This is simply not true. One can be an atheist, and strictly believe that there is no god, or an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in any god, but does not presume that the existence of a god is impossible. Some atheists have much more faith in their beliefs than other atheists, some are very sure, some less sure. But an atheist does not have to assume that the existence of a god is impossible.
Which is why I added that you can add an additional
label before or after being an atheist.
Was my reasoning incorrect if such a rule was added? I find most definitions very black and white, as it should be or else why bother categorizing? There's sub-definitions and head titles and what-not to get around the semantics but that's still labels before or after the word.
I feel you are missing my point, or I am missing yours. My scale is Atheist --------- Agnostic ------ Theist. There might be more words between, I bet there is but I am unaware of them at this time.
I'm not saying that one definition should hold true forever. People change and definitions with them. We add more, remove some and edit ones that are still in use. The reason I tried to add my reasoning behind the explicit definition of an atheist is because I wanted there to be some context to fit it with. Not taken in simplicity and deny what that simple sentence spoke of for the reasoning that followed.
EDIT: I don't run around and label people. They label themselves. When I hear of a label, I'll ask them what they mean by it and I'll ask how they act around it and the details and what not. I cannot tell them their definition is incorrect but after asking, I can engage in conversation if I use the definition they have explained to me. This was my reasoning behind Atheism. I wonder, what is yours? How does if differ?