Being half-Irish, I can tell you that the leprechauns I've spoken to think that belief in a god is bullshit

@zanyfish: Haha! Leprechauns are skeptical little buggers.

Wrong, atheism is the lack of belief. In a few words, atheist can be summarized as "I have no reason to believe gods or goddesses exists".

@MarcO ... then you have a different definition of atheist and agnostic than is used on this site. Which states that an atheist is someone that knows that god does not exist, whereas an agnostic sees no evidence for the existence of a god. Sounds like you're an agnostic

@zanyfish: Here's what I found on this site for definitions:

While no definition is perfect, here are some:
Agnostic - sees no evidence for God(s)
Atheist - doesn't believe in God(s)
Anti-theist - actively opposes religion and belief in God(s)
Humanist - rejects supernaturalism and focuses on human activities
Secularist - advocates separation of the state from religious institutions
Skeptic - questions religious authority and beliefs
Freethinker - believes truth comes from logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than religion
Spiritual - believes in a supernatural entity
Believer - believes that specific God(s) exists
Religious - believes that specific God(s) require worship

I've been reading about difference in definitions, and it seems pretty much everyone has their own definition of those terms, I prefer to use atheism to define myself in the same way as I am an afairist (which doesn't prevent me from changing my mind on the existence of fairies if I actually see one), but I may be an agnostic according to your preferred definition, an agnostic atheist to another... Some authors even classify atheists between pro-gods atheists (an atheist that likes the idea of gods and them creating worlds but doesn't believe they actually exist) and anti-gods atheists (an atheist that hates the idea of gods and hope there is none). In other words, since there is no one to give a definitive definition, everyone is free to do as they like with it.

Wrong. Atheism is the belief that god doesn’t exist.

[plato.stanford.edu]

Without logical proof, an anti-theistic position constitutes belief. Certainly belief in the layman. Since there is no satisfactory substantive argument for the existence or non existence of god, then either position is equally credulous and without merit.

There is no proo in science, wrong. Math is a science and proofs in math are fundamental.
As for cannot exist, wrong. It could exist, but it would take a lot of explaining, none of which is very credible. However, even if the Bible is discounted, god could still exist. There’s no logical proof that would be able to discount that. It’s an impossible dilemma trying to prove that something outside of a finite mind exists.
I would agree that the burden of proof resides with the person making the assertion, but that’s what atheism does. It’s not a position that says convince me. It asserts that god doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter that there is not physical evidence for the existence of god. If you make an assertion without a logical argument, then you have an untenable position. That’s like saying the Higgs Boson didn’t exist until it was discovered. The whole argument is farcical. I’ve been there. I was an atheist. I think theism is ridiculous, but unprovably ridiculous, unconvincingly ridiculous.

We've now got a couple definitions of both words in play.

The basic history of the two words:

In the 16th century, Christians pulled the word "atheos" in full and slapped an "ist" suffix on it. Atheos + ist = someone who believes no god exists.

In the 17th century, the same was done with the word "theos". Theos + ist = someone who believes a god exists. There was no word "theist" in existence, to attach an "a" prefix to, prior to this point. Even then, the word was used on deist types, until they finally settled on the Latin version of the same word, deus + ist.

In the 18th century, you'll find D'Holbach having no label for those he considered undecided, and didn't call them "atheists". You'll find his opponents, representing the common usage Christian majority, clearly using a narrow definition of "atheist", but, they also laid out their faulty logic. They claimed that, not believing a god exists = believing no gods exist. So, they used a narrow definition, but slapped their label on all non-theists.

In the 19th century, Huxley came along. He acknowledged that he'd be someone they'd call "atheist", but argued he didn't have that belief attached to the label, and wasn't particularly fond of those who did, since he thought many of them were distorting what science could answer. So, he defined his own ism, agnosticism.

Being a scientist, above all else, he defined it as a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. Incompatible with theism or atheism.

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley, 1884

X = a god exists

Objectively: X or ~X

Subjectively:

Do yo believe X?
Do you believe ~X?

YN: theist
NN: agnostic
NY: atheist

Then, in the later half of the 20th century, came those like George H Smith (implicit, explicit, weak, strong, a-theism) and Antony Flew (negative and positive a-theism), promoting a broader a-theism definition and word reconstruction. Theists still count as people who use words. They don't tend to use this definition. Even amongst non-theists, more choose "nothing" or "agnostic" than choose "atheist" to identify themselves. They don't seem to be using this definition. Most philosophy books don't tend to use this definition.

"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ‘positive atheist’ for the former and ‘negative atheist’ for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ‘Whyever’, it could be asked, ‘don’t you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?’" ~ Antony Flew, 1984

Using it, that definition, gets you ...

YN: theist
NN: weak or negative a-theist
NY: strong or positive a-theist

So, that's where we're at.

Narrow definition athe(os)-ist = someone who believes no gods exist

Broad definition a-theist = not someone who believes gods exist

Broad definition agnost(os)-ic = "I don't know", as in a complete lack of certainty, no clue, no idea, haven't the foggiest, and incompatible with beliefs

Narrow definition a-gnostic = "I don't know ... for certain", as in a lack of complete certainty, and compatible with beliefs