Welcome to Gaia! ::

I suppose you're entitled to hold that opinion, contrary as it is to the facts. But I encourage a look at the breakdown of the word.

Yeah, more than exactly. cool sadly I'll probably never make up my mind and choose one side. I'm in the skeptical marsh and I'm going to drow some day, or something big will have to happen... Second big bang perhaps burning_eyes

The only fact you can cite is where the word is derived from. Proving the current meaning of a word through etymology is plain silly. It would be like saying:
"The french didn't have Kings, they had tribal leaders. Why do I say this? Because their word for what you call their 'King' is 'roi,' which is a debased form of the latin rex, the military leader of the latins."

Because that is exactly what you are doing there. You take a word which is used to mean a denial, and you turn it into something neutral.

But that is really beside the point, and is a rather typical diversionary tactic. The point is that atheism, or more precisely, hard materialists, are being isolated by 'soft' materialists in order to suck up to idealists. In doing so they appeal to them in bringing forward a definition which is 'less contrary' and may garner some support, or at least less hostility.

What should be happening is just the opposite: an active affirmation of materialism and the incompatibility of materialism and idealism, and the exaltation of materialism being the only philosophical viewpoint compatible with science, and thus the actual unniverse.

The lack of this is the problem, and it would be preferable if people referred to themselves as materialists, and not atheists, purely because there is no way to confuse materialism and agnosticism on a philosophical level.

Well, I guess it depends on the discourse... But generally "believing" something means I take something for faith, which means stuff like argumentation, logic, rationality are, well, not matching at all. Faith is faith, it's something that should not be spoken. So it's pointless to argue with it. You can't debate about it and claim you are "right", because there is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to people's beliefs. I can seriously believe in pink bunnies and the prince of darkness, and nobody can tell me I'm wrong. It would be a nonsense.
But in philosophy you use your reasoning. Arguments. Logic. Experience and faith are those that are supposed to help philosophy, but they usually make it fail.
Textbooks? Encyclopedias? Well, sorry but I don't fully trust any sources, I know that every single philosophical term has it's own story, and you can't simply define them. After all they're supposed to be used to define things, not to be defined themselves. Intuition is the best tool here. And little as I know "theism" is the standpoint, I say "there is god", not "I believe in god". Maybe the difference is small, maybe it depends on the situation. I have to admit perhaps there's no dichotomy here, but it should be clear that I can fight against "there is god", but I can never beat "I believe in god".

Discussing belief can often suggest that there is a certain level of faith involved, though it should be said that it does not always necessarily imply faith--at least to the degree that religions take it. After all, all beliefs and claims of knowledge as well ultimately rely on at least some small degree of faith (excluding conceptual knowledge), since we recognize that humans lack omniscience. But, in terms of faith to such an unreasonable degree as religion takes it, many beliefs are not predicated upon "faith".

Well, typically I define belief as "any proposition or cognitive content held to be true" and the reasons for that belief can vary from really bad faith-based reasons to really good rational reasons.