It’s called social evolution. Language usage also evolves. Definitions can and do change… BUT guess what???
When they are IN USE by a majority to communicate an idea or thought to one another.
YOU don’t have to accept our usage of “atheist” and it’s accepted meaning.
Re-define it all you want. 
We don’t accept it. En masse.
Enjoy talking to yourself… really - only you understand what the fuck you are saying and advocating. A very stable genius.
The only error in semantics are yours.
You forgot clairvoyant also
Can have, but does not need to have, babies are all born lacking theistic belief. What’s the “semantic root” for a babies lack of theistic belief? Come one mate, your arguments can’t ignore facts like this and retain any credibility.
Completely at odds with the common usage, no one cares, if one were to accept your arbitrary disregard for common usage words would lose all meaning.
No, you are similarly disregarding the commonly accepted meaning of belief is all. No argument can be lent any credence when it starts with “I think the dictionary is wrong”, which is what you claimed.
So what, language evolve over time did you think no one here knew this? This fact makes dictionary definitions and common usage all the more important, but it does not in any way shape or form, support your claim. Atheism is neither a belief or a set of beliefs (doctrine). Etymology, whilst fascinating doesn’t justify making up definitions for words that do not reflect common usage. One might as well refuse to speak anything but Latin.
Has anyone seen the goalpost? I lost track of it at this point.
This discussion was about the Constitution and my argument that the Three-part Separation Theory is inadequate. I jumped through your hoops, but you were all focused on categorizing me a theist, rather than the subject of the discussion.
I will start another topic that may be easier for you to recognize the goal post.
Ok boomer, first off no one gives a rats ass about your ramblings on the American government. Secondly you have done nothing but move the goalpost when you get questioned on your quackery.
You cut the crap.
Why not just cut the crap?
Babies are born “tabula rasa.”
Persons have to be exposed to the doctrine and supporting reasoning (doctrines), but you deny the necessity for doctrine, because the common definition for atheism and theism do not refer to doctrine.
I just read the last 64 responses to this clown’s insane ramblings, what a waste of time.
What’s the definition of insanity again?
Atheism is a boundless subject and while some atheists may be very lax about their beliefs, some others may aim to achieve certain objectives. Just as devout believers have their own ideas and agendas, unswerving non-believers have their own. The Debate Room at Atheist Republic is a forum that urges people from both ends of the spectrum and even those in between to have healthy interactions, exchange opinions and participate in debates about any topic.
The number of topics that one can debate over in this forum is bounteous and the good thing is that Atheist Republic heartily welcomes all who want to participate, irrespective of whether they are secular individuals, non-believers or even those who do not see eye-to-eye with atheists.
We know that all individuals are entitled to their own point of view but Atheist Republic also believes that there is no harm in having one’s point of view challenged. We are of the opinion that unless people involve themselves in educative, logical and meaningful debates, they will be unable to evolve intellectually, understand others with tolerance and appreciate what lies on the other side.
If you have ideas that genuinely intrigue you or could possibly intrigue others, it is a great idea to initiate and participate in a debate at Atheist Republic’s Debate Forum. Either you contribute to an existing thread or you can even start a thread of your own. Just remember to be respectful to all users since every individual is entitled to his or her own beliefs. Besides, you only stand to gain when you can engage with another in a comprehensible conversation. As most wise people are believed to have said, war was never the means for peace.
Ipso facto they are born atheists, and free of doctrine, as I said, so you seem to be repeating my point back to me, despite it destroying your claim that atheism is a doctrine, or that it requires doctrine.
FFS what is it you think “tabula rasa.” means? Yes, obviously, since babies have a “clean slate” they lack theistic belief and are atheists by definition, since they lack all beliefs they also lack doctrine, QED atheism is not a doctrine, nor does it need any doctrine. Atheists can and do adhere to doctrine, how many fucking times does it need to be explained to you that atheists, and atheism are not the same fucking thing?
Theism is a set of beliefs, thus it is a doctrine by definition, atheism by definition is not a doctrine. We are going around and around with you making the same false statements over and over, if that’s not trolling what it is?
Doctrine
noun
Thus theism involves a set of beliefs is this sinking in yet?
Atheism
noun
So clearly that is not a set of beliefs, but the lack or absence of a single belief. I don’t give a fuck what you want it to mean, or even why.
That;
'That’s not a question. You speek-a-duh Engrishee?
Uhhhhh huuuuummmm - Theism is simply belief in God or gods. It is defined as tinking/believing “God Exists.” All the dogma shit comes while defining that god, what he is like, how he exists, and why he does the things he does. There are pantheist gods, Catholic gods, many versions of Christian gods, Norse gods, Pagan gods, and all of them have their own reasons for existing and dogma for their minions to follow.
Well theism is a belief in a god, but specifically a creator that intervenes in the universe, so it would necessarily involve a set of beliefs.
Yes. Once the assertion is made, people are going to have questions. If you can’t answer the questions, no one is going to believe you. So, you pull shit out of your ass and create Dogma. Atheism doesn’t work anything like that. We just wonder what in the fuck the theists are all talking about, and if there is a god, why in the hell can’t they all just get along? LOL
Obviously you think if you run your mouth enough you’ll magically convince everyone here that your shit argument on Atheism being a religion is legitimate. Sadly you are mistaken. But you must need to hear that 100 more times by most of everyone here before you give up and move on.
yes, I think I said that some 300 redundant wordy posts ago.
Please reference the Venn Diagram.
Bitch, I am claiming that atheism is a political doctrine. Atheism is not a religion just as theism is not a religion. It’s a real shame that i am the only atheist keen enough to recognize that, because all of the analogies, that you peon atheists use, are erroneous.