True Definition of Atheism

[OldGit]

Regardless of a word's roots ,its definition is defined by its common usage.

Quite right.  'suppose' < Latin sub + ponere but it no longer means 'put underneath'.  It is interesting to know what a word used to mean, but that often has little or no bearing on what it means now.

I would prefer to keep it simple: an atheist is one who does not believe in any god, which (as has been noted above) is precisely the same as believing that none exists.

[Aedus]

Regardless of a words roots its deffinition it is defined by it's common usage. If Atheism had originaly meant in latin "strongest belief in god possible" but was currently used to represent an lack of belief in god then that is it's current deffinition.

As an example a will use the word 'bad' we all know that the word 'bad' means "not good in any manner or degree" as the first deffinition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad and most of the following deffinitions are similar however if you scroll down to 36 you will see "Slang. outstandingly excellent; first-rate: He's a bad man on drums, and the fans love him." depsite the word bad meaning not good in most cases, there is a usage of it does specificly mean good because that is a common usage. Atheism means "a disbelief in god or gods" because that how it's used and what its understood to mean.

Spliting hairs and using semantics does not change a deffinition.

Now let's address the actual subject at hand. The ARIS 2008 survey shows that only 5% of nonreligous people are atheists (though it is much higher in the whole world, around 20% I think). If we go with the lack of belief definition for which there is no evidence, then that would include the other 80/95%. This is PROOF that the lack of belief definition is not commonly used (probably because it's too vague to be useful).

I have to wonder why you guys are pushing for this definition anyway? What's wrong with atheism simply being "a position of denial or doubt about Gods," as it is defined in every dictionary? Do you want to shift the burden of proof? Or do you guys just not want to admit that in actuality you're an extremely small minority militantly crusading against religion?

Either way, I want a good reason for why the other 95% of nonreligious people should be forced into adopting your position. Because frankly, I have never met an atheist who came off as a simple religious skeptic.

You are referring to one dictionary and another dictionary that was based on the first one ... you ignored this part from my previous thread.  This is a poor argument from authority at best.  Because a word is in a dictionary doesn't mean its a good definition or even accurate.  How is the dictionary you put forth as accurate in this area different then say the Webster's 1828 Dictionary?  Here is Atheism as defined by the 1828 Webster's dictionary and its as wrong as the definition from your dictionary.  Please show me why I should accept your dictionary over another one.

Because the definition in that dictionary (which is similar to the definition in all other reputable dictionaries) is closer to reality (atheists being 5/20% of nontheists). Atheists are people who deny or actively disbelieve/doubt the existence of God, as opposed to your lack of belief definition which would include the vast majority of people who don't self identify themselves as atheists.

I'm sure you can put these together.  

You've defined some random words and I'm supposed to infer something from this? Seems like you're just dodging the point.

Let me ask you something ... are there atheists who don't lack a belief in a god(s)? All atheists lack a belief in a god and all who lack a belief in a god are atheists.  No exceptions i'm afraid.

*facepalm

Disbelief is included in lack of belief. It's really not a difficult concept. Not all who lack a belief have disbelief. If there are no exceptions as you say then answer the question: how does a person who has never heard of the concept of God have "disbelief" in him?

If I accepted your definition (which I don't)

Then give me a better definition.

Again though you need to demonstrate why mine is wrong and the straw men used on the website aren't going to convince me ... sorry

The burden of proof is on you because you've provided no evidence for your position and it has already been proven that not all those who lack belief call themselves atheists and that not all those who lack a belief have disbelief, which atheism is defined as in every dictionary.

if you want to talk about this do it in another thread and before you start talking about dogmatic atheists look up the word dogma first.

Dogma - something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet.

You seem to have a real problem with understanding the correct meanings of words.

So with the burden of proof issue you seem to be bring forth (and I apologize in advance if I go OT) are you saying that the burden of proof should be on atheists and not theists always?  If I were to tell you I had a family of magical leprechauns living in my basement would I be required to prove it or would you have to disprove it?  The theists are the ones who make the claim that there is some sky daddy hurting people they don't like and helping them and will give them everything they want of they think hard enough that daddy is their master and if you don't think hard enough you will not only get tortured forever but that you deserve it and its a good thing.   Do I need to prove to them that they are wrong or do they need to prove to me that they are right?  If I were to go around saying that there is no god then the burden of proof is on me .... when you make a claim that something is true the burden of proof is on you.  If you doubt the claim you are not responsible for demonstrating why it's not true.

Agreed - now get back on topic.

From what you've already said the guy is an atheist ... tsk tsk ... inconsistent today aren't ya.

Yes he's an atheist, what's your point?

Finally you sum this up with your ignorance on the burden of proof.  The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. If I were to claim that there is no god then the burden of proof would be on me ... just like with agnostics who make the claim that nothing can be known concerning God ... then you need to back your claim up.  It's not too hard.

In conclusion your arguments are poor and your standards suck.  Your ignorance about what atheists are has been demonstrated numerous times.  You should leave the defining to us because you have no idea who we are and your post is evidence for that.

No thanks. I simply find it pathetic that you guys don't know what your own position means.

So who decides these things? You? Other atheists? (who only make up a pathetic 5% of nonreligious people) I think we should go by what the vast majority of people believe - common usage.

If we go with common usage of the masses...atheist means devil worshiper.

btw, quit using abrasive language...it makes you look like an ass.

I don't think its just a look.

Hilarious - a forum dedicated to badmouthing & insulting theists or anyone else who doesn't agree with atheist dogma is calling me out for being an ass. Perhaps you cowards should learn to take what you dish out?

[Whitney]

Aedus...this forum is not dedicated to insulting and bad mouthing theists.  In fact, we have an agnostic theist on our moderator staff and he is very nice and we all like him...I don't think he'd like us very much if all we did was bad mouth theists.  If you had taken the time to look around the forum you'd notice that any theist who approaches us in a respectful manner is treated in kind.  If you had taken the time to read the front page of this site you'd know the HAF mission statement.  But, instead of doing that you are being prejudice in assuming we are like whatever you think atheists should be like.  It's a shame that someone who considers themselves agnostic is unable to use their reasoning skills to figure out that not only is it nonproductive to act like an ass but also that not everyone that shares one particular view will act in the same manner.

[joeactor]

(curtsy) Thanks Whit!

Ok, I'll chime in.

Hi Aedus - I'm the afore mentioned "Agnostic Theist".

Your original posted article and subsequent replies belie a great deal of anger and frustration.
Although your profile states you are agnostic, I am having trouble believing that.

Words are created by humans, and we are the ones who bestow meaning upon them.
I'm sure Christians would not like it if I tried to redefine "Christian" to mean "Believer in Baal".
In the same vein, perhaps the group that the word represents should have a greater say in its meaning.

... and it really doesn't matter that 95% or 80% of the world believe in something.
The impetus is on them to prove that something exists, not the other way around.

I am a theist because of my belief... not due to some concrete proof.
If you can prove something, then belief is no longer required.

My fave word with a new meaning?
"Thrill" - it originally meant "to put a hole in something"
... which is where we get "nostril" aka "Nose Thrill".

I would suggest you use your nostrils, take a deep breath, and post a bit more civilly.

One mime's opinion,
JoeActor

[LoneMateria]

Now let's address the actual subject at hand. The ARIS 2008 survey shows that only 5% of nonreligous people are atheists (though it is much higher in the whole world, around 20% I think). If we go with the lack of belief definition for which there is no evidence, then that would include the other 80/95%. This is PROOF that the lack of belief definition is not commonly used (probably because it's too vague to be useful).

So if the majority of people thought that atheist meant people who eat babies and worship satan would they be right because it's the majority?  This is a poor survey btw.  Non-religious can include theists who aren't affiliated with a religion they just believe in a god.  If you wanted to take an accurate representation of those who do not believe(or have confidence in) in a god or gods then you would take the atheists which make up 5% of their bad category and agnostics which make up 6%.  In which case of that 11% we make up 45%. of our group.

 

I have to wonder why you guys are pushing for this definition anyway? What's wrong with atheism simply being "a position of denial or doubt about Gods," as it is defined in every dictionary? Do you want to shift the burden of proof? Or do you guys just not want to admit that in actuality you're an extremely small minority militantly crusading against religion?

Please look up false dichotomy.

Again you didn't address my dictionary issue I've put forth you've just reasserted that this is an infallible authority figure and whatever is written in a dictionary is true.

Either way, I want a good reason for why the other 95% of nonreligious people should be forced into adopting your position. Because frankly, I have never met an atheist who came off as a simple religious skeptic.

http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/NONES_08.pdf

Again you are misrepresenting the situation.  Non-religious people can believe in a god ... neither your definition or mine includes that group of people you are just including them to fudge numbers in your favor.

Again theism is a position.  You are either a theist or you aren't.  You either believe in a god or gods or you don't.  You are either a theist or not a theist (atheist) ... atheists can be broken down into many different groups but in regards to the position of theism you are either a theist or an atheist.  

Because the definition in that dictionary (which is similar to the definition in all other reputable dictionaries) is closer to reality (atheists being 5/20% of nontheists). Atheists are people who deny or actively disbelieve/doubt the existence of God, as opposed to your lack of belief definition which would include the vast majority of people who don't self identify themselves as atheists.

Atheism isn't a verb ... i'm not going to atheism over in the corner ... i'm not going to atheism while driving.  I can't be actively atheisming anywhere.  The way you are defining atheism would make it a verb and it isn't.  Like every other position that deals with belief atheism, agnosticism, deism, Christianity, Islam, and all the others are not actively doing anything... its a position.  Your definition is flawed.

You've defined some random words and I'm supposed to infer something from this? Seems like you're just dodging the point.

you made a point?  I must have really missed it because I didn't see one.  And your post is an obvious dodge.

Let me ask you something ... are there atheists who don't lack a belief in a god(s)? All atheists lack a belief in a god and all who lack a belief in a god are atheists.  No exceptions i'm afraid.

*facepalm

Disbelief is included in lack of belief. It's really not a difficult concept. Not all who lack a belief have disbelief. If there are no exceptions as you say then answer the question: how does a person who has never heard of the concept of God have "disbelief" in him?

Disbelief is a sub-category of lack of belief.  Just like trucks are a sub-category of vehicles.  Because I own a vehicle doesn't mean I own a truck.  Just because I lack a belief doesn't mean I disbelieve.  This isn't that hard to get.

Then give me a better definition.

I did.  However like I said afterwards you are the one putting this definition forward as true and you must demonstrate why this definition is accurate.  I'd ask you to explain again why your definition is true but you won't acknowledge there are problems with your definition.  We might as well be talking in circles here.

The burden of proof is on you because you've provided no evidence for your position and it has already been proven that not all those who lack belief call themselves atheists and that not all those who lack a belief have disbelief, which atheism is defined as in every dictionary.

You are mistaken.  You want us to change our position and you have submitted "evidence" for your claim ... when we show you that the evidence you submitted is unacceptable you try to put the burden of proof on us.  Your arguments are unconvincing and you want us to choose between the definition we agree on and yours ... we've pointed out why yours doesn't work.  Please tell us why your position is correct ... so far the only arguments i've heard are arguments from majority ... arguments from BS statistics ... arguments from ignorance ... and straw men arguments.

Dogma - something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet.

You seem to have a real problem with understanding the correct meanings of words.

What authoritative figure set forth this dogma of atheism?  It can't be dogma without being set-up by an authoritative figure.  You are having an exceedingly difficult time using words correctly.  And belittling me is not making up for your blatant ignorance.

Agreed - now get back on topic.

See we can agree on something.

Yeah, poor guy, with countless references to definitions and etymologies of reputable dictionaries on top of the links to professional articles. I bet he wishes he had the volume of evidence that atheists have (from what I can gather so far is nothing, save the irrational belief that the atheist position should be expanded to include more people so that atheists can avoid burden of proof.

From what you've already said the guy is an atheist ... tsk tsk ... inconsistent today aren't ya.

Yes he's an atheist, what's your point?

You are clearly atheist bashing here.  You are trying to say our arguments aren't correct because we don't use his dictionary and we are atheists so we don't have proof.  Well he is an atheist too.  Why are our definitions wrong and his right?  Because a dictionary says so... still not convinced.

Finally you sum this up with your ignorance on the burden of proof.  The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. If I were to claim that there is no god then the burden of proof would be on me ... just like with agnostics who make the claim that nothing can be known concerning God ... then you need to back your claim up.  It's not too hard.

http://20images.starcraftmazter.net/4ch ... rawman.jpg

Please explain to me how this is a straw man.  How am I misrepresenting the situation?  

No thanks. I simply find it pathetic that you guys don't know what your own position means.

I'm sure we know our position better than you.

[quote ]

So who decides these things? You? Other atheists? (who only make up a pathetic 5% of nonreligious people) I think we should go by what the vast majority of people believe - common usage.

If we go with common usage of the masses...atheist means devil worshiper.

btw, quit using abrasive language...it makes you look like an ass.

I don't think its just a look.

Hilarious - a forum dedicated to badmouthing & insulting theists or anyone else who doesn't agree with atheist dogma is calling me out for being an ass. Perhaps you cowards should learn to take what you dish out?[/quote]

Thank you for proving us right.

[Tanker]

Regardless of a words roots its deffinition it is defined by it's common usage. If Atheism had originaly meant in latin "strongest belief in god possible" but was currently used to represent an lack of belief in god then that is it's current deffinition.

As an example a will use the word 'bad' we all know that the word 'bad' means "not good in any manner or degree" as the first deffinition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad and most of the following deffinitions are similar however if you scroll down to 36 you will see "Slang. outstandingly excellent; first-rate: He's a bad man on drums, and the fans love him." depsite the word bad meaning not good in most cases, there is a usage of it does specificly mean good because that is a common usage. Atheism means "a disbelief in god or gods" because that how it's used and what its understood to mean.

Spliting hairs and using semantics does not change a deffinition.

Now let's address the actual subject at hand. The ARIS 2008 survey shows that only 5% of nonreligous people are atheists (though it is much higher in the whole world, around 20% I think). If we go with the lack of belief definition for which there is no evidence, then that would include the other 80/95%. This is PROOF that the lack of belief definition is not commonly used (probably because it's too vague to be useful).

I have to wonder why you guys are pushing for this definition anyway? What's wrong with atheism simply being "a position of denial or doubt about Gods," as it is defined in every dictionary? Do you want to shift the burden of proof? Or do you guys just not want to admit that in actuality you're an extremely small minority militantly crusading against religion?

Either way, I want a good reason for why the other 95% of nonreligious people should be forced into adopting your position. Because frankly, I have never met an atheist who came off as a simple religious skeptic.

I Believe I was very specificly addressing the subject at hand. The problem seems to be that you don't like the deffinition of 'atheism' and are trying to use the original roots being used differently as a reason why the word is misused. It does NOT matter how many people belive what in what way. The deffinition of Atheism is what it is because that is what people mean when they use the word.

WE are not "pushing for this definition" it is the established definiton several hundred years old most likely created by Christians in the first place. You may not agree wth the way the word is used but the only way to change it is to turn your usage into "common usage" instead of nearly unknown ad totaly unused. That is afterall how words get their deffinitions.

We don't force anyone to do anything, that would require dogma something non-existant in Atheism.

FYI the "argument from numbers" is a logical falacy and not strong position to use. In fact most of the people here are pretty familiar with many of the common logical fallacies. You have used a few of them so far I would look them up before you consider making a new argument. Wikipedia has a pretty good article you should check it out.

[Aedus]

I Believe I was very specificly addressing the subject at hand. The problem seems to be that you don't like the deffinition of 'atheism' and are trying to use the original roots being used differently as a reason why the word is misused. It does NOT matter how many people belive what in what way. The deffinition of Atheism is what it is because that is what people mean when they use the word.

Just to be clear I don't care about the original roots. And your last sentence contradicts your claim that "It does NOT matter how many people belive what in what way".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Atheism - a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief is only in response to something. Babies, agnostics, and noncognivists have no disbelief. Please stop abusing the English language. If you insist that your lack of belief definition is right then answer the question: how does a person who has never heard of the concept of God have "disbelief" in him? I'm still waiting for peoples' bizarre and otherworldly explanation for this.

We should define disbelief:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
Disbelief - the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

It should be noted that the -dis prefix can sometimes mean lack. But it doesn't follow that it always means that in the compound words that are created, such as disbelief. Or what about discourage? When someone is discouraged he has less courage than before, not a lack of courage. There are several dictionaries who use these faulty definitions, hence why atheists abuse the definition of atheism.

FYI the "argument from numbers" is a logical falacy and not strong position to use. In fact most of the people here are pretty familiar with many of the common logical fallacies.

You do get that that is how words are defined? It's not an argument from numbers. If you think it is then you should go tell the folks at Merriam-Webster or any other reputable dictionary that their way of defining words is fallacious. I'm sure they'll take the advice of some random atheist and admit that they were wrong the whole time. Perhaps they'll adopt your way of defining words: changing definitions to whatever suits them.

[LoneMateria]

Well Aedus I see you've ignored my post and what i've said.  Normally when you argue a position and are unconvincing or are proven wrong then the thing to do is re-evaluate your position and either figure out why i'm wrong ( which you haven't done) or figure out why you are right.  Not just plug your ears and say, "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

[Aedus]

Just checking back to see if anyone has any reason for why the definition of atheism should be expanded to everyone with a lack of belief instead of just a disbelief like it says in every single dictionary.

Sigh.  When a philosopher says atheist they mean someone who doesn't have a belief in a god.

Except they don't. Look for these articles:
Atheism and Natheism.  An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the Autumn 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
Atheism and Natheism: part II  An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the Winter 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an Essay by Theodore M. Drange.

[LoneMateria]

For everyone who actually wants to hear the reason its lack of a belief: (this is for others since Aedus is banned for being a douche)

Theism is a position.  Its the position you believe in a deity.  A-theism or (without-theism) is simply not that position.  You either believe in a deity or you don't.  You don't need to be presented with the deity to not believe in it thats just absurd.  If you don't have confidence in the claim that a deity exists your are an atheist.  You lack that belief.  Simple.

[Recusant]

For everyone who actually wants to hear the reason its lack of a belief: (this is for others since Aedus is banned for being a douche)

Theism is a position.  Its the position you believe in a deity.  A-theism or (without-theism) is simply not that position.  You either believe in a deity or you don't.  You don't need to be presented with the deity to not believe in it thats just absurd.  If you don't have confidence in the claim that a deity exists your are an atheist.  You lack that belief.  Simple.

1)  While I think that your characterization of Aedus may have some validity, it's exactly that type of ad hominem diction that got him banned.  Simply because he used such a poor choice of words is not an excuse or reason to do the same, in my opinion.

2) Aedus actually has a sound basis for his line of reasoning, in that historically, the definition of atheism to which he so tenaciously clings is the correct one.  He (like practically every dictionary) simply refuses to recognize that the usage (by most atheists themselves) has moved on. I've done some reading on this subject, and it appears that the contemporary (in atheist circles) usage of the word dates to the publication of Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith, in 1979. Its widespread adoption, at least, once again, in atheist circles, seems to be a result of the perceived advantage it gives to atheists in debate by shifting all burden of proof onto the theist position.

I've found a couple of interesting articles which deal with the subject:

Atheism - Etymology by Donn R. Day

Defining Atheism: "No belief in God" or "Belief in no God?" by John Ferrer

(Edited to repair links. -- R)

[Ellainix]

Aedus:

Am I an Atheist because I don't believe in God, or do I not believe in God because I am an Atheist?

[coltcat]

okay...
if god is or are some kind of supernatrual being thats beyond our knowledge
that will put the buddhists in the theism category.
and I dont know why most US ppl thinks buddhists are atheist becuz they dont believe in some kind of supernatrual being.
judging by some arcticle on the issue from US,somehow the god have to be a supernatraul being that "created the universe".

[LoneMateria]

1)  While I think that your characterization of Aedus may have some validity, it's exactly that type of ad hominem diction that got him banned.  Simply because he used such a poor choice of words is not an excuse or reason to do the same, in my opinion.

I think I accurately represented the reason he was banned.  I could have used a paragraph to explain what that one word sums up but I honestly didn't feel like it.  His position isn't false because I think hes a douche, his position is false because its built on many foundational errors.  Which I will address in the next part.

2) Aedus actually has a sound basis for his line of reasoning, in that historically, the definition of atheism to which he so tenaciously clings is the correct one.  He (like practically every dictionary) simply refuses to recognize that the usage (by most atheists themselves) has moved on. I've done some reading on this subject, and it appears that the contemporary (in atheist circles) usage of the word dates to the publication of Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith, in 1979. It's widespread adoption, at least, once again, in atheist circles, seems to be a result of the perceived advantage it gives to atheists in debate by shifting all burden of proof onto the theist position.

I first want to mention that language evolves.  The same version of English we speak is different from the English language spoken 300 years ago.  Words have meanings which change through time.  But i'm not going to get into the etymology of words.

What you are claiming is that this "new" definition has been around for 30 years (I don't know for sure, i'm gonna take your word on it since you seem to be a reliable source).  Now i'm 22, atheists have used this definition since before I was alive.  So I have to ask,  how long does it take when people change the usage of a word before it is considered valid usage of the word?  A decade?  Two decades?  Does it matter why its changed?  If it was changed for a stupid reason like changing the burden of proof does it matter if the new usage is the common usage?

It doesn't matter why the definition of a word is changed.  If the definition of the word hard drive was changed to "A rudimentary storage device for non-apple computers" (for a hypothetical).  Does it really matter why it was changed if millions of people accept that definition?  The definition of the word is dependent on the people who are there at that time to interpret it.  Atheists are looked down upon now and even more so 30 or 50 years ago.  Is it any wonder that the old definition misrepresents atheists.  Besides how many atheists would there be if they took the position listed?  More people call themselves atheists because they are pretty sure there are no gods.  This definition only applies to the people who take the strong atheism position where they say there is no god for sure.

Anyway regardless of the last 2 paragraphs this is still a bad definition.  Like I mentioned in my previous post theism is the position there is a god (more specifically a personal god but most just say a god in general).  Atheism is simply not that position.  If you are a theist then you believe there is a god.  If you are unsure then by the definition your are not a theist.  In the dichotomy theism or not-theism (which I tend to define as atheism [without-theism or not-theism]) you are either a theist or you aren't.  You either believe in a god or you don't.  No middle ground there.  If you don't believe in said god regardless of the circumstance then you are an non-theist (atheist).  

I've found a couple of interesting articles which deal with the subject:

Atheism - Etymology by Donn R. Day

Defining Atheism: “No belief in God” or “Belief in no God?” by John Ferrer

I didn't look through the articles I will later though ^_^

[Recusant]

What you are claiming is that this "new" definition has been around for 30 years (I don't know for sure, i'm gonna take your word on it since you seem to be a reliable source)

Heh.  Well, I wouldn't say that I was a reliable source.  I'm merely passing on what I've learned, from the articles that I linked to and from other reading.  If I were you, I would explore the subject to some depth on my own, as no doubt you have, and will continue to.  I don't think that either of the pieces is particularly friendly to the atheist position, but I like to get information from different perspectives so that I'm not just part of the "choir" in "preaching to the choir."

In fact the "Etymology" article by Day gives an even earlier citation for something like the "modern" usage:

 

The earliest source that I have been able to find that slightly resembles modern usage, is by Charles Bradlaugh, an agnostic.

"The atheist does not say, 'There is no God,' but he says, 'I know not what you mean by God; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.'"(A Plea for Atheism-1864).

However, I'm willing to accept that the "traditional" usage was pretty much standard until sometime in the late 70's.  I realized that I was an atheist in the late 60's/early 70's, and in fact I did then and still do deny the existence of a god or gods.  I knew then and I still know that that position is really no more defensible than the theist's, but that doesn't stop me from holding it.  However, it's much easier to argue against theism if one doesn't have to at the same time defend a position for which there is not much more evidence than your opponent's. And as I explain below, I don't fully qualify for the strong atheist position.

The formulation that I've come to like best is from Dawkins:

 

(1) Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
(2) Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
(3) Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
(4) Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
(5) Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
(6) Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
(7) Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I would say that I may miss being a full (7) by a tiny bit, because I just can't muster the amount of faith that it requires.  Still, for all practical purposes, I'm in that category.  I think that there are a couple of reasons why I'm willing to accept the "traditional" definition.  First, I initially came to atheism through a strong reaction to some very negative experiences with theists.  I actually felt hatred for religion, and the religion which surrounded me in particular. (I've mellowed out over the decades since, but there is a lingering desire to distance myself as far as possible from theism.) Second, the more contemporary formulations did not exist at the time, and I felt that "agnosticism" just was not sufficient to express my position on the "God" question.  All that said, I do agree that usage changes and has changed in this case.  I'm all for the contemporary usage which has been adopted by atheists, and I think that Aedus was being unnecessarily truculent in his attempts to reassert the "traditional" definition, whatever his motivation.