"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

This is but my second debate in general, so I'm still wet behind the ears. Thank you for contesting me on this issue, I enter this debate in hopes of learning and taking away information to better myself and my understanding. My first counter-argument is that the point I was making has been misconstrued, somewhat. I am not asserting that one that takes a position against the existence of God is not an Atheist. In fact, I did say they there are Atheist in addition to being Anti-theist. All Anti-theists are Atheists, but not all Atheists are Anti-theists. My argument is that the statement in question is not one that qualifies as an Atheistic statement, but rather an Anti-theistic statement. Atheism is specifically the lack of belief, and therefore does not address the issue of a belief against. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Secondly, I have looked up definitions and referenced websites, and have found that nearly all support the definition that I provided in Round #1. Here is a short list of sources. I would ask that if you are aware of documented, official instances of conflicting definitions, please cite some of them; I'd be interested to see. - Oxford Dictionary - About.com - http://atheism.about.com... - American Atheists - http://atheists.org... - Merriam-Webster Dictionary* - Religious Tolerance* - http://www.religioustolerance.org... - Creation Ministries (http://creation.com...) - (this is addressed at the end of my argument) *The Merriam-Webster dictionary does include two definitions for "Atheism": a : a disbelief in the existence of a deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity However, it defines "Atheist" as: : one who believes that there is not deity. They completely left out definition 'a' from their own definition of Atheism! This definition of Atheist was referenced by the Religious Tolerance site. I shall further address this issue later (at **). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thirdly, the source of the confusion comes from the generalization of the word "Atheist". Pretty much no one uses the term anti-theist, and the term a-anti-theist is one that I made up for lack of an appropriate word. If we were to omit these words from the three stances that I described in my original argument... #1 Theist / A-antitheist - Belief that God exists #2 Antitheist / Atheist - Belief that God does not exist #3 Atheist / A-antitheist - Absence of belief that God exists and of belief that God does not exist ...then we would get the exact over-generalization and simplification that we so often see. #1 Theist - Belief that God exists #2 Atheist - Belief that God does not exist #3 Atheist - Absence of belief that God exists and of belief that God does not exist - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fourthly, I will also make note of the word's structure. "Atheism" is derived from the Greek language. The prefix "a-" specifically means "without". Its use in the word in question means just that; that the subject being described as such is without, or absent of, or is lacking belief. The use of this prefix can also be seen in other English words. For instance, the Oxford Dictionary defines "amoral" as: amoral [adjective]: lacking a moral sense. unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something; Notice that "amoral" does not indicate *against* morals; it just means to be without them. The prefix "anti-", on the other hand, specifically mean opposite, against, or opposed to. We should all be familiar enough with the usage of this prefix. This clearly indicates that someone that holds beliefs against, or opposite to, Theism would be an "Anti-Theist". **I will make another point, here, regarding the Merriam-Webster definition. Although they include a definition that indicates a belief that there is no deity, they also define amoral as: amoral [adjective]: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right of wrong They demonstrated proper usage of the prefix "-a" in this definition, which means that they understand it. Their first definition of Atheism appears correct, but the second definition was likely added *because* of the widespread disagreement of the meaning of the word. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finally, you mentioned numerous "power-atheists". I would argue that, despite the fact that there are Atheists, they are Anti-theist. Their strong belief that God does not exist does not represent all Atheists; specifically, those who are not *opposed to* the matter of God's existence. There are numerous reasons why they might embrace the title, "Atheist". Perhaps having a title with "anti-" in it automatically infers a negativity, or they can appear to speak on behalf of more people, thus, appearing to be a large group. In any case, a few popular people can't redefine a word. I believe these claims are just reinforcing the misconception. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Just for an extra bit, I look up Atheism on the Theist website, Creation Ministries (http://creation.com...). They have a broad, complex definition of Atheism. They have an argument that disputes the use of "a-" always meaning "without". They use the examples "Amusement" and "Agnostic". Using the word "Amusement" is absurd just because it begins with an "A". As for their other example, there IS a word "Gnostic". Oxford Dictionary: Gnostic [Adjective]: of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge. Later, they describe different variations of Atheism (i.e. Strong Atheism, Weak Atheism). This means that they DO recognize a difference between the two. They just use an adjective to differentiate instead of using a different word. Weak Atheism = Atheism, while Strong Atheism = Antitheism. Yes, they still refer to it all as Atheism, but their sub-categorization matches my description - it is much simpler and easier to understand to just refer to it all as Atheism. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In conclusion, I assert that the word "Atheism" does have a solid definition, and that expanding the definition of this word from "without" to "against" is erroneous. I believe the misuse of it is merely the result of over-generalization and the need for simplicity.