The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[God of Mr. Hanky]

DBP's post is a excellent example of carelessness. If you read a little further in the article, you'll see that Wikipedia's introductory "definition" has little or nothing in common with the word's etymology, which is much more specific. Overall, it is a grand example what happens when words are carelessly used over time: they lose their specificity and dissolve into ambiguity and meaninglessness.

Pot calls kettle black.

Etymologically speaking, the Merriam-Webster theists have been mangling that for "atheist" for centuries, and this is probably new information for you as well. We are not people "who do not believe in God", as if the Abrahamic god is the only one which may apply! We are "a" (the Greek negation) "theist", which is "not a theist". If you don't believe in FSM, then you are an atheist on that god - that's right, you're an atheist too! Relative to monotheism, we go one god further with the gods we doubt the existence of.

The important difference here is that atheists are very real people, therefore we have the right to demand recognition of our position true to the original etymology of the word which society refers to us by. With no evidence in existence that a literal "spirit" exists, it's perfectly ok for the world to forget about any etymology which may have once credited it as something well-defined and real.