Atheists appeal to a number of different arguments to make the case that atheism can only be defined as “a lack of belief in a deity” but not the “belief there is no deity.” The arguments can be divided into two categories: those appealing to the meaning of the word and those appealing to a sense of fairness. The former category claims the very nature of the word points to their preferred definition while the latter relies on some inate right to define themselves.

The first category has its simplest exposition by appealing to a dictionary. This immediately backfires on atheists as the definition favored by theists (denial of the existence of God) is almost always included. In fact, the alternate definition supplied by atheists (a lack of belief in God) is much more a johnny-come-lately among dictionary definitions. While not definitive, this certainly indicates the definition of the word as a mere lack of belief in a deity is hardly the slam dunk obvious case many atheists contend.

A slightly more sophisticated approach claims atheism is derived from theism and hence their definition of a lack of theism must surely be correct. The problem with this approach is that it is historically inaccurate. The word “atheism” was not derived from “theism.” In fact, it preceded it into the English language by centuries and when “theism” originally entered the language it meant something akin to what “deism” means today. The word “atheism” was not from the word “theism” but from “atheos” (no god) to define those who denied the existence of God. Thus this etymological approach, as with the former definitional one, backfires on atheist hopes.

The most forceful claim atheists make for their definition is that appealing to the compositional quality of the components of the word. Stating “theos” means God, the suffix “-ism” means “belief in” and the prefix “a-” means “a lack of”, they then contend the logical meaning of the word is “lack of belief in God.” The problem here is they assume the components can only be composited in one fashion. But in fact, one could combine them one of two ways: either a((theos)ism) or (a(theos))ism. In the former case, ((theos)ism) would be “belief in God” and so a((theos)ism) would be “lack of belief in God.” In the latter case, (a(theos)) would be “a lack of God” and so (a(theos))ism would be “belief in a lack of God.” Thus, depending on how the composition is done, it could logically mean either definition.

Yet even this logical approach has its problems. Words often change meaning from their initial understanding reflecting the logical meaning. The word “awful” is derived from “full of awe” and this was its intial meaning. Over time this changed to “extreme” or “terrible” which certainly is a far cry from “full of awe.” This is the cause of some confusion over why older Christian hymns often speak of what is holy as being “awful.” The meaning of words can be derived from their logical structure but this can be less than exact and can by convention be altered. If atheists need to convince the majority of English speakers that their use of “atheist” is wrong, then the evidence is quite clear that it is the atheists who are wrong and not the world.

The “sense of fairness” arguments can have various forms but usually rely upon the idea that atheists should define their term for themselves. Of course, this is in total contradiction of their other claims based upon the structure of the word. If the other arguments have any validity, then atheists have no say in the matter since the definitional, etymological, or logical arguments would prevail. It is only when these collapse that the “fairness doctrine” is invoked.

Of course, the whole thing is quite silly. The meaning of words is decided by their use in the language. Other descriptive terms are not decided by those who claim them as their own. Not only that, but how is this fair to the majority of those who are unsure about the existence of God do not consider themselves “atheists”? Thus it is the atheists who are being unfair by inisting this word be foised upon a whole group of people who do not wish to be so labeled.

The fact is that a sense of fairness would apply the term to those who wish be identified by it and none other. However, this would itself be subjective as not everyone would agree on its meaning and some would embrace or reject the term who share the same views. Such a definition would render the word meaningless and unusable since it would be merely a class of people that may or may not be definable in any reasonable manner. In the end, we are left with the convention of society for the word’s meaning and this has history on the theist’s side.