Maybe if I ask nicely. I get that you do not believe that gods in general do not exist. Do you believe that some specific gods do not exist? If by your definition you are not an atheist (all gods), are you an atheist (Zeus), an atheist (Odin) or an atheist (Jehovah.)
And I can repeat the question substituting agnostic for atheist.
No, how about a hypothetical god whose believers think created square circles?
You’re equating belief system with belief. Atheism is not a belief system, but hard atheists have a belief. It is no different from believing a horse will win the third race at Belmont. You may or may not be justified, you won’t be shattered if you are wrong, and you don’t start a church about it.
You actually address the question of “abuse of language” in a sentence with that construction?
I am being honest…and I am trying to stop you people from using your preconceived prejudices to get you to your illogical conclusions.
I am not “redefining” the word. I’ve indicated several reputable dictionaries as to the definition of the word.
I am attempting to get you people to stop pretending that I am one of you.
No…I am not wrong.
I am an agnostic…not an atheist.
Whatever! If people want to continue to call me an atheist when I am not…am I required by the rules here to simply concede to them?
But I am not a baseball fan. I am a football fan!
Honest wasn’t the best term, I suppose. I’ll replace it with ‘correct’. What do you mean ‘you people’? 
What illogical conclusions have ‘us people’ come to? You do realize that you are the one with the difference of opinion, not us, right?
I mean, you are treating agnosticism as though it answers the question of whether you believe in god or not. It doesn’t. It doesn’t address that question. You don’t admit that though.
Why? It’s bizarre. It’s as though you think that all atheists are a collective. That we have the same worldview, that we are all aggressive proselytizer.
Actually you are, and all you’ve not supported your distinction in terms.
“us people”?
You aren’t ‘one of us’, since there is no ‘us’, per say. Your beliefs, or lack there of, meet the requirements of ‘atheism’, ergo, you are an atheist.
If you don’t like that, that’s fine, but take that up with yourself.
Okay, then please tell us what god/s or conceptions of god/s you believe in. Until you do that…guess what… you are an atheist.
I’m sorry that you don’t like that.
Sure.
You could tell us what god/s you believe in, then we would refer to you as a theist (or your religion of choice).
Until then, you are an atheist.
If you insist on defining a word by what you claim is its etymology, why don’t you do the same for the word “agnostic”?
You say in this thread:
Where are you getting that the original definition of “agnostic” includes not believing in gods?
If you want a better position to argue from, try ignosticism. I think you’d make more roads there, then trying to claim agnosticism as a middle ground.
Actually I don’t believe this is true. If my memory serves, which it may not, atheism originally meant that one didn’t believe in specific gods. For example, the original Christians were accused of atheism because they didn’t believe in the Roman gods.
You’re admitting here there is a difference between denying existence and claiming that there are no gods. If you thought they meant the same thing, you wouldn’t have included both with an “or” between them. What do you think it means to deny the existence of gods?
Correct. And the idea that “without Gods” means an active disbelief is just silly. And he’s just showing, again, that he doesn’t understand linguistics when he sees and/or discusses the very proof that rebuts his claims and doesn’t even understand why he’s wrong. The ancient Greek constructed the word via (a- + theo) meaning without gods/godless. Some time later it began to mean an active denial of the gods. The French adopted it by the same grammatical process a- mated to a word derived from theo, a- + theo +isme. English then adopted it from French and kept the same grammatical structure. A- + theo + ism.
Frank - Out of curiosity, do you intend to return to your other thread on whether “lack of evidence of x is not evidence of lack of x”? Because I still have those unanswered questions in there. Namely, I’m wondering about that coin flip.
throws up hand Ok…I surrender. If it will make folks feel better, they can label me ‘atheist’ if they like. So…I’m an atheist now. And, since it seems to be important to some folks on this board, I’m a ‘conservative’ as well. I’m sure there are any number of less flattering labels that some posters would also like to put on me, and some of them are probably even true. 
Now…can’t we all just get along? And can’t we let this go again until the next round of threads on this seemingly interminable subject rears it’s ugly head again? Think of the children…
-XT
Heh. I think we’ve heard enough from posters who can’t stop thinking of the children.
Ah…good point. Ok, scratch the children thingy. Let’s see…how about ‘Think of the hedgehogs…’?
-XT
Speaking for myself, it’s because you keep making disparaging remarks about atheists despite being wrong about what those atheists believe. The thought process is, if I can make you realize your wrong-ness in definitions, then you’ll stop disparaging the wrong groups.
Thank you…sorta!
No I do not. You people are the ones with the difference of opinion from what seems to me to be the majority of people. If I were to present my take on matters to almost anyone in the English speaking world (with the exception of debating atheists) I would say the overwhelming number of them would call me an agnostic. And almost none of them would add a qualifier of agnostic atheist. Most people, except for debating atheists, think atheism means what it has meant from classical times on (except for very recently)…which is, someone who denies the existence of deities.
I know that is tough for you to accept, but it is so. In fact, I know some non-debating atheists who would laugh at you people for pretending to be atheists. By now, you should realize that the only reason atheists ever use that “weak” qualifier is so that they do not have to defend their true perspective in debate. Most real atheists find you people amusing.
All I am saying about my agnosticism is that it means I do not know the answer to the question of whether or not there are gods…and that I do not have enough evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess.
I think the atheists on this site are trying to say that I am an atheist also. I am not. Why you people have to keep insisting that I am is beyond me.
Actually…I’ve cited dictionary definitions using my definition. Decent dictionaries. I am not redefining the word…you people are…because it serves your purposes. Otherwise, you would use the definition most atheists not debating use—the definition that has been used throughout history—and the definition most congruent with the etymology of the word. That definition, by the way is “without gods”…denying that there are deities.
Agnostics do not do that…so the only way you can demand that we be part of you people…is to define the word in the way you are insisting on doing.
[quote]
“us people”?
You aren’t ‘one of us’, since there is no ‘us’, per say. Your beliefs, or lack there of, meet the requirements of ‘atheism’, ergo, you are an atheist.[/quoe]
Wow…this was a mess!
I do not meet the requirements of “atheism” as it has existed throughout history until just a few years ago, actually. I do not meet the requirements of “atheism” as its etymology indicates. I do not meet the requirements of “atheism” as defined by Webster’s Dictionary.
So where do you come off saying that I do?
But you are the one pretending that I meet the “requirements” of atheism…when I don’t!
I do not “believe” in any gods. I do not “believe” there are no gods. The fact that I do not “believe” there are NO GODS…does not make me a theist…and the fact that I do not “believe” in any gods does not make me an atheist.
I am an agnostic. I know how disappointed you all are that I will not be one of you…but you have got to pull yourselves together and just accept it.
You are right…your memory does not serve you on this.
From the On-Line Etymological dictionary:
Atheist:
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos “to deny the gods, godless,” from a- “without” + theos “a god” (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo “atheist.”
I note that I posted a definition of atheist from the 1913 WD in this very thread that does match you:
Which is pretty much what the definition of atheist is today. Whatever you think atheist meant in the time before that is not relevant.
You explicitly stated that you don’t believe in the existence of God, therefore, you are an atheist. You can also be an agnostic. Fine. You’re still an atheist.
ETA: YOUR definition was already obsolete by then:
Wait, we’re doing this again? What was wrong with the other thread on this exact subject?
You don’t believe in any gods? Then you’re an atheist. Whether you “believe” there are no gods is irrelevent.
Of course, you’re not going to listen to that, because you have no interest in what the definitions of the words actually are. You’re in here prosteletizing about what you wish they were. Which in a way is okay - this is the forum for witnessing about things that you believe are true but aren’t. Thing is, it’s also the forum for persons who know better to tell you that you’re getting any less wrong, no matter how often you repeat it.
Do you seriously expect to get any converts to your way of defining? Beyond the handful who’ve been agreeing with you from the start, that is.
There is no need for me to “admit” there is a difference…of course there is and I definitely acknowledge it in every discussion of the matter.
Yes…the word atheist has always meant a denial of the existence of gods…which, of course, would include the active “belief” that there are no gods. But they are definitely distinct.
What is your point?
I am saying that I do not deny the existence of gods…and I do not “believe” there are no gods.
I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE GODS OR NOT. I am an agnostic.
How many times do I have to type those words for you to finally get them?
I do not know if there are gods or not…and I do not have enough evidence in either direction (none at all, actually) to make a guess either way.
Atheists…until the atheists of the Internet came along…either deny the existence of gods…or actively “believe” there are no gods.
With the group here…who the hell knows?