[Sabertooth]

The problem with the way I see "atheist" used as a definition is that people are attaching characteristics of a specific individual to a word definition that has no such subjective interpretation.

As I use and understand the terms in their common parlance, an atheist believes that God doesn't exist, a theist believes He does, and agnostic reserves judgement.

Since God's existence is neither provable nor disprovable, both atheists and theists are persuaded to their conclusions by some other means... "Faith" seems a reasonable term for belief in the absence of proof.

That the faith of atheists is manifested differently than that of theists doesn't change the fact of their belief in the absence of proof.

Since science attempts to describe aspects of nature by way of theory, evidence, and proof, it seems to me that scientific agnosticism on matters beyond nature is appropriate.

[sourcery]

As I use and understand the terms in their common parlance, an atheist believes that God doesn't exist, a theist believes He does, and agnostic reserves judgement.

Then there's the pan-critical rationalist, who doesn't believe that absolute proof can exist. All propositions are inherently subject to doubt--even this one. See, for example, Hume's refutation of proof by induction.