Anarchism and atheism, historical/dictionary definitions

[Shinigami]

Dunno where else to put this so I guess it'll go here?

Something I was thinking about the other day, people often say that atheism is not specific disbelief in a god, and anarchists often say that anarchism is not just a disbelief or lack of belief in a state, it's also a historical movement that necessarily includes socialism. This definition, as such, excludes "anarcho-capitalism".

In this, it seems that atheism is being defined by a dictionary definition or just simple semantics (a-theism, like an-archism), while anarchism is defined by its historical usage.

Anarcho-capitalists like to say that anarchism is just simple lack of belief in a state, similar to atheism being lack of belief in a god.
If historical definitions change over time, would it be acceptable for the definition of atheism to change to specific disbelief in a god, if the general public decided to specify atheism as specific disbelief?
In your experience, do most of the people who claim anarchism is a specific anti-capitalist movement also claim that atheism is not specifically disbelief in a god? I've agreed with these definitions, but never thought about the difference before.

I guess what I'm asking is how do you define these words, and does it seem like a discrepancy to define atheism semantically, and anarchism historically?

[Desperado]

But you must realise "anarchism" is far broader and vaguer than atheism. It's both a complex moral idea and way of ordering society (or rather of society ordering itself), so it is even more necessarily to be defined through historical experiences and dependent upon them and our social situation. Anarchism isn't an abstract number, it's a real life social movement. Although we can define it abstractly, you have to keep qualifying, and there's so many variables (anarchism is no masters - but who is a master? Does no mean we avoid them, or despise them, or eradicate them completely (is this possible?)). All politics can degenerate into non-nonsensical semantics, and that's why the empirical is so important, and from this the historical. We can't sit as Platoistic monks in a dark room - we must see draw on the real present and past events before our very eyes to come to conclusions (and disprove past held beliefs).

"Atheism" is of course viewed depending on the historical conditions etc., but getting to an objective "correct" definition is far easier (although most get it wrong, a point which proves the first part). It is simply without god, so logically includes all who aren't "with" god (theists) - so agnostics, babies, Richard Dawkins, are all atheists.

It's like "imperialism" versus "blue".

[Desperado]

On an interesting note, atheism used to mean without god in the sense of not denying his existence but refusing to follow him. Other than this though, I see it very hard to question the meaning of "without god" (if we can get over the hurdle of defining "god").