Then you are in error
I refute this compeltely.
Correct. You are an agnostic atheist because you neither have a belief in any gods (atheist) nor think you know that gods don't exist (agnostic.)
I disbelive in the non existence of god. Does that make me an agnostic-athiest-thiest? of course not.
Your lack of a belief that there are no gods is an extra. Which is why I am quite comfortable with you LABELLING yourself as an agnostic, even though you are both agnostic and atheistic. As that appears to say more about your point of view than your atheism. In other words that your agnosticism is a more central aspect of your nature than your atheism.
To be an theist you would have not not merely disbelieve (lack a belief) in the non-existence of gods, you would have to actually believe that at least one of them does exist.
In fact what you just did was argue that my provided definition of "disbelieve" is the correct one! That disbelief DOES NOT just mean "Believe that X is false. If that were the case then your above statement would mean "I believe that the non-existence of gods is false" which of course means "I believe gods do exist"; that you are a theist.
It would of not make you both an atheist and a theist! Anyone claiming anything like that would simply be confused, or lying.
FALSE FALSE FALSE.
Athiest: believes god does not exist.
Try claiming that nonsense of any atheism-dominant forum, and see how much flack you receive! Ouch!
Atheist: does not have a belief in any gods. That's it.
Some atheists go further and actually believe they don't exist. Many who choose to use the label "atheist" probably do so, but it is the lack of a belief in any gods which makes them definitionally an atheist, not this belief in something else.
In my case for example; I don't have any god beliefs, so I am an atheist. I happen to be of the current opinion that none exist, but my real point of position, where I tend to argue from, is is that I see absolutely no reason for anyone to think that they do exist. This leads to the opinion that no one should believe in any gods. Belief that gods don't exist doesn't even come into it. Not believing doesn't have to include believing the opposite, it can also simply lead to not thinking about it much at all.
Thiest: believes in some sort of god.
As long as one believes in what can commonly be recognised as fitting the label "god" then they are a theist
Right. And Gnostics think that they do know.
Agnostic: admits they dont know..
Note (as said already) how A-Theism deals with what one believes, while A-Gnosticism deals with what one thinks they know. These two spectrum can and must overlap.
Or can you not see that one can be (must be) an agnostic; "admits they don't know" if gods exist, AND also either happen to believe that one or more of them do anyway, or doesn't have such a belief - either actively believing they don't exist, or just lacking such a belief?
yes definitions change over time but so far the definition of atheism and agnostic have not changed. Agnoticiic was a term created by Thomas Henry Huxley who was as much against atheism as he was theism. The definition may change ovver time but so far it hasnt changed even if you want it to.
Actually both have changed in some regards.
Agnosticism (yes I am familiar with that original coining) was a reaction to the Gnostics who claimed to know that God existed, as well as a bunch of mystical stuff, and was initially a rather specific point of view. Huxley also wanted to distance himself from certain atheists of his day by coining a new label - kind of reminds me of the label "Brights", and how some use "Secular humanism", "Free-thinkers".... It has since become more accepted in it's more generalised form, based on the terms from which the word is formed: A (without) gnostic (Greek: gnosis = knowledge.) It is in fact not all that uncommon to hear someone say that "I am agnostic on that issue" even when that issue has nothing to do with religions of gods whatsoever.
As a label people tend to use it as a word for uncertainty (that one has no idea/opinion, and/or believes the question is beyond any understanding) but it is actually more properly linked to certainty (thinking one has knowledge) and the lack thereof, than the lack of any opinion whatsoever. This I think is due to a confused common usage in which people tend to equate "I don't know" with a denial of having any opinion. I don't "know" if the sun will come up tomorrow, but you bet your arse I have an opinion!
Atheism was coined differently. There was no pre-existing term "Theism/theist", that term was Back-formed later. Instead the term Atheos was coined by the Romans as a slur on the early Greek Christians. Who in turn denied this and shifted the label onto those "other Greeks" who didn't believe in any gods at all! The term is often translated as "Godless" and reads as "without-gods", which may imply an active belief that gods don't exist. But this is only if one doesn't understand Greek, or that the language differs in that it often doesn't differentiate between "belief in X" and "X' in it's terminology. I don't understand Greek myself, but have spoken to a few who do (being Greeks who live in Greece) and that is what they tell me; Atheos carries the same meaning over there as "Atheist" does for most active on-line-community atheists apply it: Without a belief in any gods.
Some do, some don't, some openly embrace that label as well. Wicca is a revitalisation (some may argue bastardisation, at least in some cases) of earlier Earth and Nature centred religions, as they had drifted into obscurity, which included those who were known as witches. The point is that none of them worshipped Satan, as the dictionary 'definition' stated.
Did you know the wiccan religion started in the 20th century? yup the term witch is older than the wiccan religion. and that many wiccans take offence at the term witch?
Hard to be a maverick when practically everyone who calls themselves an atheist, that I have ever encountered, agrees with me. Although if it makes you feel better; your position does side well with most Christian apologists (Christians who actively argue for their position) I have come across. Funny that. But not really; for them it serves a purpose - one of being seen as a far easier STRAW MAN to argue against. Easier to assume and rail against atheists, if one assumes that Atheist means one who claims there is no God, or as some of them put it "Deny the existence of God" (note that it is capital-G God, not "a god" or "any gods" - note the bias and blinkered way of thinking), rather than the fact that we simply don't believe their claims that it does. They of course are trying to force a burden of proof onto us. Accepting that many aren't doing this maliciously, they have simply been indoctrinated to assume this fallacious definition, in the face of ANY attempt to correct the error. By the way; I FREAKIN' HATE IT when people insist that they can presume to tell ME what it is that I believe!
Ok you dont accept the generally accepted terms used in the english language. you sir a a maverick
Try spending some time on forums like Rational Scepticism (which is basically the reformed forum that rose from the ashes of the now defunct RichardDawkins.net forum) and looking up the definitions of others online, and you will find that the definitions as I gave it are by now pretty standard. Look up the definitions given by religious apologetics sources as well; and note the disconnect!
seriously it doesnt matter if you dont like the definition af atheism or theism or agnosticism they are what they are you can try to change it but the effort does not make it so. In fact the chances of changing the definiton are as likely as the definition of iron changing.
That definition set I posted before? I coined that all myself, from my own understandings of how the online communities I experienced tended to use the terms, and the positions people do and can hold. And only later looked them up, and was somewhat surprised that terms like "Agnostic-athiest" etc. were far from new or uncommon. It appears that from the same data set (evidence of what people say and argue) many many people come up with much the same definitions and terms! Kind of suggests that there is somethingto it, doesn't it?