Ok, i see where you are coming from. You want to use "not a theist" as an umbrella term.

Well, it can work.

We're going on, what, 200 replies just about the definition and application of the terms 'atheist' and 'theist'?

What a profound waste of time; furthermore, it upsets me to see so many people arguing in favour of theism or religion being the default setting for a person's belief system instead of something taught and passed down through generations. It's also kinda pathetic to see people arguing unrelated points about HIV to liken it to theistic belief, and it's even worse to argue that a sandwich is atheist...

This is why I hate trying to debate online. Nothing of value is gained or lost, nobody cares about facts if they can twist things to suit their needs, and passion seems to matter more than reason. A shame, too.

 If you're not interested, don't participate.  Simple. 

 Then that brings me back to the question I started with. 

We have two definitions we can potentially use for atheist. 

I believe that the way I've defined it is better because it excludes things we both agree we don't care about when we are talking about atheists. 

Wouldn't that make this a better definition?

Let's see...

we got 2 people who have no contact with the concept of god. So, they both don't believe in it. According to your definition they would be called "not a theist".

One of them will be shown the concept of god and he rejects the claims with whatever reason he has. His believe hasn't changed, cause he is still not believing in it. But now, you would call him an atheist and the other still "not a theist" while both are lacking the believe. They would still do whatever they did before in life. What if the other forgets about the concept of god? Would he turn back to being "not a theist"? 

In the end you have two labels for the same end result which is : lack of believe. But one is based on the ignorance of the concept of a god and the other of rejecting of it. 

Atheist in itself means "without god". The word itself would apply to both. 

I can't really say if that is the better definition. Sorry. 

Atheïst doesn't believe that a god or a higher power exist.
Agnost doesn't believe in any religion but does believe a god or higher power could exist.

As for me an atheïst there are almost an infinite number of worlds in the galaxy undoubtly worlds with more advanced lifeforms than ours. If God only wanted to create one world and one people why bother creating the entire galaxy. Whilst we don't have the exact picture how live on earth was created many of the reasoning/theories to me already seem more probable than that we where created by a higher being.

For example how amino accids and fats formed the  RNA, proteïnstand the other building blocks to create the firstprotocell., that formed the first lifeform came together for example. Biologists have in lab circumstances already proven that within the right circumstances abiogenesis is possible.

However the chances that the right building blocks form to actually create a living cell out of chemicals is another question entirely and one we don't have the answer for. We do know that amino accids, and fats played a vital role. For example we made world synthetic cell.

Brilliant! Just don't bother participating in discussions about a topic that are VERY influential on the world around me just because some people don't know how to discuss things without resorting to a half dozen logical fallacies per hour. 

Yeah, that's exactly how to make a positive change in the world around me! 

You deserve a nonparticipation trophy! 

When the person is shown the concept of god and rejects it, his position on god is significantly different than it was before.

Previously, his belief was "...".  It was non-existent.  He had no belief on the concept of god.  Now he believes the concept of god is false or not proven.  If you asked the guy before and after what he thinks about god, you'd get two completely different answers.  If you think that is not a change, idk what to say.  I can guarantee that 100 % of the people posting in this topic claiming to be atheists understand the concept of god.  If they didn't, they wouldn't be posting.  So, that knowledge is making them act differently.

 Let me try another another analogy...

If you go to a store and tell them you want to buy a Playstation 4, they will (or at least should) ask you whether you want Playstation 4 Pro, or a Playstation 4 Slim.

Sometimes, I may want to refer to all of the models of PS4.  For instance, if I wanted to say "Spider-man is coming out for the PS4."  In this case, the statement applies equally to all PS4s so I can use the blanket term.

But, let's say I wanted to say "you can play games in 4K on the PS4".  That would not be accurate.  Which is why I need the term PS4 Pro.  

The term PS4 applies to all of them.  But that does not mean they are all the same.  So, we need more than one term.

Likewise, there are people who do not believe in God and have no concept of god.  There are people who don't believe in god and do have a concept of god.  

If I want to talk about only the group that has a concept of god and do not believe (like in the hypothetical study I mentioned earlier), I need a term for that.  That term is atheist.  If you wanted to distinguish between the two people you're talking about in your hypothetical, how would you do so?

As for them being able to turn back, sure.  I started my life as a non-theist (or not a theist).  Then, I was told god exists, and since I lacked critical thinking skills, I believed it.  So I became a theist.  Then I thought about the concept, decided I didn't accept it, and then I was an atheist.  And since an atheist is also not a theist, then I also belong to that category again.  People change, and when they do certain labels may not apply to them anymore.  Dunno why that'd be a problem.

First off, atheist definitely does not mean without god.  Atheist, as we have been using it in this conversation, is a noun.  "without god" does not define a noun.  So that just can't be right.  (Maybe you're thinking of the root word atheos, but that's a different word, and we have refined and changed the concept over the past 4,000 years or so). 

But more importantly.  There is no one definition of atheist.  I can easily find a dozen from reputable sources within the next five minutes.  You can find multiple definitions from the same source.  We get to choose which one we want.

I feel like I've explained it to the best of my ability.  So, if you're not convinced, you're not.  Just have one main question to ask and maybe one follow up.  (Sort of a convoluted question).

I'm not quite sure how to ask this, but I think you'll get the gist.  When you talk about "atheists", what are you talking about?  I'm not asking about what you think the definition is, or for something from the dictionary.  Personally, what do you mean?  When you think of "atheist", what comes to mind?  If you saw a topic titled "About Atheists" about whom would you expect it to be about?

Like, without worrying about me objecting to you (and in this case I won't) and without worrying about being "right" or "wrong" how would you describe what you personally mean by atheist as you would usually use it?

If you want to make a positive change, then snarky posts criticizing people for talking about what they want to talk about aren't exactly doing that.  If you have a more interesting conversation idea, please share.

This is a super bad analogy because existence is binary. Something either exists, or it does NOT* exist. There are not degrees of existence like there are degrees of "goodness" (whatever that means).

All Theists need to do is provide evidence for their claims.
That is it... And the discussion would be put to rest forever.