Opinion on this Creed

[Jenny A]

How is appealing to philosophical references in order to define a philosophical term irrelevant?

Atheism in not a philosophy.  It is a state of mind, a state lacking a belief in god. And there is nothing particularly authoritative about a philosophical dictionary with the exception of description of various philosophies.  But even then the adherents of those philosophies would not better. .

Precisely!  You’re proving my point, early Christians did not merely lack a belief in other gods; they positively affirmed that all other gods did not exist; which is exactly how the term is used today.

Good.  Can I call you an atheist?  See.  Words change and they have nuance.  Currently among self described atheists you are wrong.  Atheists do not have a belief in a god or gods.  That's it.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/atheist

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

    You are mistaking words describing a state of belief or non belief in gods, for claim of proof their beliefs are correct.  A lack of belief in god is a state of being, not an argument for or against god.  Belief that there is no god is also a state of being, not an argument for or against god.  Belief that there is a god is a state of belief, not an argument that there is a god.

Where is this rule that a person can arbitrarily redefine a word if it’s a belief but not if it’s an argument? 

The usage has changed get over it. That change has to do with the way the word is used not the kind of word it is.  The word is descriptive.  No word is in and of itself an argument.  Theist and atheist are not arguments but states of belief.  There are arguments supporting them, but they are separate from the words.  The word bachelor is not an argument for bachelorhood just a term describing men who are not married.

Additionally, even if this were the case you would be guilty of breaking your own rule because changing the definition of atheism changes the argument for atheism.  It changes from “Since atheism is the affirmation of the non-existence of god here is my argument to support that affirmation….” to “Since atheism is the lack of belief in a god I am not required to give an argument in order to support my atheism.”  It’s a very sly tactic, but simply not allowed.

Hardly.  It merely clarifies.  Gnostic atheist believe there is no god.  Agnostic atheists lack a belief in god.  You apparently believe there is a god.  Regardless of which opponent or both you choose you still have the burden of proving there is a god, should you want to debate the issue.

    Belief in a claim, any claim, is not either or.  It is always: proven, false, or unproven.  For example, there is a quarter on my computer desk.  I claim it is heads up.  You can believe me, you can think I'm lying, or you can take the rational approach and remain undecided.  Similarly, suppose there is a jar of jelly beans.  I say there are 1003 jelly beans in the jar.  The claim has been made.  You can reject it, agree, or reserve judgment until the jelly beans are counted.

Remaining undecided is Huxley’s Agnosticism, not atheism.  If you want to identify as an

So you want to use old usage.  My lack of belief remains the same. I am an atheist of the subset agnostic atheist or weak atheist if you prefer.  

Agnostic Atheist” is not a term used in any philosophical reference that I am aware of.   In fact, many agnostics that I know would be quite offended to be lumped in with atheists.

So? Let them be offended.  I find your insistence that I must either be sure god exists or he doesn't offense.  Oh wait. . . didn't you say it was a either or proposition?  You did.  So if you can only believe there is a god or believe there isn't who would agnostics be?  You've already defined them out of existence.

Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

If there is not lack of belief or uncertainty then who are these agnostic people you are defending?  You can't have it both ways either people like me who know about god but lack belief exist or we don't.

 People have been defining and redefining words since the beginning of language.  The meaning of words changes over time.  There's a whole branch of study devoted to that phenomenon.  It's called entomology.

This is the is/ought fallacy, whether or not people do something does not demonstrate that they have the right to do said thing.  Additionally, there has been no change to the word atheism within the philosophical community; it seems to be only something that lay persons attempt to get away with.

Lay persons?  There is a philosophical laity?  Giggles.  This philosophical body of authorities is non-existent.  There are philosophers and people who read and or study philosophy.  There is no body of philosophical authority.  
 

  

Setting words aside.  I can't prove there is no god.  I only claim that god remains an unproven claim.  The burden of proving he exists remains on he who claims he does.  What you suggest does away with the burden of proof altogether.  The claim that big foot exists has been made.  It is the burden of those claiming him to show big foot exists.  The fact that most people find their evidence unconvincing does not shift the burden of proof to abigfootists.

Actually, when dealing with an interrogative such as “Does God exist?” the burden of proof is shared equally.  Secondly, one could also make the case that since theism is obviously the default position and the vast majority of people do find the evidence for God’s existence to be more than sufficient that burden of proof rests wholly upon the atheists since they are the ones arguing against the consensus position.  That being said, if I were an atheist I’d be trying to shift the burden of proof as well because that’s an impossible position to defend.    

Actually no.  The burden of showing the existence of anything is always on the person claim that thing.