The definetion of atheism

[Esquilax]

I'm the 3.6%

And, as I've asked before, why should we allow the religious to define what atheism is, and if we did, if they defined it as something other than what we believe, why would we be obligated to take up the beliefs of your new definition?

Would you accept that from us? If we decided to redefine christianity in a way that makes our position easier to defend, would you then work from this new position, or would you continue using your own beliefs?

In effect, by voting for the definition that doesn't apply to the majority of us, you're arguing against the word, and not the people. Which... fine, if you want to play that kind of childish game, I don't care if you win it, because you can call us whatever you like, hijacking the word is never going to get you close to proving your position or arguing against ours.

If you're really desperate for atheism to mean something else, then we're no longer atheists. We'd be something else, even if we had to come up with a new word for it. And if you decided that new word meant something other than what we believe, we'd no longer fit the category and have to pick another. It could be a long linguistic migration, but you wouldn't be accomplishing anything; we would still exist, our position would still be here, and you still wouldn't have anything by way of a rebuttal.