I would have said "all", but I haven't checked every one. So I'll go through the ones that you have chosen as supposedly proving me, the OED, most atheists, etc, etc, wrong about what atheism is.
Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.
Agrees with me, not with you. You are ignoring the primary definition.
Agrees with me, not with you. They have reversed the order of the two possible meanings, but both meanings are still there.
Agrees with me, not with you. They're also using the reversed order and they've added a third meaning ("a godless person"), but the same point stands again - they don't agree with your position that there is only one possible meaning.
Agrees with you.
An unclear definition that is clearly wrong according to their own definition of "disbelief". Why are you citing that as an example of a
good dictionary?
All seem to give the same definition and that includes the belief that God or a supreme being doesn't exist. [..]
They don't all give the same definition.
The fact that one of two or more definitions of a word exists does not prove that is the only possible meaning of the word. Many words can have more than one meaning - the existence of one does not negate the existence of the others. Including one meaning in the definitions does not exclude the other(s). You're familiar with English, so you must be aware of that fact.
Did you just assume I wouldn't check?
Some of them included in their definition of "atheist" all theists not of the Abrahamic religions. Which is accurate in the sense that some people think that way, but it's not what the word actually means.
It is
possible for an atheist to believe in the non-existence of any and all gods.
It is
not necessary for an atheist to do so and many don't.
In short, Agnosticism is not some kind of weakened atheism.
Why are you writing that in reply to me? Not only did I not make that claim, I explicitly stated what agnosticism is and that it is not limited to religion. It's a general approach to everything.