[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People simply "become" atheists when, for whatever reason, they no longer believe that any gods exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmm... I've always thought we were born atheists. Oh, ok, you're taking it from the point where they've been brainwashed and conditioned and now re-become atheists. A born-again atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Become" is in quotes because it's an imprecise tool for describing the situation; your objection is one of the ways in which it's lacking. I erred in using the phrase "no longer," because I wasn't necessarily talking about conversions. I've edited and replaced it with "don't."

That said, I don't think your preferred terminology -- "born atheists," along with, I'm sure, 'atheism is not a belief' -- is the necessarily correct one. Of course I see what you're saying, but there are other ways of expressing that information that don't convey a semantic advantage to your position. Alternate phrasings will surely have their own drawbacks, but I'm skeptical about turns of phrase which, IMO, cloud discussion about concepts and/or imperceptibly change the discussion into one about the tools used to express those concepts.

And, heh, predictably, I'm not a fan of the "brainwashed" usage, for similar reasons. I know what you mean by it and I (mostly) share your concerns. However, we already understand the process to which you're applying that label, so wouldn't it be preferable to exaplain what you find objectionable about that process? In my experience, using that kind of label leads to debates along the lines of:

"See, it fits this definition from dictionary.com."
"Nuh-uh."

I think it's better to use more neutral terminology, even if it seems to you too sympathetic to the other side of the debate, so that you don't get stuck arguing about the symbols rather than the concepts.