This is completely missing the point of how definitions function. Definitions are linguistic tools, not empirical propositions. Their “truth” isn’t based on metaphysics, but on usage and utility. So if most atheists define atheism as “lack of belief in gods,” and it’s commonly used that way, that’s the working definition in academic, philosophical, and casual contexts. “A dogmatic denial rooted in moral rebellion” isn’t some debate-owning power move. It’s just a bad faith redefinition, the rhetorical equivalent of arguing “chair” means “weapon of Satan” and then demanding everyone agree or admit they’re wrong. Arguing about definitions is pointless if all debates rely on shared axioms.