yes you have, here…
Actually the razor predates Hitchens, and has been an epistemological razor used by philosophers for centuries. The absurdity of your latest hubristic absolute, involving the sum total of all philosophers speaks for itself. Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Yet all you’ve managed is irrational arguments for a first cause riddled with known logical fallacies, and erroneous and hubristic claims for the anonymous hearsay in the gospels.
Yes he did set a higher bar for credulity than anecdotal claims and anonymous hearsay from archaic superstition, but then he rightly would not have found that compelling evidence, and I can see why.
is it the commonly used and understood definition? Do any of the atheists conform to that definition?
Now pay attention as I now you’re on something of a crusade:
That definition would rule out all the atheists here from being atheists, whereas the current dictionary definition would include those who made such a denial. Now is it rational or even expedient to have a definition of atheism that excludes large numbers of people who do not believe any deity exists?
FYI, I knew, as I’m sure most people did of that reference, I’ve seen it before, from the same clowns who made the same nonsensical argument you’re presenting, many many times. It doesn’t apply to the atheists here as they have stated plainly, and since it isn’t the definition in common usage, it likely doesn’t apply to most atheists.
Atheism and atheist are not the same thing, atheists fall into different categories, but they all share one common trait, they lack belief in any deity or deities, just as atheism defines it.