Atheism has a long history of redefining terms. The OED changed from "To deny the Gods/God" to "To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God" The latter - disbelie

Atheism has a long history of redefining terms. The OED changed from "To deny the Gods/God" to "To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God" The latter - disbelieve - fits the greek, but the former was the intended meaning by those who coined it three centuries back, as a derogatory term (ref, encycolopdia Brittanicca which goes in to the history of this issue unlike Wikipedia). The OED mixes and confuses two definitions and reflects a common modern redefining, by atheists themselves, of 'atheism' to mean 'lacking belief' which dodges the problem that to positively believe there is no God or gods is clearly irrational without proof, which is thought to be logically impossible. That's why educated atheists claim to be agnostic, and uneducated atheists claim to be atheists. But the proof in the pudding is in how the individual expresses themselves towards religious persons, ie "The God Delusion". Dawkins claims to be 9/10ths atheist, "technically agnostic". But that book is a statement that religious believers are delusional, so revealing that he is in fact a true atheist. No genuine agnostic would ever make such a presumption in to minds they cannot see. Dawkins is therefore irrational. The irony of the situation is that : -while a religious believer might be rational (if there were, in fact, a god, and it were proving its own existence, as they claim, as opposed to faith as "Belief without evidence" is in fact an atheist redefinition, by Bertrand Russell to be precise, now also in the dictionary). -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god