@rosborne979,
Once again, Rosborne, the citations you brought here all seem to suggest that “atheism” is derived from “a” + “theism”…which would make it “a” without + “theism” a belief in god = without a belief in god.
But atheism did not come into the English language that way…it derived the way I have stated a couple of times now…and originally meant without gods.
I have no problem with atheists using it the way you are suggesting…and I accept that they do. (I do not accept that only a “small minority” of atheists “deny the existence of God"—I suspect most do, but only a few, like Edgar, actually acknowledge that they do.)
In any case, it really does not matter, because that is not what we are arguing here.
This entire thing started when I returned to A2K, and after being asked a question, mentioned a post of mine of several years ago, which reduces to:
If there is the possibility of a god …then there is the possibility of Intelligent Design.
I did not say a god exists…I did not even say there is the possibility of a god…I merely posited a hypothetical of sorts.
IF there is the possibility of a god…then there is the possibility of Intelligent Design.
I even granted that
IF there is Intelligent Design, that design is exactly what scientists are discovering…the "design" is what science is coming up with. No reason why there could not be a god…intelligently designing evolution as we are uncovering it through scientific endeavor.
HOWEVER, the only way there can be no possibility of a god (and thus no possibility of Intelligent Design)…is if it is impossible for gods to exist.
So forget about “atheist” no matter how defined…and deal with the question “Is it impossible for gods to exist?”
Which is what I have been doing.