Tim,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

I agree, so let's correct some of your facts:

A friend of mine wrote this brief account of a discussion she had, which attracted the attention of this rather remarkable home-schooled Christian girl (greetings, Karen)... which, in turn, attracted the attention of an atheist. . .

Actually, her post did not attract my attention. What "attracted my attention" was Karen's comment on a post at a blog that I have contributed to in the past. You see, Karen sought out an atheist blog made up of former ministers and decided to post a challenge there.

Karen says this herself in the comment section that you reference. To another blogger, she wrote, "I'm engaging in this discussion because I believe God has called me to be an apologist. I found Debunking Christianity while researching Bertrand Russell's 'Why I Am Not a Christian,' and I felt like I needed to comment. I trust God to orchestrate the results of this discussion."

So, it is a small point, but the way you put it, you made it sound as if I were the one who initiated the conversation.

. . . who apparently wanted to match wits with an, um, junior in high school.

Yes, I'm the big, bad meanie that seeks to "best" high-schoolers in debate.

Or maybe, I'm a high school teacher who talks to people this age all the time and respect them enough to engage in conversation with them. Maybe I do not "despise their youth," to use terms you are familiar with. Since Karen is seeking to "iron out" her apologetic skills, I'm the only one who is giving her the opportunity to do so.

Perhaps, you also read my note to Karen saying, "By the way, if your parents want my email address (in case they see a need to talk to me privately), I would be glad to provide it for them." This is not information that I normally give out but did so specifically because of Karen's age.

Also, I find an interesting contrast between Karen's attitude and yours. She seems much more confident in your god than you do. She writes, "I trust God to orchestrate the results of this discussion."

She doesn't seem to shy away from "matching wits" with anyone no matter what their educational background.

So, even if I did accept your "debate-as-battle" metaphor (which I do not; I am not "battling" Karen or trying to "match wits" in some kind of competition), you should have the confidence in your god that she does. As it is you sound like David's brothers telling him to flee the battle against Goliath.

So, I ask you, is it your custom to attempt to demonize people before you begin a response? Does it serve your purposes better to portray me as a bully, picking on high-schoolers before you address what I said?

He pulls the recent "atheist" con of claiming that "atheism" only argues that there is no "sound proof" of theism.

Yes, I am part of that conspiracy of telling people why I do not believe in a god.

Here are some of the others:

In Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith wrote, ". . . the term 'a-theism' literally means 'without theism,' or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief . . . If we use the phrase 'belief-in-god' as a substitute for theism, we see that its negation is 'no-belief-in-god.'"

Antony Flew, in The Presumption of Atheism, wrote, "I want the word [atheism] to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral' . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist."

Jeffrey Jay Lowder further explicates Flew's position, "When Flew uses the word 'atheism,' he does not use the word as many theists do, as a label for the belief that God does not exist. Rather, by 'atheism,' Flew simply means the absence of theistic belief."

In his debate with Greg Bahnsen, Gordon Stein said, "Now, first of all, let me make clear what atheism is and is not. I think this has been a very commonly misunderstood subject. Atheists do not say that they can prove there is no God. Also, an atheist is not someone who denies there is a God. Rather, an atheist says that he has examined the proofs that are offered by the theists, and finds them inadequate. . . And this is what the atheist says about the existence of God: He says the case is unproved not disproved. So, an atheist is really someone who is without a belief in God, or he does not believe in a God. It is not someone who denies the existence of God, or who says that one does not exist, or that he can prove that one does not exist."

In Bahnsen's cross-examination, this conversation occurred:

Bahnsen: Dr. Stein, do you have any sources that you can give to us, very briefly, that defines atheism as one who finds the theistic proofs inadequate rather than one who denies the existence of God?

Stein: Yes, sir. George Smith's book, which you will find for sale at the back of the room, upstairs, later, called Atheism: The Case Against God, makes what I think is the finest book ever written on the subject which was quite explicit. I have a copy right here. I can quote you, in exact words if you like....

Bahnsen: Oh, I don't think that will be necessary. Do you have any other sources?

Stein: Do I have any other sources?

Bahnsen: Do You have any other sources?

Stein: Sure.

Bahnsen: What will they be?

Stein: Charles Bradlaugh, who, I will give you right now. 100 years ago Charles Bradlaugh made the comment in one of his pleas for atheism. he said....

Bahnsen: That will be fine. . .

What do we have above? We have atheists definining what they believe about the issue of the existence of a god.

Another commenter to Karen's blog exposes the falsity of this definition as well by appealing to valid authorities:

It's interesting that you define dictionary writers as "valid authorities" and imply that atheists are "invalid authorities" on the definition of atheism.

Gee, then *I* must be an atheist as well, as I believe there is no deductive proof of God's existence. So you can see how honest this definition is -- it even includes "fundamentalist" Christians like myself as "atheists"!

I think you are confusing two different statements that I made (perhaps the fault is mine for not being clearer). I define an atheist as one who is without theistic belief. I went on to explain that the reason that I, personally, am "without theistic belief" is that I have found no sound proof of a god's existence (whether experiential, deductive, historical, or other).

So, you would not be an atheist because you are not "without theistic belief." You are welcome to believe without "sound proof," and not be an atheist by the definition that I have given.

The term "atheism" does NOT "literally" (which refers to etymology, and the origins of words) mean "a-theism" -- as I have mentioned before, it comes from "atheos", Greek for no-god.

In my Greek classes, the Greek prefix "a" was described a term of negation that can mean "not" or "without." For instance, actions can be "moral," "immoral," or "amoral." The last description means that it is an action without moral consequence. This is exactly what atheists say about the term "atheism."

Now, your argument about historicity is different altogether. If you've ever given Foucault a serious read, you know that there is a good argument to be made that words are defined by "power structures." Power structures are loose nets of influential groups (e.g. family, "experts," government officials, etc.).

I agree that, historically, atheism means something different than what most atheists say it means now. BUT, you cannot miss that, according to your historical definition, its meaning is different than how you and the dictionary-writers define it as well.

You wrote, "'Atheism' was originally the charge of asserting the polytheistic gods were not gods at all."

But that isn't your definition, is it? You say that, according to "valid authorities," atheism is "the belief that no god exists." But I guess that "History is what it is, however inconvenient for [theists]," right?

The underlying argument here is that groups should be able to redefine their own words and definitions at will.

I guess your underlying argument is that groups should be able to impose beliefs on other groups even if those other groups don't hold those beliefs.

As I told Karen, "I do not hold the positive proposition, 'No God exists,' but I also do not hold the proposition, 'God exists.'" I, further, say that I am an atheist. You, however, have either stated that I (1) am not an atheist, or (2) hold to the proposition "No God exists."

So, now I am to believe you and dictionary writers (who may or may not be atheists, themselves) that neither George Smith, Anthony Flew (in his younger days), Gordon Stein, nor myself are not atheists. Hmmm.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm not an atheist anymore. I'm just someone who does not hold the proposition, "God exists." I do not hold to that position because I do not see any more reason to hold that one than to the proposition, "Shy, invisible elves exist." Call that what you will (I'll probably stick to calling that "atheism" though).

The first [problem], is that the redefinition is being done, admittedly, for polemic reasons. The term is being changed to confuse the issue, and expand group membership, not to clarify what is meant.

Nice assertion. We're lying about what we think about the propositions "A god or gods exist," and "No god or gods exist." Exactly, how do you know this? Usually, it's nice to have proof before you accuse someone of lying, but I guess that is not important when dealing with big, mean, bully atheists, right? Is that why you began your post the way you did?

Second, dictionaries document the historical and popular meanings of words. The fact that a noted atheist is contradicting the established meaning of "atheist" tells you something about how readily atheists will introduce unusual or ahistoric definitions if it "helps" their case.

So, if the popular definition of Christianity became, "A bunch of bigotted morons who believe in fairy-tales," you would be okay with keeping that definition? You wouldn't say that this is a misrepresentation.

The fact is that, in the case of atheism, dictionaries are attributing beliefs to people who call themselves atheists (and who are widely known as such) that these people do not hold. But we should accept that?

Third, even if one can define one's own terms, there is a conflict when you start conscripting other people into your group. Richard Feynman, for example, described himself as an agnostic, not an atheist.

If I were to redefine Richard Feynman as an "atheist," I would not be attributing any new beliefs to him. I would not be saying that Richard Feynman holds to the proposition "No god or gods exist." I would simply be saying that his term "agnostic" is what I call "atheist." When you seek to redefine my atheism as a positive belief, you have done something quite different. You have done something more than semantics. You have forced beliefs on me.

I also fit the definition offered for "atheist", but would describe myself as a Christian.

The definition I offered for atheism was the state of being "without theistic belief." The reason (not the "definition") I gave that I, personally, am "without theistic belief" is that I do not believe there is any sound proof to support theistic belief.

So, are you "without theistic belief"? That would be the only way you would fit my definition. [Again, though, maybe I wasn't as clear as I needed to be on this issue in my comments on Karen's blog.]

Fourth, the claim of redefinition is hypocritical: Christians are not supposed to be allowed to disagree with an atheist's re-definition of "atheism", yet, in the same breath, the atheist claims that theism means claiming there is an absolute, deductive proof of God's existence -- essentially redefining theism.

The definition for theists that is implied by what I said about athiests is "someone who has a theistic belief," or "someone who holds the proposition, 'A god or gods exist.'" You are confusing "definition" with "reason" again. But I think this is something that I will have to be clearer about in the future.

Of course, "theism" is not the belief there is a "sound", deductive, absolute "proof" for God's existence -- so "atheism", in turn, cannot mean the rejection of that position.

Once again, I believe that theism is the belief in the proposition, "A god or gods exist." I believe that atheism is the absence of the belief in the proposition, "A god or gods exist." My, personal, absence of belief in the proposition comes from the fact that I do not see any reason to believe that proposition just like I don't see any reason to believe the proposition, "Shy, invisible elves exist." This is NOT, however, how I define theism.

On his challenge regarding the "Euthyphro dilemma", Karen answers in the same fashion I would, but -- I must admit -- much more eloquently.

This is an entirely different subject, but let me ask you this. If your god is the standard of goodness (whether by definition of his nature or divine fiat), then is it not true that whatever your god does is, by definition, good? The Euthyphro dilemma simply says that if god is the standard of goodness, then saying that that god is good is meaningless and not praise-worthy (i.e. saying, "god is good," is only saying, "god is god,"). If there is goodness external to god by which you can judge whether god is, in fact, good or bad, then the gods are not needed to explain the existence of goodness.

Maybe I missed something in Karen's answer that you can help fill out. It seems that, in order for the statement, "god is good," to have meaning, there must be some kind of external standard of goodness. Otherwise, saying, "god is good," is only saying, "god is god." A goodness without god, however, undermines her argument that a god is needed in order to have goodness.

Let me wrap with this.

-I am not seeking to "best" Karen in a battle-like debate. I am not attempting to "pick on her" (which, would seem impossible if you really believed that your god is on her side). She sought out conversation with atheists and I am obliging her. I don't think this makes me the boogie man.

-If you cannot bring yourself to call me an atheist, I have no problem with that. Instead, call me the guy who is "without theistic belief" because I have seen no reason to believe the proposition, "A god or gods exist."

-You are free to offer me a reason to believe the proposition, "A god or gods exist," or you are free to tell me why I should believe the proposition without a reason, or you are free to laugh at me because you know that I face an eternity in a place where "the fire is not quenched and the worm dieth not."

Ex,

First, welcome!

Actually, her post did not attract my attention. What "attracted my attention" was Karen's comment on a post at a blog that I have contributed to in the past. You see, Karen sought out an atheist blog made up of former ministers and decided to post a challenge there.

In that case, I stand corrected. Thank you!

... it is a small point, but the way you put it, you made it sound as if I were the one who initiated the conversation.

If so, for whatever impact that might have had, I apologize. Thanks for the clarification, and background information.

Tim: ... who apparently wanted to match wits with an, um, junior in high school.

Exbeliever: Yes, I'm the big, bad meanie that seeks to "best" high-schoolers in debate.

Well, you've gotta admit, it does appear a bit odd when a man mentions he's working his fourth masters' degrees, an a PhD, (and quips "but who's counting"???) and then attempts to engage in debate with a high school junior.

You wrote, to Karen: "At that blog you made a comment about an 'objective moral code.' You wondered how an atheist could have one."

But, as an observer, I noticed you've never explained how you could have one. You challenged her beliefs, in numerous different ways, but failed to simply answer the question. (And Karen herself, apparently in frustration, pointed this out.)

So it looks like you're trying to generate heat, not light, and show her up, rather than start by answering her question first, and then perhaps moving to other areas.

Maybe I do not "despise their youth," to use terms you are familiar with. Since Karen is seeking to "iron out" her apologetic skills, I'm the only one who is giving her the opportunity to do so.

Hey, I think it's great that you're talking to her. But it's still true that you appearred to be doding her direct query, and

Tim,

First, welcome!

Thank you.

You wrote, to Karen: "At that blog you made a comment about an 'objective moral code.' You wondered how an atheist could have one."

But, as an observer, I noticed you've never explained how you could have one. You challenged her beliefs, in numerous different ways, but failed to simply answer the question. (And Karen herself, apparently in frustration, pointed this out.)

In Karen's first comment on the atheist blog I mentioned, she was given links to posts that I directly answered that same question. In her first response to me on the comments section you have been reading, she said, "From the answers to my comment at Debunking Christianity, it looks like you’ve addressed this in several previous posts. I’ll be sure to read them, and I’d love to discuss them with you."

Since she already had that in hand, I chose to point out that her "questions" are not simply inquiries, but are rhetorical questions meant to set up an argument that she was not being forthcoming about, viz. the presuppositionalists' transcendental argument for the existence of god (TAG). I continually pointed out that since these questions were not sincere (in that she wasn't just asking because she was curious, but because she was setting up an argument), I felt it was more direct to address her specific argument than to play the game of answering rhetorical questions.

So it looks like you're trying to generate heat, not light, and show her up, rather than start by answering her question first, and then perhaps moving to other areas.

But since she already has my answer to this "question" (and admitted so from the beginning) and since this question is really part of an argument and, therefore, not really a "question," my response is perfectly justified, don't you think?

Suppose, I simply asked you, "How does your god think without a brain?" and refused to have any further discussion unless you answered that question. Would this be a fair tactic?

The thing is, Tim, is that I'm not new to Christian apologetics. Two of my master's degrees are from very prominent evangelical seminaries. I used to be a presuppositionalist and then a "reformed epistemologist." I baited people with the same questions: "How do you account for the laws of logic in an atheist worldview?" and "How can you say anything is good or bad without a universal standard of goodness and how can you have a universal standard of goodness in an atheistic worldview?"

I've also been on the other side of this debate. I've been baited by this question. I've spent countless pages demonstrating how logic and morality can be accounted for without reference to a god.

What I've discovered is that these questions are just smoke. They aren't sincere and I am, therefore, under no obligation to spin my wheels answering them.

These questions hide an argument. They hide TAG. TAG is formulated:

> P --> Q
> P
> .: Q

Or, "If universal moral standards [or laws of logic] exist, then the Christian God exists. Universal moral standards [or laws of logic]exist, therefore, God exists."

What I've been saying to Karen is that if this is your argument, then state it explicitly. Don't bait me with rhetorical questions and then spring it on me.

I think that is a fair request, don't you?

Furthermore, what has happened in the past is that I never even get to the argument. After I give my answer, the theist simply starts quibbling over it instead of giving their argument. All we end up doing is talking epistemology or moral philosophy and never getting to the argument about god.

What I've found most Christians want is the following exchange:

Christian: "How do you account for universal moral standards in an atheistic worldview?"

Atheist: "Duh, I don't know."

Christian: "Aha! Therefore God exists!"

I'm tired of being the one having to do all the work. In my last comment to Karen, I told her that I would agree to a compromise. I would answer her rhetorical questions explicitly in one thread if she would present her positive argument for the existence of god in another. This seems fair to me, does it not to you?

Any other comments about the definition of atheism or do you concede my point?

Maybe I do not "despise their youth," to use terms you are familiar with. Since Karen is seeking to "iron out" her apologetic skills, I'm the only one who is giving her the opportunity to do so.... She doesn't seem to shy away from "matching wits" with anyone no matter what their educational background.

Oh, so then you are "matching wits" with her? I'm getting confused here. Just a minute ago, you said you simply were answering her challenge -- which appeared to be a request for an atheist to explain where atheists derived morality.

Now, you admit that you are indeed debating her. Well, good enough. Isn't a debate a match of wits, an intellectual sparring match?

I am not "battling" Karen or trying to "match wits" in some kind of competition...

Well, whichever. You are matching wits with her and giving her practice... you aren't... Okay, just let me know how you want me to refer to it.

So, I ask you, is it your custom to attempt to demonize people before you begin a response? Does it serve your purposes better to portray me as a bully, picking on high-schoolers before you address what I said?

I said, in a sentence fragment, that you "apparently wanted to match wits" with a junior in high school. And this has made you go on for, um, how many paragraphs now? Saying you were "matching wits" with her is considered a form of "demonization"? Isn't that just a bit touchy?

No offense, but isn't this just a bit disproportionate considering, that the statement appears to be, in fact, true, at least reasonably so, from the perception of readers?

Tim: He pulls the recent "atheist" con of claiming that "atheism" only argues that there is no "sound proof" of theism.

Exbeliever: Yes, I am part of that conspiracy of telling people why I do not believe in a god.

Hmmmm... interesting. A micro-straw-man. It's probably fair to say I implied you were part of a "conspiracy" (your term, not mine) to re-define atheism away from it's traditional meaning.

But I have never faulted you for saying WHY you believe don't believe in God. My admitted quibble is with attempts to re-define words for what are apparently mainly polemical reasons.

I thought I made that reasonably clear, spending several paragraphs on the subject.

So, then, why do you apparently feel a need change my argument, saying, falsely, that I'm an unhappy with the fact you explained why you don't believe in God?

All kinds of people don't believe in the theistic God -- for all kinds of reasons. Buddhists, pantheists, atheists, agnostics, New Agers, even liberal "Christians" like John Spong. My beef is with the definition, not the fact you spoke.

Look, let's say I became a Christian because I grew up with, and rejected Islam. Or became a Christian because I liked C.S. Lewis's arguments. I tell people that. That's, to paraphrase your words, "telling people why I do believe in Jesus."

But let's say I instead tried to define "Christian" in an unsually broad sense: Say, I claimed every Westerner who rejects Islam should be counted as a Christian. Well, you might find my definition objectionable (in fact, I'd certainly agree), but it would be false to say you objected because was "telling people why I believe". Your complaint is my definition, not the fact I'm speaking.

Is that simple distinction truly unclear to you?

Here are some of the others... "I want the word [atheism] to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral' . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist."

Well, thank you, Exbeliever! I have no idea why, but you've done so very much to make my case for me here. Note Flew's language in the sections I've highlighted: He understands FULL WELL that the definition he "wants" atheism to "become" -- he makes this perfectly plain -- is not the definition while he is speaking. Exactly: The definition arises for polemical reasons, not because it makes things clearer. (In fact, it rather muddies the water; which was no doubt the intent.)

I have no idea why you think quoting more of this material makes your case: I've already made my four arguments -- (1) history, (2) common use, (3) the polemic intentions behind the redefinition, and (4) the right of the outside to reject terms defined primarily for reason #3. None of your answers even addresses these arguments, much less refute them. You simply demonstrate many atheists want to get people to accept their new definition.

Of course: it was the first complaint I made.

Tim: Another commenter to Karen's blog exposes the falsity of this definition as well by appealing to valid authorities...

Ex: It's interesting that you define dictionary writers as "valid authorities" and imply that atheists are "invalid authorities" on the definition of atheism.

It's interesting that you use resort to false dichotomy, or imply I do: if I say linguistic professional are "valid" I must certainly be implying all others are not!

Yet I have already admitted that I think groups have some power to define their own terms, and have already explained precisely what and when. Did you miss that part?

If I wanted to say atheists were "invalid" authorities, I simply would have said so. That's why I went on for several paragraphs explaining exactly when and under what conditions I felt it was acceptable to accept such moves, and when it wasn't.

Once again, rather than answer that, or even acknowledge I have written it, you simply write as though I never spoke, and put another implication altogether into my mouth. Again.

I think you are confusing two different statements that I made (perhaps the fault is mine for not being clearer). I define an atheist as one who is without theistic belief. I went on to explain that the reason that I, personally, am "without theistic belief" is that I have found no sound proof of a god's existence...

I see now I was in error in my precise restatement, where I implied you had meant to define atheism as a rejection of the idea theism offers a sound proof. My apologies: I did indeed misunderstand you. Mea culpa.

I now understand you prefer atheism to be defined as an absence of theism.

In my Greek classes, the Greek prefix "a" was described a term of negation that can mean "not" or "without." For instance, actions can be "moral," "immoral," or "amoral." The last description means that it is an action without moral consequence. This is exactly what atheists say about the term "atheism."

Agreed. Nobody here has argued "a" doesn't mean "not", so it's not clear why you're launching onto that tangent.

But you are yet again failing to address my direct argument: that binding between "a-" and "theism" has a higher precidence than the binding between "theos" and "-ism". That historically and linguistically, it reads "athe-ism", not "a-theism".

And there's probably for a reason for this: Its manifestly a losing case. "-ism" is a such a weak binding in English, the suffix is even used on it's own: "isms".

Do we need a survey? "Agnosticism" -- doesn't mean rejection of Gnosticism, means agnosis -ism. Pantheism -- doesn't mean "theism" is the only belief (pan-theism), instead means adherance to the belief that all-is-god (panthe-ism). Bi-theism doesn't refer to theists who "go both ways" (bi-theism), but rather belief in two gods ("bi-theos...ism"). And again, "polytheism" isn't the belief there are many kinds of theism ("poly-theism"), but rather the positive assertion there are many gods ("polytheos-ism").

Look, there is nothing even slightly historically nor linguistically "usual" about the construction of "atheism" as "a-theism" -- from both those persectives it is perverse. Which is why Flew chose "amoral" as his example, as it directs the reader's attention away from the obvious flaw (the "-ism" suffix with lower binding precedence) and, unlike the examples, I've given, it joins a Greek prefix and a much later Middle English word.

As I said, you're welcomed to offer whatever definition you'd like. But I'm also welcomed to point out, and give evidence for, my argument that it is an unusual, ahistorical, and linguistically incorrect definition created primarily for polemical reasons.

When you repeatedly try to imply I do not want you to use the term, you are speaking falsely: I'm quite happy atheists use it, at least where I can comment. It gives me a chance to point out to readers the kinds of word-games some atheists employ, and gives the atheist the chance to provide further evidence to our readers, as you have kindly done.

(But hey, atheists also tried to get us all to call them "brights", so this is pretty much par for the course, I guess: "Let's try to win arguments by redefining things unusually!" I expect that of political partisans and flakes; not serious thinkers.)

Perhaps, if you think I'm wrong or too tough here, you could dispell my impression by explaining why, as a non-theist, you, personally prefer "atheist" to a term which would be more accurately understood by others, such as "agnostic", "humanist", "Buddhist", or whatever describes your beliefs positively and more precisely?

Do you feel theism is especially harmful such that opposing it is your main focus, more than making other positive statements?*

Again, since you seem to misconstrue easily: I am NOT asking why you do not believe in God. I am asking why you chose that particular term.

(* There's nothing wrong with this, by the way. Trey Parker describes himself, not as "conservative", but as "anti-liberal". He also says he's "anti-conservative", but is more opposed to liberals. And I see my own political involvement as more about "stopping liberalism" more than pushing any new agenda.)

I'm just curious to know why one would prefer "atheism", which has connotations of defining one's beliefs primarily as being in opposition to another, rather than something which communicates more information.

You wrote, "'Atheism' was originally the charge of asserting the polytheistic gods were not gods at all." But that isn't your definition, is it? You say that, according to "valid authorities," atheism is "the belief that no god exists." But I guess that "History is what it is, however inconvenient for [theists]," right?

Of course words change over time, indeed. You seem to want to make we say: "Words can never change."

But yes, of course words change over time. But this isn't analagous what you're offering: the example you cite would be a popular change in meaning from ancient Greece until today. That's a comparison of at least hundreds of years, if you could find the period. You're trying to equate that with a deliberate, stated effort by a minority to redefine an inconvenient term, mainly for polemic purposes.

Can't you see the difference between the two situations? One change was natural (as paganism waned, so did any the pagan-centric langauge) -- the other was planned. One definition follows the common usage -- the other is a deliberate attempt to engineer and change common usage. One took hundreds of years, the other is taking but a few decades. One is widely accepted and adopted, the other is not.

That's my entire point.

Can't you spot these tiny distinctions?

Tim: The underlying argument here is that groups should be able to redefine their own words and definitions at will.

Ex: I guess your underlying argument is that groups should be able to impose beliefs on other groups even if those other groups don't hold those beliefs.

Forgive me, but I seem to be noticing a pattern here. As I myself misunderstood you (noted), and you were kind enough to clarify, I didn't want to jump all over you for misunderstanding me.

But there seems to be only one strategy at work here: Put words into my mouth I didn't say. Often words which ignore AND contradict several paragraphs where I explained I meant the opposite.

Perhaps I could see this happening one or several times accidentally. But it seesm to be happening in almost EVERY paragraph.

Please read the rules for commenting here. This, sadly, such a frequent occurrence among my critics I actually had to write it down. Sad, but true. Please, henceforth, please stop arguing against things I haven't said while ignoring and side-stepping the arguments I *have* made.

Mmmmkay?

Thank you.

Now, to try again, this time without me breaking into an annoyed rant...

Tim: The underlying argument here is that groups should be able to redefine their own words and definitions at will.

Ex: I guess your underlying argument is that groups should be able to impose beliefs on other groups even if those other groups don't hold those beliefs.

Where have I said anything of the sort? A group may certainly want to have it's own private terms, but if you demand others adopt them, then it is, in fact, that group who is trying to "impose" something on someone.

I acknowledge your right to offer an inaccurate, misleading, and ahistorical definition -- much as feminists tried to get us to spell it "womyn", and atheists (to cite the same offenders) attempted to get us all to call them "bright". You are certainly welcomed to that. I'm not "forcing" you do anything.

I simply reserve my own right, on my own blog, to continually skewer those tactics, and those who approve of them and consciously use them.

(Note, I'm not saying you approve of such tactics. You might simply have been confused as to the popular and historical definition of atheism, and unaware of the polemic nature of this particular shift. But that doesn't leave you with much wiggle room -- if you say you didn't know, then you end up looking like you don't know much about our language. If you say you do, then you admit you embrace and cynically deploy a definition which is primarily polemical, not precise.)

So, now I am to believe you and dictionary writers...

How pleasant! Whereas before you claimed your definition was the "literal" one, you have now admitted that your definition is at odds with the one in dictionaries. Well, at least that's a start.

You asked about this before, so I want to be clear: If I want to understand the most popular definition of a word, it's "literal" meaning, and its history, YES, I would indeed look to "dictionary writers", as you call them. Professional linguists would indeed be the proper authority on the meaning of words, as -- unlike (say) atheists (or Christians for that matter) -- they are usually neutral, disinterested, and trained in those particular practices. (Moreso than the average theist or atheist.)

But if we want to find out what athiests WANT to be called, or how they WANT various words to be redefined, why YES, then *atheists* would be the right people to consult. When we ask them what "bright" means, they will point at themselves. When we look into a dictionary, we will find quite a different term.

Call me a fool, but I'm going to stick with the linguists, history, and popular usage. When you get the first and the last, then I will indeed gladly go along. But by then, word "atheist" will simply have replaced the slot for "wishy-washy agnostic" in peoples' minds, and this strategy will have lost the original rhetorical punch.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm not an atheist anymore. I'm just someone who does not hold the proposition, "God exists"...

Good enough. Look, I've never said you can't define "atheist" any way you want. You can definite it as a deep affinity for fruit-growing for all I care -- just as the PC crowd call tell us, year after year, the new term we should use for each minority.

I'm just pointing out I'm going to highlight precisely what's going on. If it does nothing other than encourage non-theists to describe what they DO believe, and thus, presumably, suggest a superior philosophical system we ignorant theists might adopt instead -- then I'll be more than pleased.

[Tim claims] Nice assertion. We're lying about what we think about the propositions "A god or gods exist," and "No god or gods exist."

(I've already warned you about this, so I won't repeat it again here...)

No: I'm not saying what *you* believe or don't. I'm objecting to your attempt to redefine "atheist". I think that's been made amply clear.

So, if the popular definition of Christianity became, "A bunch of bigotted morons who believe in fairy-tales," you would be okay with keeping that definition?

Yes, in some sense, if the definition made things clearer and more unambiguous. Yours probably wouldn't catch on, since it doesn't (indeed, hard-left Democrats would fit the description equally well ;-)), but similar ones have in the past...

For an ex-believer, you seem to be unaware of the origin of the term "Christianity" -- the term itself is one of derision, meaning "little Christ." It was indeed accepted.

The same goes for "Yankee", which also began as a mocking term by the British.

For example, I *hate* the term "fundamentalist". I also *hate* the term "right wing". Do I allow and acknowledge them as at least rough descriptions of my own stances?

Of course. In one case "fundamentalist" -- nobody knows exactly what it means anyway. The New York Times uses it for all manner of beliefs it finds objectionable -- it is, in fact, currently a term of mockery. Thus I accept it, as that's what I'm *supposed* to do as a Christian.

The other, "right wing" carries a negative connotation as well. But, as I'm am indeed a political conservative, and that is the image conjured up when people hear "right wing", though I don't prefer it, I will acknowledge and even use it if it helps clarify the discussion.

In constrast, the definition you have used is admitted -- you cited the quotes yourself -- primarily being preferred for polemical reasons -- I guess primarily because atheists are sick of losing debates on "atheism" to theists. It does not clear things up, which is why atheists themselves had to introduce the "weak/strong" subterms -- a direct admission of loss of clarity and additional confusion.

If I were to redefine Richard Feynman as an "atheist," I would not be attributing any new beliefs to him.

Of course you would be "attributing" new beliefs to him. The average person would hear this as a statement that Feynman asserted no God exists, when he carefully said otherwise. That's what words are for -- you know -- communicating with the average passerby.

Can't you see how disingenuous this sort of tactic is? Do I have to substitue other words for you to see how fallacious your own argument is?

Look, say I personally like to define define "pedophile" to mean "disbelieves in God". Now I can call you a pedophile. TECHNICALLY, I'm not "attributing" any new characteristic to you. Because, you know, you don't believe in God, and that how I want to define it.

But words aren't little games we play with ourselves -- they are primarily tools for imparting meaning to others. The attributions a word carries more a matter of what each listener hears than what the speaker is thinking. When the speaker uses terms that differ from most of his listeners, he is indeed causing new "attributions" to occur.

Finally, I'd like to point out that by calling Feynman an "atheist" you'd be attributing a label to him that he consciously choose NOT to apply. Hence my point, which you force me to make repeatedly, that it's quite another thing to redefine OTHERS into your little coeterie, when they apparently would rather NOT have kept company, label-wise, with you.

A bit like Mssr. Plantard, who created a "Priory of Sion" to conscript Leonardo, Issac Newton, and a host of other luminaries into his little club -- men who, frankly, would probably not have enjoyed his company.

This is an entirely different subject...

I see no reason to branch off into a second subject when you can't seem to acknowledge my challenges and responses regarding the first one. It's a bit like throwing good money after bad.

Maybe I missed something in Karen's answer that you can help fill out. It seems that, in order for the statement, "god is good," to have meaning, there must be some kind of external standard of goodness.

Okay, I'm a sucker.

No: it might simply be that when people are experience "goodness", they are, in fact, experiencing "god" or some reflection thereof. Yes, they might simply be synonyms, or two aspects of the same entity.

Does energy come from matter, or does matter depend upon energy? Wouldn't that make "energy is matter" simply mean "matter is matter"? Did we prove neither these terms were meaningful by playing this word game? Of course not. Matter and energy ARE the same thing, even if they appear to our eyes as distinct, and we use distinct terms to describe them and think of them quite differntly.

The Christian posits -- rightly or wrongly -- that when people experience "goodness" or "love" or "justice" they are experiencing some aspect or manifestation of the primordial IS behind the universe.

Remember that real things preceed the words we use to describe them, not the other way around. Giving some real thing a term or description doesn't suddenly bring that word to life and give it independent existence. As Jung put it, when pointing at the moon, don't mistake your finger for the moon.

Okay, I haven't answered everything you've written, but I think that's quite enough for now.

Tim,

Ex: Maybe I do not "despise their youth," to use terms you are familiar with. Since Karen is seeking to "iron out" her apologetic skills, I'm the only one who is giving her the opportunity to do so.... She doesn't seem to shy away from "matching wits" with anyone no matter what their educational background.

Tim: Oh, so then you are "matching wits" with her? I'm getting confused here. Just a minute ago, you said you simply were answering her challenge -- which appeared to be a request for an atheist to explain where atheists derived morality.

Now, you admit that you are indeed debating her. Well, good enough. Isn't a debate a match of wits, an intellectual sparring match?

Note that I said that "Karen" doesn't shy away from "matching wits." I didn't say that I was attempting to "match wits" with her. Are you attributing words to me that I didn't say?

I said this in my first comment, but let me say it again. I reject the debate-as-war metaphor. "Matching wits" implies competition. Even though Karen sees herself in competition with me (as evidenced in her comments), I do not see this discussion as a competition.

In my comment above, I said that even if I assumed the debate-as-war metaphor that it seems you support (e.g. by saying it is a competitive matching of wits), then you should have more confidence than you are demonstrating.

I said, in a sentence fragment, that you "apparently wanted to match wits" with a junior in high school. And this has made you go on for, um, how many paragraphs now? Saying you were "matching wits" with her is considered a form of "demonization"? Isn't that just a bit touchy?

Your "demonization" comes in the set-up. You are making a David and Goliath comparison. In the one corner you have "an atheist, working on his Nth Master's degree, and PhD," and in the other corner, you have, "an, um, junior in high school."

Why list my credentials? Why mention that "my opponent" (i.e. in a debate-as-war metaphor) is in high school? What purpose does this serve other than to present me as a bully?

It's probably fair to say I implied you were part of a "conspiracy" (your term, not mine) to re-define atheism away from it's traditional meaning.

But I have never faulted you for saying WHY you believe don't believe in God. My admitted quibble is with attempts to re-define words for what are apparently mainly polemical reasons.

This is exactly my point. You are saying that I am attempting to redefine atheism for polemical reasons. I am saying I am trying to redefine atheism to more accurately reflect the sentiments of those who actually call themselves atheists. I am saying that that is what you are calling a "con." Atheists are speaking out and saying that the "traditional definition" does not accurately reflect their beliefs.

So, then, why do you apparently feel a need change my argument, saying, falsely, that I'm an unhappy with the fact you explained why you don't believe in God?

You are unhappy that atheists are trying to define atheism in a different way. Atheists are trying to define atheism in a way that explains their disbelief.

So, I now ask you, "Is that simple distinction truly unclear to you?"

All kinds of people don't believe in the theistic God -- for all kinds of reasons. Buddhists, pantheists, atheists, agnostics, New Agers, even liberal "Christians" like John Spong.

Wow, we really need to define our terms here. What do you mean by the term "theistic God"? Do you mean "monotheistic"? Do you mean a being with personhood? Pantheists are theists, right?

I have no idea why, but you've done so very much to make my case for me here. . . [Antony Flew] understands FULL WELL that the definition he "wants" atheism to "become" -- he makes this perfectly plain -- is not the definition while he is speaking. Exactly: The definition arises for polemical reasons, not because it makes things clearer.

If your case is that my definition of atheism is not the popular definition then I made your case for you from the beginning of this post. You didn't even have to wait until now.

Are you changing my argument now? Are you suggesting that I have said that my definition of atheism is the popular definition? I've never come close to saying that.

What I have argued is that my definition of atheism is more accurate than the popular definition because it accounts for the beliefs that atheists actually hold.

But you go even further. Here, again, you are attributing a motive to atheists for defining atheism in the way they do. The atheists themselves explain that they define atheism differently than the popular definition because the popular definition does not do justice to their beliefs. You say, though, that the "real motive" is polemical. On what grounds are you making this accusation?

I've already made my four arguments -- (1) history, (2) common use, (3) the polemic intentions behind the redefinition, and (4) the right of the outside to reject terms defined primarily for reason #3. None of your answers even addresses these arguments, much less refute them.

You're kidding me, right? I went point-by-point through these in my first comment.

(1) history: You say that my definition is unhistorical so it is, by implication, wrong.

The history that you give of the term is, "'Atheism' was originally the charge of asserting the polytheistic gods were not gods at all." A more primitive meaning, however, is described by AB Drachmann (which, embarrasingly, I got from Wikipedia (I feel stupid quoting from them, but at least its a quote of a quote)),

In Greek they said atheos and atheotes; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed.

JCC Smart writes, "As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes."

If this is accurate, the historical meaning of the term is much different than either my definition or the popular one. Atheism in the Greek sense could describe a person who believed in the gods, but didn't live like it and atheism in the Roman sense could be used to describe Christians who didn't believe in Roman gods.

Both the popular definition and my definition are unhistorical.

But note that my argument isn't that my definition is more historical (I don't even think that is Smith's point even though he comes closer to saying this). My argument is that my definition more accurately reflects the beliefs of people who call themselves atheists.

Moving on . . .

(2) common use

I admitted that my definition wasn't the common one from the beginning.

The problem is that the popular definition of the word does not accurately reflect the beliefs of the people who actually call themselves atheists. My definition, not only includes those who hold the proposition, "No god or gods exist," but it also includes those who do not hold that proposition but also do not hold the proposition, "A god or gods exist." This definition more accurately describes the positions offered in works universally categorized as atheistic.

(3) the polemic intentions behind the redefinition

So now bald assertion is the same as "argument." True, you've repeatedly stated that atheists are seeking redefinition for polemical reasons (contrary to what the atheists themselves state), but you have not even come close to supporting this assertion. Who are you to state the "intentions behind" a person's actions when they clearly state their intentions are not what you suggest?

(4) the right of the outside to reject terms defined primarily for reason #3

Yet, you have presented no argument to support your bald assertion that atheists are guilty of #3.

But let me give you a little, here. I don't demand that you accept my definition of atheism in general. Call it whatever you want as long as you are speaking generally.

When you are speaking about me, though, do not force your definition on me. As I said in my first comment, "If you cannot bring yourself to call me an atheist, I have no problem with that. Instead, call me the guy who is 'without theistic belief because I have seen no reason to believe the proposition, 'A god or gods exist.'"

Okay, so now your "four arguments" have been answered and refuted (again).

It's interesting that you use resort to false dichotomy, or imply I do: if I say linguistic professional are "valid" I must certainly be implying all others are not!

Now, you seem down-right disingenuous. Let's look at your original statement:

Another commenter to Karen's blog exposes the falsity of this definition as well by appealing to valid authorities:

So, we have two different groups of people. One group defines atheism as being "without theistic belief." You call this a "false" definition. The other group says that atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist. You refer to this group as "valid authorities."

Come on, Tim. Save your accusations of misrepresentation for a time when I actually misrepresent you.

Yet I have already admitted that I think groups have some power to define their own terms, and have already explained precisely what and when. Did you miss that part?

I guess I did. Maybe you can cut and paste that part. I mean, I see that you said that groups can redefine their own terms for themselves, but not that they have any power to define those terms generally. Is that what you are referring to?

Once again, rather than answer that, or even acknowledge I have written it, you simply write as though I never spoke, and put another implication altogether into my mouth. Again.

I quoted almost every single line of your original post and dealt with it immediately! Please, paste the sections that I didn't acknowledge.

Frankly, the charge of putting words in your mouth is getting a little old.

But you are yet again failing to address my direct argument: that binding between "a-" and "theism" has a higher precidence than the binding between "theos" and "-ism". That historically and linguistically, it reads "athe-ism", not "a-theism".

But "a-theos" would only mean "without god." And, historically, it only meant "without a particular god."

As attested by the writers I quoted above, "a-theos" meant "ungodly." It was a term about character. The later usage (i.e. with the -ism attached) is much more relevant because it defines the term philosophically.

It is just not true, then, that "historically and linguistically, it reads 'athe-ism', not 'a-theism'." Atheos is less significant than the later atheism.

Do we need a survey? "Agnosticism" -- doesn't mean rejection of Gnosticism, means agnosis -ism.

Yes it does! When Huxley made up the term, he specifically named the Gnostics. He said that Gnostics claimed they had some kind of knowledge. He said that he was without this kind of knowledge. Sure, he spoke of Gnosticism generally, but his intent was to compare himself with that movement.

Pantheism -- doesn't mean "theism" is the only belief (pan-theism), instead means adherance to the belief that all-is-god (panthe-ism). Bi-theism doesn't refer to theists who "go both ways" (bi-theism), but rather belief in two gods ("bi-theos...ism"). And again, "polytheism" isn't the belief there are many kinds of theism ("poly-theism"), but rather the positive assertion there are many gods ("polytheos-ism").

And the difference between all of these and atheism is that most of the people who call themselves atheists don't hold the proposition that "there is no god or gods."

Look, there is nothing even slightly historically nor linguistically "usual" about the construction of "atheism" as "a-theism" -- from both those persectives it is perverse.

I've already demonstrated that, historically, the term refers to character not a philosophical rejection. If we want to look into the history of the term as we know it, we must start with the later French.

Also, I have shown that "there is nothing even slightly historically . . . 'usual' about the construction of 'atheism' as ['atheos-ism']."

Linguistically, it depends on where you start historically. If you start with the French (which it seems you must), then linguistically, "a-theism" is the most correct.

As I said, you're welcomed to offer whatever definition you'd like. But I'm also welcomed to point out, and give evidence for, my argument that it is an unusual, ahistorical, and linguistically incorrect definition created primarily for polemical reasons.

Feel free to point out what you like. My argument is that my definition of atheism is unusual, but more accurately reflects the beliefs of those who call themselves atheists. I argued that my definition of atheism is just as unhistorical (not "ahistorical" as you put it) as the popular definition but that my definition more accurately reflects the beliefs of those who call themselves atheists than either the historical definition or the popular one. I argued that the definition is linguistically correct according to the normal usage of the Greek prefix "a." I believe, linguistically, that atheism, in the way it is meant today is a Greek negation (meaning without) attached to the Middle English word, theism. I believe my definition is linguistically justified in this manner. Lastly, you have not offered anything other than conjecture about the underlying intentions of atheists who seek to define atheism.

[Using the term "atheism"] gives me a chance to point out to readers the kinds of word-games some atheists employ. . .

Do you mean that it gives you a chance to throw out unsupported conjecture that atheists are employing word-games?

Perhaps, if you think I'm wrong or too tough here, you could dispell my impression by explaining why, as a non-theist, you, personally prefer "atheist" to a term which would be more accurately understood by others, such as "agnostic", "humanist", "Buddhist", or whatever describes your beliefs positively and more precisely?

Sure, thanks for asking.

First, though, I need to point out a category mistake. Atheism and agnosticism refer to theistic positions. Humanism and Buddhism refers to worldviews. I am an atheist and I also have a worldview. I'm admittedly a little mushy on my worldview. I lean toward a posteriori physicalism. Atheism simply describes my belief about one issue, god.

Now, I prefer the term "atheist" because I accept the way that prominent atheists have defined themselves. Flew, Stein, Smith, etc. are (or "were" in the case of Flew) all famous atheists. When they describe their beliefs it sounds exactly like mine. Everyone calls them atheists for holding the same beliefs I hold. I think the term is appropriate. Fair enough?

Do you feel theism is especially harmful such that opposing it is your main focus, more than making other positive statements?*

No. All of my friends (save one) are theists (specifically, Christians). I do not "oppose" theism. I am not a theist, though, and that is what the term means to me.

I'm just curious to know why one would prefer "atheism", which has connotations of defining one's beliefs primarily as being in opposition to another, rather than something which communicates more information.

Because atheism only speaks to one belief, my belief about the proposition, "A god or god exists." I have many positive beliefs that I talk about all the time. Political beliefs, scientific beliefs, philosophical beliefs. I define myself positively in many ways. Atheism, though, is a limited subject and the one that is under discussion right now.

I have to go now. I'll finish addressing the rest of your post later.

Continued. . .

A group may certainly want to have it's own private terms, but if you demand others adopt them, then it is, in fact, that group who is trying to "impose" something on someone.

The popular definition is inaccurate. It does not express the beliefs of those who call themselves atheists and who are recognized as such. There is nothing "private" about this.

I acknowledge your right to offer an inaccurate, misleading, and ahistorical definition. . .

And you've proven this how? Oh, yea, by fallacious argumentation, bald assertion, and gross misrepresentation.

You might simply have been confused as to the popular and historical definition of atheism, and unaware of the polemic nature of this particular shift. But that doesn't leave you with much wiggle room -- if you say you didn't know, then you end up looking like you don't know much about our language. If you say you do, then you admit you embrace and cynically deploy a definition which is primarily polemical, not precise.

Maybe you can demonstrate my "confusion." Like, for instance, you could show that I have said that my definition is the popular definition (in spite of my quotations from Flew and Stein that acknowledge that the popular definition is not the one they hold). Maybe you can show where I said my definition was historical.

This wouldn't be anything like putting words in someone's mouth, would it?

How pleasant! Whereas before you claimed your definition was the "literal" one, you have now admitted that your definition is at odds with the one in dictionaries. Well, at least that's a start.

Tim, this really sinks your credibility. In your original post, you quote me as saying, "I don't think a dictionary or bried [sic., I meant "brief"] encyclopedic definition is preferable to full length sources written by actual atheists, do you?"

So, from the very beginning, I have said that I disagree with the dictionary definition. How could you quote this, but still miss it?

Does "literal" mean "dictionary"?

This is inexcusable.

Professional linguists would indeed be the proper authority on the meaning of words, as -- unlike (say) atheists (or Christians for that matter) -- they are usually neutral, disinterested, and trained in those particular practices. (Moreso than the average theist or atheist.)

You couldn't be more wrong here. Words derive meaning from contexts. Do you think a dictionary writer is expert in the field of microbiology? Yet, they define it and many of its terms. How do they do this? They go to the experts in the field. Professional atheists (not "average atheists") are the experts in that field. If a dictionary-writer wants to define a term in which they are not expert, they must consult the experts in that field.

Furthermore, dictionaries give popular opinion. Popular opinion is not always accurate when you consult the experts in the field.

Call me a fool, but I'm going to stick with the linguists, history, and popular usage.

Have it your way. Stick with people who have to consult the experts in the field rather than those who are experts in the field.

In constrast, the definition you have used is admitted -- you cited the quotes yourself -- primarily being preferred for polemical reasons. . .

Perhaps you would like to paste one of the quotes that says the definition is "primarily being preferred for polemical reasons."

I'll be waiting.

I see no reason to branch off into a second subject when you can't seem to acknowledge my challenges and responses regarding the first one.

I've refuted every word that you have written.

I'll review them all for you quickly.

1) You made it sound like I initiated the conversation with Karen even though the first line of my comment was, "I found your site through a comment you made at Debunking Christianity."

You, graciously, acknowledged your mistake.

2) You wrongly attributed a definition of atheism to me that is not mine. You said I defined atheism as the belief that "there is no deductive proof of God's existence." I only defined atheism as being "without theistic belief."

Here, again, you graciously acknowledged your mistake.

3) You said, "'Atheism' was originally the charge of asserting the polytheistic gods were not gods at all."

I quoted other scholars who disagree with your assessment. They say it was not used to describe a philosophical belief until much later.

4) You stated that this definition was adopted for polemical reasons.

I pointed out that your assertion is unsupported by the atheists actual statements. The definition, according to them (and me), was adopted because it more accurately reflected the beliefs of atheists.

5) You said that I have been dodging Karen's direct questions even though she wrote, "From the answers to my comment at Debunking Christianity, it looks like you’ve addressed this in several previous posts. I’ll be sure to read them, and I’d love to discuss them with you," and "I need to read your other material (I’ve printed it, as well as the comments others made, and I have quite a weighty tome before me)."

She has answers in hand.

6) You've repeatedly made it sound as if I am claiming that my definition is the popular one inspite of my explicit statements to the contrary. I've only argued that my definition more accurately describes the beliefs of actual atheists.

So, let's cut to the chase (I'm done with the point-by-point refutations of nonsense).

I believe the most accurate way to define atheism is "being without theistic belief." You say that the most accurate way to define atheism is "the belief that there is no god or gods."

Let's test them.

P1: Gordon Stein and George Smith are popularly referred to as atheists by both theists and atheists.

P2: Gordon Stein and George Smith define their atheism as "being without theistic belief."

P3: If the popular definition of atheism held popularly, then Gordon Stein and George Smith would not be popularly referred to as atheists.

P4: Gordon Stein and George Smith are popularly referred to as atheists.

C: Therefore, the popular definition of atheism does not hold popularly.

Support:

Dear Tim

Well I think that we should not see with a narrow vision.

it's true that nobody has seen the god but it's just a belief that everybody follows. So let make others feel what they want to

Dear Tim

I agree with what Peter has said in his comment. If we keep a narrow vision in our life we can never achieve what really we wanna achieve!

God is something that can be felt inside us if you run after anything then will not achieve anything!!