I mean, I established my definition first in the thread and I even caveated that people bicker over the definitions of these things, so if anyone is redefining definitions and can’t read the room, it’s the one replying with their definition.

It’s simple. There are people who do not believe God exists. There are people who aren’t sure if God exists. There are people who know God exists. Likewise, there are atheists, agnostics, and gnostics. Believe me. I love etymology but this is not the place for that argument. We need a word that means “someone who doesn’t believe in God”. We need a word for “someone who isn’t sure whether or not God exists”, and we need a word for “someone who knows God exists”. We need those words for those concepts specifically to deal with this very issue.

The default position is agnostic, and typically everyone has faith in something, whether that thing is math or science or some religious traditions teachings or what have you. Babies are born agnostic. That’s why it’s the default. They have only instincts, no knowledge.

From there, they polarize one way or another or stay “on the fence”. Define it however you like, but the reason I define atheism cleanly as an absolute negative claim is exactly to deal with this shirking of burden of proof by muddying the waters. There are 3 camps and 3 words to describe them. If you’re agnostic because you’re not sure, you’re amongst the masses of the spiritual but not religious and many people who are technically part of a religious tradition but their heart isn’t in it and they would switch to something.

Leaning away from any one religious tradition as being right doesn’t make a person an atheist. Perennialism is where its at.