maybe that is an argument for how your distinction (by how you use the terms) is meaningful and the common distinction (by how most people use the terms) is less meaningful

but again, this doesn't matter since you are equivocating the two

Maybe destroy wasn't the best choice of word. In tame_dueces case its an overstatement. In your's Hopey, its an understatement.

What kind of action are we talking about? Hopefully not some sort of position statement because then Madnaks arguments amounts to:

I am an atheist simply because I say I'm an atheist.

Just about everyone would say I am a theists simply because I behave like a theist.

If anyone asks me, "Stu are you an atheist or a theist" and I reply, "I have grave doubts about the existence of God, but I still go to church and at times I am compelled by circumstances to pray" how do they classify me? Atheist or theist?

Most people would say "has no belief in God/gods" is the common definition for atheist.

I would think most atheist would be offended by the definition "one who disbelieves the existence God" because it implys that God exists and the atheist is denying that fact.

probably a theist

this is fine...but "has no belief" for most people simply means something like "does not hold a belief (does not think it very likely) that God exists"...it does not, to most people, mean "has a belief that the likelihood that God exists is so low that it it does not influence any (even hypothetical) decision"

this is not to say that the latter is not significant or not worthy of its own words to distinguish the positions, just that it is not what people generally intend when they use the phrase

huh? disbelieving alien abduction stories does not imply that alien abductions happen and we are denying that fact...and least I don't think many people think it does.

that isn't even close to what his argument amounts to...he is specifically talking about actions, not just what people SAY

his argument is analogous to yours

I never said that was his argument. I said his argument would amount to that if the action he is talking about is simply making a statement.

Some actions a persons takes stem soley from a belief in God. An internal prayer for instance. With other actions your belief in God isn't relevant. Like taking a dump. Now what sort of action stems soley from believing God doesn't exist?

And why is that? Becuase behavior matters more than some probability calculation a person makes.

they see behavior as an indication of belief or non-belief (by the common use of the terms)...they see your behavior as an indication that you believe that God exists (that is, you find it likely) give you the label that represents this belief...a theist

if you said what you said before..."I have grave doubts about the existence of God, but I still go to church and at times I am compelled by circumstances to pray"

this, in most peoples minds probably gives the idea that you think God's existence is likely...and they would probably say that you believe in God

however, your actions are not necessarily an indication that you think God's existince is likely...you could add to your statement that you think there is only a very small chance that God exists and while a person might doubt that it is true given your behavior...they would certainly say that IF it is IS true, then they would not say that you believe in God...

and still, that "very small" chance might be enough to influence your decision in some hypothetical "test"

not true by the common use of the word

I may think it is very unlikely that the god I am praying to exists, but judge even that small likelihood to be sufficient to warrant a prayer

this is because, by most people's use of the word, you are not said to believe something unless you think it is likely (perhaps the individual's standard is more strict (that is...maybe something like 90%+ rather than just 50% plus), but it is almost never less strict than "likely")...(and if you are thinking about criticizing this...saying that it is vague and subjective...keep in mind that it doesn't help your argument at all since it doesn't matter one bit for our purposes whether we like the common use of the word...it just matters what IS the common use of the word...for reasons I gave earlier regarding what is intended when people issue statements of belief...and how if we assume a different use than what they intend, they then aren't even making the statement you would wish to argue against)

it is, though, true by your use of the word...that "belief" means "at least some belief" (or, maybe more accurately (although you often use the less accurate one) a belief that the likelihood that the proposition is true is high enough to have it influence some action (which again, most of us, considering your one sided tests would argue that this is anything non-zero))

BTW, I never said that "some probability calculation a person makes" matters at all...I would say it doesn't matter one bit for our purposes

my argument is perfectly consistent with only considering behavior as an indication of belief vs non-belief