Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Ben Davis]

An argument from authority you don't understand what that is. An argument from authority can be fallacious or it can be sound...

Pay attention. I said:

"An argument from authority... will not change the etymology of the word"

I was arguing neither the position nor the soundness of the argument from authority, I was pointing out that it was irrelevant. On that basis, most of what you posted was completely beside the point and possibly a feeble attempt at ad-hom point-scoring. I won't let you get away with side-stepping.

But what you say here is worth continuing the discussion because it demonstrates that you're still incorrectly conflating knowledge and belief, even after being corrected, only Jeff knows how many times, by so many people:

To see just how silly your definition of "atheist" as "not a theist" is, ask yourself whether an agnostic is "not a theist" and therefore given your false definition, agnostics are the same as atheists.

*clears throat and prepares best bell-like intonation...

WRONG!!!

An agnostic can be an atheist. An agnostic can also be a theist.

Just to make it a bit more comical, ask yourself if a bicycle is "not a theist". Agreed, a bicycle is not a theist. Therefore, Ben Davis thinks a bicycle is an atheist.

Actually, this is a discussion I had with the team at Mirriam Websters. Part of the reason they updated their definitions a few years ago was the result of discussions with me & those like me who demonstrated that 'The Atheism of a Stone' (as it has become known) is a solid linguistic proposition and an accurate prime use of the word. As a bike isn't a person, you need to drop the personal pronoun. A bike is 'atheist': it has an absence of theism. It's ability to be theistic is irrelevant. Far from being comical, it proves my point.