There’s still regular disagreement over what atheism is. A lot of this disagreement takes place amongst atheists themselves.
Are newborn babies atheists? Are cats? Do we believe in anything? Are we making any positive claims?
Even atheist-bashers’ militant favourite Richard Dawkins has decried labelling children as atheists, or ascribing any other belief systems to them which they’re too young to have rationally settled upon themselves. I tend to agree with this; the closest I think I’ve come to having a solid opinion is to suggest that there’s an important difference between people who’ve actively considered and rejected the God hypothesis, and those who’ve simply never given it any serious thought (usually, I suspect, in modern society, because they’re too young).
Well, it turns out that this is another of those things that Eliezer Yudkowsky has basically hammered out and nailed down ages ago.
“Atheism” is really made up of two distinct components, which one might call “untheism” and “antitheism”.
I’m not just an untheist; I’m decidedly an antitheist. And yet, strictly speaking, my own position might not be the one I’m keenest to advocate. I think it’d be an improvement if more people rejected the idea of a god existing, of course – but it’d be even better if they never even had to consider it.
[I]n the long run, the goal is an Untheistic society, not an Atheistic one – one in which the question “What’s left, when God is gone?” is greeted by a puzzled look and “What exactly is missing?”
And while we’re at it, objective reality is not that complicated.