Well, even if belief in the absense of any deity is atheism, it still is refuted by my counterargument. Do atheists reject the existence of several sect leaders claiming themselves to be gods? I guess no. They reject to ascribe the property of godlyness to any being, as I see it.

Atheism by definition expresses some people reject the idea of an existing deity like God. It is Not a lack or absence of belief in God. There is a distinction between the two propositions. Not making the necessary distinction will only confuse people who may be unsure of themselves. In this way they may wrongly chase the wrong idea.

So you are saying "atheists lack belief in deities" should become "atheists believe in a lack of deities". I can see the difference. However, and this might be a translation issue but, in English 'the lack of possible' certainly does 'mean that x is impossible'.

@Christo183, atheism is NOT a lack of but the REJECTION of the beliefs in deities. Where did you get the lack of portion if you read the part about prefixes? Prefixes such as un, im, and a are. It lack of but a rejection of the base words. Impossible was only an example that means x is not possible. There is no such thing as a lack of possible certainty. Either x is certain or x is not certain without a third alternative. If definitions are equivalent then the definiendum should be able to substitute the defendiends which is the word being defined in both directions---not only one.

If you are saying that "believe in a lack of deities" is not the same as "the REJECTION of the beliefs in deities" then: It seems your point is that atheists reject that deities exist as well as reject the belief in deities? Do you also hold that atheists reject belief in general?

@christo183 , atheism is the rejection of deities existing.

And the rejection of deities existing is not the same as believing they don't. I think I've got it now.

@christo183, atheism is not a personal belief. Atheism expresses a universal claim that there is no deity existing for anyone. Atheist are not suggesting only they reject a deity.

But then it appears atheists see nothing wrong when people venerate other people, is this correct?

@rus384, respect in the sense people are free to make choices by right but objectively the atheist believes all theism is absolutely false.

But can we call any type of veneration theism? Nevertheless, typically atheists and antitheists are distinguished in the sense that atheists still respect others' choice to be believers until latter respect them.

@rus9384, one can respect choices but that is more of a psychological issue when the topic is seen objectively as either true or false. You can be respected and be totally wrong. Worship either makes sense or it will not hold up to rationality. If there are no deities objectively then worshipping would be a sham and a waste of people's time. If there is a deity then atheism would fail the rationality test.

Well, I say that creator would not need to be worshipped. In either way, the world and people are hardly created to worship its creator, this fails any test on creator's rationality.

@rus9384 That is a good point. It seems to me that most religious practices serve the ends of men. This to me should feature more than the finer description of believers, unbelievers and (lack of)believers. Sacred vs the Godly, Religion vs the Spiritual, there is a clear distinction between what can be rationally contemplated vs the Beyond contemplation. I think this is what the OP question is aimed at.

@christo183, indeed that's what my question is aimed at. That if one just doesn't think there is anyone who deserves worship it's not about a belief in the existence of someone deserved being worshipped, but about personal attitude not to worship anything.

@christo183, you should really stop using the phrase "lack of . . . " in a rational discussion of atheism as that phrase is not applicable or equal to a rejection of a belief. One can have a lack of hair which does not indicate there is a rejection of hair growth. You seem to think the two ideas mesh. At best the ideas can occur SOMETIMES. The two concepts can be different values at the same time as with the baldness example.

@rus9384 It is an interesting question, but there will be all kinds of nuances and flavors of distinction; as Logikal have aptly demonstrated.

@Logikal Your lack of reading anything except "lack of" belies the fact that I have been agreeing with you the whole time. Just for interest, are you translating from another language?

@christo183, no I am a native English speaker. You keep adding that phrase "lack of . . . " which doesn't belong in the topic at all and you repeatedly wrote it. The phrase could mislead many readers on the topic and seems subliminal to change an opinion of a reader. Instead express that atheism is a voluntary REJECTION of a being with choice. Atheism is not to be thought of as a default position but a position that is voluntary chosen by people who desire to follow it.

I'll assume you are in fact using a translator since it seems that we are having a translation issue. Different languages have different ways to express affirmation and negation. Then there are words that chance meaning in different contexts. So for instance where I set two expression in OPPOSITION, it may translate as "the expressions are similar". After all the distinctions you make may not even be visible in another language, which could make this whole answer moot. --- _Please do not take this to be in a condescending tone, I am also writing this for the benefit of future Readers.

@ttnphns, your Mathematical example does not apply to all contexts. You may say the same about me but using the lack of opens too many solutions that clearly don't apply such a door knobs lack a belief in deities are door knobs atheist? Your context fails. Hence you can't use "the lack of . . . " I also gave an example earlier before your reply to me about baldness. It could be some one lacks hair OR it could be a person has dead hair follicles in their scalp which rejects hair from growing in those spots. I can cut all of my hair off to be bald as the guy. My hair will grow back. Different

@christo183, I get what you are saying. It is imperative that translation be correct and in the appropriate context. The context of the horrible phrase "lack of . . . " has been given several counter examples. It is simply wrong & generally emotive literal readers adopt that exact definition. They will agree a chair can't be atheist but still use a definition that is too broad & not care about it. This why it is emotive. They remove choice and set up atheism as a default position as soon an infant is born. They think the infant as atheist. This is just as absurd as the chair being atheist.

@Logical, dead hair follicles do not themselves reject anything. For them to reject hair growth, there first must be consciousness testifying the lack of hair growth, actual or potential.

@ttphns, literally I did not mean dead hair follicles do not reject . . . anything for a rejection is a choice and literally lack of word be misleading as well because hair won't grow back there if it is cut off as my hair will if I had a shiny bald head. Dead hair follicles simply CAN'T grow hair back (as in it's impossible) even if the person wanted the hair to regrow. But my point is the more detailed we get we move away from the etymology which literally without or a lack of . . .. Certainly the etymology has no limit to only apply to humans or only living humans for that matter.