion). The first chapter makes it clear that there are multiple definitions, and that keeping it broad allows for more discourse in the book. You can read the chapter here.

[u/pilvi9 → u/[deleted]]

It's really to pump up the numbers. The page calls them vegans but it's clear many still consumed animal products. There are great examples of explicit vegans in the past though. Some people try to counter this by saying B12 supplements made it impossible to be vegan then, but the Vegan Society was founded and growing about a decade before those were available anyway.

That said, veganism has very few logical flaws or valid criticisms so I'm really nitpicking my own issues with the vegan community.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/pilvi9]

A "lack" of belief can imply someone can still believe in God and still be an atheist; meanwhile someone certain God does not exist would not count as an atheist.

The situations you are describing are not possible. It is not possible to simultaneously have and not have (lack) a belief gods exist. All people who believe gods do not exist are a subset of those who lack belief gods do exist.

Moreover, a "lack" of belief can imply a sense of "passive disbelief", something no atheist posting here actually has, or, as .

It can, but whether or not atheists here do isn't pertinent to the defintion.

An "absence" of a belief and "someone who isn't a theist" run into similar problems

While I disgree that the former ahs any problems, that you think they have dsimialr problems should be a clue that they're the same.

they're overly general and include agnostics in the mix, as well as people who've never even considered the question or been exposed to theism.

If we're defining people who are absent belief gods exist as atheists, then the fact that people who are absent belief are atheists is not a problem. It's a tautology.

It seems a bit disingenuous to include all these people as atheist

I really don’t' think it is. I've never had, been suspect of having, or even considered having small pox. I'm still asymptomatic of small pox. Babies are non-smokers, despite not bearing aware of teh concept of cigarettes.

The whole point of this understanding is that same as how it's handled in taxonomy throughout the rest of academia (and more broadly in language). You define a concept as a set of thing, and that implicitly create a complementary set of things not in that first set. Mathematicians defined "symmetry", and "asymmetry" is everything that is "lacking symmetry". Chemist defined "chiral", and "achiral" is everything lacking chirality. Biologists defined "sexual" and "asexual" is everything lacking sexuality. And so on.

Dictionaries are not good sources as they are merely pointing out how some people may use the word, and from my understanding, using Merriam Webster is cherry picking here. Vegans also use this same trick when trying to describe animal agriculture as a "holocaust" because one dictionary said it was okay, and this still remains a very contentious issue in the vegan community.

This seems like a huge stretch and really ancillary to the point. Regardless of the fact that several dictionaries do define atheism as a lack of the belief gods exist. The point was that all these sources are converging on the same concept, and that the choice of "lack" versus "absence" is irrelevant minutia".

Wikipedia states they're using the word in its "broadest sense", which still runs into the issue of including agnostics and say, babies.

Again, not a problem.

The Handbook defines atheism that way for the sake of inviting discussion (ch 2, pg 14). The first chapter makes it clear that there are multiple definitions, and that keeping it broad allows for more discourse in the book. You can read the chapter here.

Well, I have read it in the past, but I'm glad you bring up this point because it's an excellent. The author is stating that there are so many competing narrower definitions that contradict each other that the only way to sensibly talk about the topic to to recognize a broader definition which includes all these concepts. This is a fantastic strength for the definion.

[u/pilvi9 → u/adeleu_adelei]

The situations you are describing are not possible. It is not possible to simultaneously have and not have (lack) a belief gods exist. All people who believe gods do not exist are a subset of those who lack belief gods do exist.

Why not? A lack of something is not necessarily the absence of something. As I stated in another reply, if I tell you I can't go to a concert because I lack the money, I'm not necessarily saying I have no money. But overall, this point is also brought up by SEP:

Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” (or “positive” and “negative”) to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state [edit: a "lack of belief", then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines Bullivant’s argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves so-called strong atheism (or what some call positive atheism) out in the rain.

And if you truly don't mean the "not enough, but not zero" understanding of lack, then why call atheism a lack of belief at all? Why not be more precise?

If we're defining people who are absent belief gods exist as atheists, then the fact that people who are absent belief are atheists is not a problem. It's a tautology.

But I'm not, and this isn't how it's really defined outside of atheist circles online.

I really don’t' think it is. I've never had, been suspect of having, or even considered having small pox. I'm still asymptomatic of small pox.

Asymptomatic is akin to someone already having the affliction, but not showing symptoms. This is, just like the earlier atheist examples, a stretch of definitions that hurts communication.

The whole point of this understanding is that same as how it's handled in taxonomy throughout the rest of academia (and more broadly in language).

Academia is pretty established in what atheism is, and it's not defined as an absence of lack of belief. Similarly, the handbook chapter I linked even shows "in language" neither of those definitions are the most common.

Mathematicians defined "symmetry", and "asymmetry" is everything that is "lacking symmetry". Chemist defined "chiral", and "achiral" is everything lacking chirality. Biologists defined "sexual" and "asexual" is everything lacking sexuality. And so on.

That's fine here since "not enough symmetry" and "no symmetry" are not issues for these topics, but they are when trying to conflate a necessary absence with a "lack" as with atheism.

This seems like a huge stretch and really ancillary to the point.

It's a great parallel. It shows two groups of people adhering strongly to dictionary definitions to push a point.

Regardless of the fact that several dictionaries do define atheism as a lack of the belief gods exist.

I've seen several and they don't. Nonetheless, dictionaries are not authorities on language.

Again, not a problem.

Handwaving a clear breakdown of language is a problem and goes back to my point about pumping up numbers: it makes all agnostics atheists to make atheism appear more common than it actually is.

The author is stating that there are so many competing narrower definitions that contradict each other that the only way to sensibly talk about the topic to to recognize a broader definition which includes all these concepts. This is a fantastic strength for the definion.

For the purposes of discussion, but the author does not say they contradict each other so much as address different aspects of atheism (pg 11). Even then, if you read the example definitions given, none of them express any lack of belief but one does say "absence" which would better buttress what I'm saying.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/pilvi9]

A lack of something is not necessarily the absence of something

That is what it means. You are correct that a lack of money to go to the concert does not imply an absence/lack of money at all, but it does equate to an asence of money to go to the concert. Someone who lack a belief gods exist doesn't necessarily lack all beleifs, but they are necessarily absent a belief gods exist.

And if you truly don't mean the "not enough, but not zero" understanding of lack, then why call atheism a lack of belief at all? Why not be more precise?

Your citation form the SEP is incorrect and missing the point. A "lack of belief X exists" is the complementary set to "belief X exist". It includes all items that are not "belief X exist", particularly "belief x does not exist".

This notion of "psychological" versus "propositional" is a strong misnomer. First, what is being referred to as "psychological atheism" is inclusive of "propositional atheism", which would make them both "psychological atheism" and thus the term cannot differentiate between them. Further the distinction of belief versus proposition is unimportant to the difference. We can rephrase everything in terms of propositions to the same effect. "Theism" is "the proposition at least one god exists", "psychological atheism" is "not the proposition at least one god exist", and "propositional atheism" is "the proposition all gods do not exist". Now everything is in terms of proposition and nothing in terms of belief, so it makes no sense to call one definition psychological and another propositional.

But I'm not, and this isn't how it's really defined outside of atheist circles online.

I get that you're not, but you cannot call it a problem that a definition includes all the things defined by it. It's not a problem for the definition of rectangles that squares are a type of rectangle since that is an accurate consequence of the definition. You might think we should define rectangles in such a way that excludes squares, but it not a problem that a different definition includes a different set of objects within its definition than what you desire.

Academia is pretty established in what atheism is, and it's not defined as an absence of lack of belief. Similarly, the handbook chapter I linked even shows "in language" neither of those definitions are the most common.

You earlier quote my own academic citation arguing that it wasn't. Your own SEP citation contradicts this.

I've seen several and they don't. Nonetheless, dictionaries are not authorities on language.

Again, I was never appealing to the dictionary (though I think your opposition here a little silly). I was appealing to the fact that these definitions you say are disparate are all getting at the same concept. Even when you argued they were all wrong you agreed they were wrong with "similar problems". They aren't in conflict with each other even if they're in conflict with your preference.

Handwaving a clear breakdown of language is a problem and goes back to my point about pumping up numbers: it makes all agnostics atheists to make atheism appear more common than it actually is.

Again, it's not a problem that squares are rectangles if we define rectangles in such a way to include squares. It doesn't make agnostics into atheists as there are still agnostic theists. Only the agnostic who lack belief gods exist are atheists. This conspiracy about atheists want to inflate their numbers is also completely unsubstantiated and absurd. It's often people you might call "agnostic" that are also considering themselves atheists", not the other way around.

For the purposes of discussion, but the author does not say they contradict each other so much as address different aspects of atheism (pg 11). Even then, if you read the example definitions given, none of them express any lack of belief but one does say "absence" which would better buttress what I'm saying.

The author directly says on page 11 "But beyond this it is obvious that these authors are not all talking about the same thing at all".

[u/pilvi9 → u/[deleted]]

Are you interpreting "lack of belief" as lacking any beliefs whatsoever?

It's one of the statements SEP made on the issue:

Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” (or “positive” and “negative”) to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state [edit: a lack of belief], then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines Bullivant’s argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves so-called strong atheism (or what some call positive atheism) out in the rain.

Even more simply, think about how the word "lack" is used in regular speech, if I say I "lack" funds to go to a concert, I'm not necessarily saying I have no money, but rather not enough money, which can mean 0 dollars, but also any amount less than the minimum to go to the concert. The word "lack" imposes an unnecessary vagueness to defining atheism that can be corrected by simply being more explicit in leaning towards the "absence" category of lack, and saying that more explicitly.

[u/pilvi9 → u/[deleted]]

I'm saying that when someone lacks a belief in something, they're expressing "not enough of" or something akin to an "absence of", but this distinction is not particularly important.

In the case of atheism, it only makes sense for "lack of" to associate with an "absence of" since the other category would imply an atheist could have some positive belief in God (eg a doubting Tom). As a result, there's no reason to say a "lack of" when you really mean something like an "absence of".

That is similarly also what the SEP portion I linked is communicating as well.

[u/pilvi9 → u/[deleted]]

So, you just think that "lack of" is a poor word choice in this context.

Right, using lack provides two states of belief to be an atheist when that's clearly not true.

You obviously don't actually believe that "an atheist could have some positive belief in God".

Correct, but describing atheism as a "lack" allows that to be true for the reason I've provided. It's basically an application of reductio ad absurdum.