Defining "Atheism"

[Tiberius]

You should talk about the context of that really. But you can take it out of context if you like.

Context doesn't add or take anything away in this case. Anyone who can come up with a type of person who is a "atheistic theist" is someone who obviously bastardises the dictionary and likes to combine two antonyms for the hell of it.

Besides, I'd like to know how it negates my point about the importance of understanding positioning of

1) a-,
2) theos, and
3) -ism

The "ism" at the end is to illustrate the word is talking about an ideology, so the word stems that are important are "athe" and "the" (from theism), which come from the Greek "atheos" and "theos" respectively.

"theos" is Greek for "God", and "atheos" is the Greek for "without God". So, it is quite clear from this quick lesson in etymology that the word "theism" describes any ideology that involves a God, and "atheism" describes any ideology that is without a God.

You simply cannot have an ideology that both has and doesn't have a God. It is a blatant contradiction.

How can anyone possibly reach a view about one's preferred definition of atheism without determining which component among these three is primarily allied to which other?

The question of which components are allied was answered by the people who came up with the language, and I demonstrated this above. I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "one's preferred definition", but if you are going back to your old tactics of trying to make up new definitions for already existing words, I'm going to politely ask you to stop (and loudly remind you that such action is against the forum guidelines now!)

You mean, everyone? Every single person apart from me? Do you have any evidence of that? There are two debates really, one about belief and one about statements of the existence of god. One would need to deal with them as separate issues when reaching any conclusions about the definition of atheism.

No, I mean the philosophical community, which luckily does not count you as one of their members. No, there aren't two debates; there are debates involving statements about the existence of God, in which both sides either subscribe (believe) or do not subscribe (disbelieve) in the statements. A debate where statements about the existence of God are discussed without either side having a position of belief or non-belief comes across to me as (a) very boring, and more importantly (b) impossible by the very purpose of a debate, which is to discuss two opposing viewpoints (beliefs).

By all means talk again about the classical laws of logic or refer us to a previous proof. Merely citing them doesn't constitute proof.

I gave you the proof. Don't ignore it. To have any middle ground between "believing" and "not believing" is a violation of the 3rd law of classical logic, the law of the excluded middle. That is the argument.

Atheism isn't automatically about belief. One can surely make an a priori statement setting out a position on the existence of God.

Yes, but then we aren't talking about knowledge here; we are talking about belief. Beliefs are, by definition, not necessarily true. One can make an a-priori statement about the existence of gods, but one cannot make any statement without either having a belief or not having a belief in it. Even if one has given no previous thought to the statement, this still translates to non-belief (since it isn't belief). Again, demonstrated via the violation of the third law of classical logic if the opposite were true.