I think this doesn't reflect the standard spectrum of usage for the term. For instance, if you look up "atheism" in Merriam-Webster, the second definition is:
"a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
By that definition, a rock is not atheist since it has no philosophical or religious positions (ha, I hope so, at least).
Honestly, I'm a little confused by your very strict understanding of the term, as I think people often (as above) use this second definition; and most people would find your statement "a rock is atheist" a little unusual.
Rather, a definition of atheist which allows rocks to be atheists by the fact that they lack philosophical positions is logically less strict, or weaker than a formulation that additionally requires the ability to hold such a position.
A predicate which adds restrictions is stronger, which can have disadvantages.
The weak definition lets me assign a value of true or false to is_atheist(P) for any P whatsoever. (Other than perhaps some kinds of P that create a some sort of syntactic self-referential paradox.)
> By that definition, a rock is not atheist
atheist is the negation of theist; it means "not theist". If a rock is not a not-theist, it must be a theist. Well, we don't want that, so we need to complicate things with three-valued logic, whereby is_atheist(P) can be "undefined" when P is a rock. Or else be happy with partial functions: P = rock is outside of the domain is_atheist.
The atheist rock is a rhetorical tool that uses the simplest possible definition of atheism and strictly two-valued logic.
Dictionary definitions are not meant to be combined like logical predicates. Rather, they provide a spectrum of possible meanings for a term. By recognizing multiple standard meanings for a word, I’m not tightening the space of entities that can match, but rather broadening it. But usage can still shift under a broader definition.
> atheist is the negation of theist
In one sense of the word, but that’s also the sense of the word in which you say that rocks are atheist, and probably not the (perfectly legitimate)sense of the word in which GP describes himself as “100% atheist.”
———
Taking a step back: is there any value in this line of inquiry other than semantics? I think so. It comes down to whether there is an active and lively philosophy of atheism in a positive sense, one that is chiefly distinguished by rejecting theism and building alternative moral, social, epistemological frameworks, but still fundamentally religious - a set of beliefs and practices and values for guiding one’s life, providing answers for the great questions.
I think this comes up because of the desire from some to make atheism seem essentially the default belief— no more notable than a lack of belief in fairies and elves. But in the world and culture most of us are embedded in, that’s just not accurate. It’s still a minority position, there are many important consequences to building one’s life on atheism vs theism, and there is an ongoing battle in the marketplace of ideas and the popular consciousness for each one. I think it’s galling to some to see atheism described as a philosophy or religion on the same “shelf” as theism, but practically speaking that’s what it amounts to for most people.
"a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
By that definition, a rock is not atheist since it has no philosophical or religious positions (ha, I hope so, at least).
Honestly, I'm a little confused by your very strict understanding of the term, as I think people often (as above) use this second definition; and most people would find your statement "a rock is atheist" a little unusual.