Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Ok,i took a minute,thought about it and now i know why you're wrong.

Think about it like this:

Theism is like a huge building.
God is the base of this building.
Religion is one of the part of this building.

Saying Atheism is disbelieving God would imply nothing about the rest of the building - which is enough to say that the definition that Atheism is disbelieving in God is wrong.
Whereas,if you say that Atheism is disbelieving in Theism would erase the whole building out of the question - this is obviously the right definition.

Or you can think about it like this.

God is only one of the subsets of Theism. (Theism =/= God)
Religion is another subset of theism.
Christianity,Hinduism etc are further subsets of religion.

Saying Atheism is disbelieving in god would only erase 1 subset of Theism - What about the other subsets?The definition specifies nothing about the other subsets.
Whereas looking at Atheism as Atheism is disbelieving in Theism would imply that Atheism disbelieves in the whole set of Theism.

@Whateverist, it took me a minute but now i get it gahahaha n1

[Cato]

The definition specifies nothing about the other subsets.

Why the hell should it?

The only problem you have with the English language is that you refuse to accept the well established definition of certain terms. I am quite certain that this is done intentionally and is likely not limited to words in English.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Because a definition should hold true for all values.

If you define a set X as a set of natural numbers,and then i point out a x in X which is not a natural number then the definition is wrong,X is obviously not a set of natural numbers.
Or
The definition should specify something about the x of X in X - which it doesn't in this case so the definition is obviously wrong.

I'm not playing words games or anything i'm just saying what's obvious to me but apparently invisible to you...

(Also i refuse to blindly accept any definition just because it exists - some person,a person,made that definition,and people make mistakes,i've shown what mistake whoever that made that definition made.)

[Whateverist]

Because a definition should hold true for all values.

I just looked it up and that is not to be found.  Oh, I see what you did there.  Coined a new definition for "definition".  You're nothing if not thorough .. thorough obfuscator, thoroughly mistaken.

[Cyberman]

Suppose I came to your house for dinner and told you I was allergic to fish, as in my body literally could not tolerate it. Would it be necessary to go through a list of every variety and species of marine fauna in an attempt to find something that wouldn't put me in hospital? Or would the generic label "fish" be enough?

[robvalue]

Every single one, including those that haven't evolved yet and ones in parallel dimensions.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Because a definition should hold true for all values.

I just looked it up and that is not to be found.  Oh, I see what you did there.  Coined a new definition for "definition".  You're nothing if not thorough .. thorough obfuscator, thoroughly mistaken.

Ahahaha that's very smart!
Are you implying that the definition of a set X as the set of all natural numbers would still hold in the event that an x of X is found out to be not a natural number?

I'm purely reasoning using logic and i suspect you're not - though you're welcome to prove me wrong.

[Cato]

Because a definition should hold true for all values.

If you define a set X as a set of natural numbers,and then i point out a x in X which is not a natural number then the definition is wrong,X is obviously not a set of natural numbers.
Or
The definition should specify something about the x of X in X - which it doesn't in this case so the definition is obviously wrong.

I'm not playing words games or anything i'm just saying what's obvious to me but apparently invisible to you...

(Also i refuse to blindly accept any definition just because it exists - some person,a person,made that definition,and people make mistakes,i've shown what mistake whoever that made that definition made.)

Atheists (X) is defined as the set of all people that don't believe in god (x). You're the one now coming along and throwing in other criteria such as other specific religious beliefs (non-x). 

See, you're still fucking wrong using the exact criteria you prescribed. Words have evolved meaning through usage and consensus. You are the one single-handedly and arbitrarily trying to establish meaning so you alone should be the focus of your ire based on not blindly accepting any definition because some person made the definition. 

The only mistake you have demonstrated is yours.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Suppose I came to your house for dinner and told you I was allergic to fish, as in my body literally could not tolerate it. Would it be necessary to go through a list of every variety and species of marine fauna in an attempt to find something that wouldn't put me in hospital? Or would the generic label "fish" be enough?

Your bold part of your analogy is wrong.
I'll explain why,in the bounds of your own analogy that is,i'm not saying that it is necessary to go through a list of every variety and species of marine fauna in an attempt to find something that wouldn't put you in hospital.
What i'm saying is that it would be necessary to go through the whole list of every variety and species of marine fauna to determine the legitimacy of your claim ,that is, you are allergic to fish.In the event that i find a fish x that you aren't allergic to,then you'd have to either specifically point out that you are allergic to fish except x or conclude your claim is wrong.

Hope you get it!

[Cyberman]

You know what? I fucking give up. You wolves can have him. Raw meat for the balcony.