The Definition of "Atheism"

[Night]

Atheism, literally, means "without a belief in god". It does not mean "The belief that god does not exist".

That means that agnostics are atheists. Since they "don't know" whether or not god exists, it means they are without a belief in god (aka; atheist).

Atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK of a belief.

I don't believe god doesn't exist...I just don't believe in god, and deny the concept of god entirely.

[Cephus]

Atheism is the answer to a single question, "Do you believe in a god?"

If you answer yes, you are a theist.

If you have any other answer, including "no", "I don't know" and "I don't care", you are an atheist.

It's not rocket science.

[Meleagar]

Atheism, literally, means "without a belief in god". It does not mean "The belief that god does not exist".

That means that agnostics are atheists. Since they "don't know" whether or not god exists, it means they are without a belief in god (aka; atheist).

Atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK of a belief.

I don't believe god doesn't exist...I just don't believe in god, and deny the concept of god entirely.

That is not what atheism "literally" means. That is the etymological root of the word. Most words do not mean what their etymological root is. As culture changes, so does the meaning of words.

However, that is really moot. The point is that both atheists and theists know that atheists believe there are no gods, and that atheism is an important belief that affects their entire worldview, they are just unwilling to try and defend their irrational faith by hiding behind convenient semantics.

[Jack]

That is not what atheism "literally" means. That is the etymological root of the word. Most words do not mean what their etymological root is.

Now you're going to object to the etymology of the word despite the fact you were the first one to refer to it? Most words do mean what their etymological roots indicate, it's just that in common usage proper definitions are often ignored in favor of interpretations that satisfy an ideological or political goal, like suggesting that atheism implies "the positive, universal claim that no gods exist", which it doesn't. There's nothing in "a" or "theism" that suggests a positive claim or universality.

However, that is really moot.

Why, because it was shown to be improperly interpreted?

The point is that both atheists and theists know that atheists believe there are no gods

True, but theists don't appreciate subtlety. They don't appear to understand degrees of philosophical contentions. The belief in gods is not all or nothing, is it? Don't the vast majority of theists believe in one god to the exclusion of all others? Then why should anyone think that atheists reject all possible gods? From my reading and speaking with atheists I've found that the majority reject belief in the specific gods that humans have invented throughout history but refrain from making statements about situations no one can know for certain, like the possibility of gods or god-like creatures existing somewhere, somehow in the universe.

...atheism is an important belief that affects their entire worldview...

Nonsense. The majority of atheists I know don't believe that aliens live among us and abduct humans for experimentation. Does that affect our entire worldview as well? Just because theists invest all their imagination into their beliefs does not mean that atheists invest one point of disbelief into theirs. Atheists have many positive beliefs that have nothing to do with the fact they don't buy into theistic belief. Personally I tend to believe in the basic goodness of people. Other than the fact that this belief contradicts the theistic attitude that all humans are sinful, evil creatures, atheism has no impact on it. I don't think all people are basically decent because I don't believe in your god.

...they are just unwilling to try and defend their irrational faith by hiding behind convenient semantics.

My opinion is that this statement applies to theists far more than it does to atheists.

[lsbskins1]

Here I go...Once more into the breach, dear friends.

I will not accept the term "atheist" in relation to my stance on religion. I will accept the term agnostic.

a) a·the·ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

b) ag·nos·tic
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

I am not the first, but I am the second. I don't care if believing Christians or Jews or Hindus or anyone of some other tradition that holds that there is a God or Gods thinks that lacking the surety of faith means that the effect on my soul is the same as denial or disbelief and I don't care if some atheists are willing to admit that they cannot absolutely know if some God exists. I am neither theist, nor atheist. I am an agnostic. There is a different word for a damn reason.

[Night]

I cannot truly say that pink invisible unicorns don't exist, but I'm pretty sure they don't. I'm the same with god. Both are ridiculous man-made ideas.

You an never prove that something doesn't exist. The fact that christians think that is proof of god is ridiculous.

[lsbskins1]

Both are ridiculous man-made ideas.

That right there is a statement of belief. You probably have a pretty high level of faith in the rightness of that belief.

I think the more apt analogy would be, "I have never seen a space alien." I can't prove that they do or don't exist. It is beyond my ability to know given the information I have available to me. It is, in my mind, equally possible that they do and that they don't exist. I can absolutely reject the idea of Martians as an existing form of space alien without completely rejecting the possibility of the existence of any and all space aliens.

[Dismay]

Atheism is the answer to a single question, "Do you believe in a god?"

If you answer yes, you are a theist.

What about deists? Pantheist? Do they not exist?

If you have any other answer, including "no", "I don't know" and "I don't care", you are an atheist.

Not knowing is simply agnosticism that doesn't exclude you from being an atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, or anything really...

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

- Gordon Stein in The Meaning of Agnosticism

.properly a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may deny that there is God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds the arguments which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.

-Robert Flint in Agnosticism

Not caring is separate from theism, atheism, and the like. It is known as apatheism

It's not rocket science.

I think this is the first correct thing you have posted... Ill tell you what else it is not. It is not something that can be explained aptly in such simplistic terms. This is a subject that has been talked about for centuries by thinkers; real thinkers. For you to simplify it in such a way is an insult to the topic and everyone who seriously discussed and contributed to it.

[LetThereBe]

Heh.

This whole topic basically comes down to whether you're a language prescriptivist or not.

The "proper" definition of atheism means without belief in Gods, as the OP suggests. However, the commonly understood definition leans more towards belief that there are no gods (or the supernatural altogether). The purpose of language is fostering communication through shared understanding of meaning, so the "common" definition is more useful in my opinion, unless you provide explicit explanation.
I think "proper" atheism and "strong" atheism are both necessary concepts... and if the differentiation is important in the context of your discussion it is worth explicitly calling out.

[Dismay]

I cannot truly say that pink invisible unicorns don't exist, but I'm pretty sure they don't. I'm the same with god. Both are ridiculous man-made ideas.

I can by the logical law of non-contradiction; an invisible unicorn cannot be pink as pink is a visible colour.

You [c]an never prove that something doesn't exist. The fact that christians think that is proof of god is ridiculous.

Yes you can at time disprove the existence of deities, objects, etc. by using the rules of logic.. Hence the reason I can disprove certain theistic claims.

[Night]

I can by the logical law of non-contradiction; an invisible unicorn cannot be pink as pink is a visible colour.

Let me clarify. The invisible pink unicorn is usually invisible, but when sexually aroused, the unicorn gives off a slight transparent pink hue.

[Dismay]

Let me clarify. The invisible pink unicorn is usually invisible, but when sexually aroused, the unicorn gives off a slight transparent pink hue.

Bugger can't argue with that lol...