I see the distinctions that you are all making. I understand the definitions. I no longer profess to be an atheist because the definitions don’t fit me.
andros - I see why someone with your definition of atheist would find a dogmatic atheist humorous, I just don’t see why you didn’t read my posts and realize that I don’t fit your definition. I thank you for your recent longer and more thoughful post and for restraining from further rolling of your smiley eyes.
I don’t want to apply dogma to someone else, I want to be able to easily explain my own dogma.
This is why I started this thread. It came to my attention that people were not understanding the word ‘atheist’ the way I meant it. I wanted a new word or a clarification of the existing one. I am fairly clear on the various flovors of atheism described in this thread. But I am not willing to be limited by them. Like andros said, I think that forcing yourself into a category can be limiting. However, I think that limit is self imposed. I think that the words themselves are useful in communicating our beliefs. The metaphors are limited because, for example, it is so easy to see that a detailed observation of the surface of the pond would reveal the presence of fish (or lack thereof), not to mention the fact that we can easily pierce the surface.
So, I get the feeling that no one has a word for someone who denies the existence of any spiritual anything. Too bad. I guess I’m just an Orbist. Any other Orbists out there? argybarg - how about you?
Anyone read Godel, Escher, Bach? In it, the word meta-agnostic is coined meaning someone who isn’t sure if they’re an agnostic or not. Probably desribes a lot of people. Then there’s the meta-meta-agnostics who are not sure if they’re meta-agnostics or not. 
Funny book for the first half and then it gets extremely deep into discussion of DNA. I don’t think I ever managed to wade through to the end. There are definitely pieces of Taoism and other philosophies that are applicable whether there is a spiritual world or not.
My friend here IRL is trying to convince me that I could hold all my currently professed beliefs and still accept reincarnation. He proposes a pattern of particles that upon your death spontaneously transmutes to another body like an electron that doesn’t move fluidly (like in some modern theories of physiscs). This pattern would have it’s pattern some limited record of all previous ‘lives’ and would influence the growth of the new creature. I can’t make this click with growing and declining populations (he is now making a futile attempt at proposing an alien species whose population changes reflect ours inversly). No, I COULD deny the existence of any god and still accept reincarnation. But, my denial of any spirtual realm prohibits any acceptance of reincarnation. Oh, now he says what about for just a few limited people. No. Why would this be? How would it come about? It’s not that way.
Anyone who is firm in their beliefs is going to find other beliefs a bit silly. The easy way that weak atheists and agnostics can respect other opinions is a good thing. I don’t have much problem respecting other people’s beliefs but there is still sometimes a point where I shake my head in wonder that anyone could possibly delude themselves so thoroughly.
I will accept strong atheist as describing a part of my beliefs but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Also, I submit that in a conversation with 10 random people the likelihood of someone knowing our definition of strong atheist is minimal. So I will have to describe myself as someone who denies the presence of any god or any spiritual being, object, or realm. Does that seem clear to you? Does anyone have any questions about what I mean? If so, I hereby coin the term Orbist to mean anyone who denies the presence of a god or any spiritual being, object, or realm.