Man, it must be some adventure living inside your head. You're wrong. Even if the concept of believing no gods exist did not arise until after the coining of that particular term, there is nothing about the term itself that excludes that mentality, as the term literally means "without gods." If you are someone who believes there is no such thing as gods, then you are necessarily without gods. Again, what we have here is you failing to comprehend words that you're reading. You defined "-ism" as "a distintive [sic] doctrine or system of practice" so as to support your claim that an atheist is simply someone who does not practice, as opposed to someone who positively believes gods do not exist. I corrected you by saying that -ism is more than that. Here's what Dictionary.com says about it. So to say that theism is "the state or condition of belief in at least one god" is correct. As is defining atheism as "the state or condition of believing no gods exist." If you defined it only as a person who simply doesn't practice, then you leave yourself in the logical conundrum of having atheist theists--people who believe but do not practice or hold to any doctrines. Obviously, that's a clunky and useless definition, and no one applies it in such a way. More semantic nonsense. Stop trolling. Theos applies to god with a little G, because Greece was polytheistic. You'll notice the word for goddess is "thea." No, this is just you trying to bastardize another word so it suits your asinine argument. You couldn't have this argument if you were acting on the level, so you resort to lies and other dishonest tactics. The word "theos" may also be applied to Big G God, but it also applied to gods with a little g. Again, this is something you'd know if you had actually bothered to learn anything about this stuff. But I suppose it's easier to simply stay ignorant and pretend you have a clue. No, it's ignorant to pretend that our understanding can't get better, and that all we know now is all we'll ever know. Just because something means something today doesn't mean it should carry that meaning into the future, or that alternate meanings shouldn't be equally valid, or that the meaning cannot be expanded to include new ideas. Shit, you're trying to promote "theos" as if it means only "God" as in Yahweh, but the word existed long before anyone in Greece had heard of him. The definition of the term grew to include the Abrahamic God, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. Classic non-sequitur. Is it so difficult for you to keep your thoughts straight? The point you're trying to make here is that "You can call a brick water, but it's still made of stone." In your infinite confusion, you've gone and reversed the argument in your head, and spouted this nonsense instead. haha. Wow. I'll do you a favor and address the point I presume you're trying to make. Words do not have inherent definitions; they are only defined by how they are used. This is why "cool" indicates an approximate temperature, acceptance, and calmness, among other things. It's why "bad" means both bad and good. Mere observations. All words are subject to personal thoughts and prejudices. However, I agree that the word had a specific meaning. But you haven't made a legitimate case for why it excludes those who believe God does not exist. It is a concept. If I'm rejecting God because I don't believe he exists, I am rejecting the concept of God. Of course it was. It was probably hard to find someone in the mid-1600s who said positively that there were no mystical forces in the universe, but there was such a thing as unbelief in a particular deity, and such unbelief was addressed in the term "atheist." This concept you're promoting--that "rejection" does not equate to anything more than a disagreement with doctrine--is a modern one. At the time the word was coined, to "reject" God was to say one did not believe God existed. Again, that isn't to say they didn't believe in something, but they most certainly believed the god or gods in question were fictitious. Of course it's not related. It's mean to show you your logic in another light. That is a nonsensical statement. You're mixing up your arguments now, as you are wont to do when you get cornered and confused. I brought up the fact that God is a concept when you said you couldn't reject something you don't believe exists to show you that when one rejects something on the basis that it's a false proposition, they are rejecting the idea of it. By your definition, no one could have an opinion on things that do not exist. For one, the concept of "God" did not always exist. Human religion was exclusively polytheistic at the outset; monotheism is a recent addition to the world. So for there to even be a singular God, the concept needed to take on a new wrinkle. Secondly, this is another non-sequitur. Try to stay on track, Jan. We've been over this a hundred times, Jan. The fact that the stories from the Old Testament are largely stolen from previous, polytheistic religions, and the stories in the New Testament are re-tellings of OT stories as well as wrinkles from contemporary pagan mythologies, suggests that the Bible is merely a continuation of the practice of evolving cultural myths. To say that Yahweh is the one true God is to ignore the fact that he seems to be borrowed from a pantheon that was en vogue before Judaism. To call Jesus his son ignores the resemblances he bears to all the other gods of his region and era. If there is really a God, the truth of it is not revealed in those holy books, and since those holy books are the only link we have to it, I'm lead to believe that there is no God. Considering that the word "atheist" does not appear in the bible, how can you say that it differentiates between the two concepts? I've addressed both of these points above. So your answer has nothing to do with the question. Great. Again, you're wrong. I understood your claim perfectly, it's just that I disagree with it. You've only used a logical fallacy to support it, so I'm still waiting for a legitimate argument on your behalf. It's not nitpicking, it's a false dilemma. You're attempting to differentiate between the statements "I believe there is no god" and "There is no god," but no such difference exists. Compelling counterpoint. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Again, nonsense. "Slang" is not understood to mean "ignorance." There you go again, insisting upon personal definitions. Hey man, don't call others ignorant in the same paragraph you misspell words.