OK, but notice that what I posted is that it isn't necessary for us to agree on definitions, just to know what one another means. We don't need a union of the minds to communicate clearly and accurately.
I play bridge. When I open the bidding one no-trump (1NT), among other things, I mean that I don't have more than four hearts or four spades. Others play that this bid can be made with five of either. I can effectively communicate and the partnership play effectively with the two of us meaning different things by an opening bid of 1NT. My partner knows that I will never have five hearts or spades, and I know that my partner might.
No problem, apart from knowingly playing differently being a violation of the rules one particular form of the game (duplicate bridge).
Accordingly, when Valjean refers to atheists, he might mean infants. I know that. When I refer to atheists, I am not including infants. Valjean knows that. Where's the difficulty there?
Now I know what you mean. You are excluding people like me, so called weak atheists, from atheism. When you say atheism, you mean what I mean when I say strong atheist.
Once again, no problem. I can understand you even if I find that usage inefficient.