I have a problem with the term 'atheist'

[Shadowed]

As a site for writers, hopefully we can get some discussion going on the interpretation of words and their inherent meanings. I don't intend to turn this into a debate about religion, but simply words. With that said...

The term 'atheist' means one who believes that there is no god. I take a strong issue with this, as the word is only relevant from the assumption that there is a god. The way that I term myself in comparison to theists is not that I believe there is no god, but that I do not believe that there is a god. I don't believe that a lot of things exist, but that's a marked difference from believing that something does not exist. Indeed, it would have to be conceptualized first, before we can realize that we don't believe it. Did you all know that everyone reading this post is an agysmotical? That you do not believe in the race of Gysmots, the magical loaves of bread that eat babies and piss liquefied uranium? Exactly.

So, obviously, we live in a theism-dominated world. That's fine, and understandable. Yet there are only three commonly accepted terms for those who do not claim to believe in a specific god: atheists, agnostics, and nihilists. Now, I'm technically a nihilist, but that's part and parcel with atheism in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint. So, let's look at those real quick. Atheists believe there is no god, agnostics believe you can't/we don't know if a god really exists or not, and nihilists don't believe in any sort of purpose to life, a god included. None of those terms are tailor-made for people who simply have no belief, positive or negative, in theism.

Why is this? Why do we have terms that only imply a belief in something's existence or nonexistence? Should those of us commonly termed as atheists instead go by 'human'? Who would understand what we meant if we simply responded "I'm human" when people ask if we believe in a god? In fact, that response would be interpreted differently for each person hearing it. As it's not likely that we can create a new term, why not redefine the existing one? Look at atheist: Someone who is not theistic. That's it, the entire root of the word. Someone who does not hold to a theistic belief. That says nothing about believing that there is a god or not, or that we don't know, or whatever. All it says is that we don't subscribe to any such beliefs, that we have an utter lack of belief in regard to the aspects of theism. The word's there, the root is there, and that's what it really should mean. So why are we tied down to someone else's perceptions of our own beliefs and lack thereof?