Anyone else ever have this thrown at them? I had this thrown at me a while ago and at the time, I did not have a good response to it. My response now would be something to the effect of, "Unbelief of youth in religion is not a reasoned logical disbelief later in life." I think that this is a pretty good response to this argument.
The biggest reason theists tend to misdefine atheism is that atheists are misdefining it, too. Atheism is nothing more then "without theism". "A" is a pre-fix meaning "without". "Theism" means belief in a higher power or powers. Therefore, if you are an atheist, then you are without a belief in a higher power or powers. It is, essentially, a negative description.
Laci's scale uses the theistic bastardization of "atheism". Atheism cannot be a "belief system" because atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief.
Truth is, I think both scales are inadequate. I like Dawkins's simply for ease of reference, and I do prefer his to Laci's. But neither really cuts it.
Where I stand on either scale also depends entirely upon which higher power we're discussing, or if we're just discussing the entire concept of higher powers. If the latter, I consider myself a 4 on Dawkins's scale, or a true Agnostic. If the former, then when talking about Yahweh, I can say I'm definitely a 6-leaning-7 on Dawkins's scale, or a Gnostic Atheist.
(Fuck... I can't edit my post below... I misplaced myself on Dawkins's scale down there... where I placed myself in this post is accurate :-P)
This is a hard one for me. I'm actually considering making a video on this.
If, say, they are a theist who was once an atheist, but their becoming a theist did not coincide with their denial of science (that is, they are now a Christian/Jew/Muslim/other theistic religion but they still accept Evolution, the scientific ages of the Earth and Universe, the Big Bang, and so on), then I could believe it.
However, when a Young-Earth Creationist (such as PCS [VenomFangX]) says (s)he used to be an atheist, I can only conclude that (s)he is lying. That's the equivalent, in my mind, of saying (que stereotypical southern redneck accent) "I used to be educated, but now I'm a moron! Yuck yuck yuck yuck yuck..."
Either that, or they are, in that one instance, conceding to the literal connotative definition of atheism (without theism), thereby being hypocritical and still dishonest (in that, as we know, Creationists tend to like to blast atheists by saying "they actively believe that God does not exist" or "they know in their hearts God exists, but they just want to rebel against him"... and both bastardizations of the term "atheist" were used quite a bit by PCS)
In other words, to use Dawkins's scale (sorry Dave :-P), I could believe, say, a 5 to 3, but there is no way I will believe a 7 or 6 to 2 or 1.
For reference, Dawkins's scale is basically this:
1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.