I’d like to talk about something that I found strange lately. It’s the redefinition of the term atheism. I have a dictionary from about 20 years ago (Webster’s if you care). In it the definition for atheist is a person who believes there is no god. That has shifted to someone with no belief in any gods. I asked a person who self described as an atheist why they thought that was. His thought was it was to fit with how people used the word.
I think he was mostly right. But if the definition meant belief there was no god why didn’t people use it that way (especially when agnostic has essentially the same meaning as atheism now). I think they use (and used) it that way because they can’t defend their position. It takes no time talking to an atheist for it to become obvious that they believe there is no god. However if you ask them to justify their position they will quickly say “atheism doesn’t say there is no god” because they know they can’t prove their position and they’re big on insisting on proof from Christians. They like to pretend they only believe in things that can be proven. That is not true. They believe life can come from non-life. They believe that everything can come from nothing (because time and space can’t be eternal both logically and scientifically). When I bring up those two things they usually respond with something like, “well I trust that science will explain that some day.” That is a cop out. I’m sorry if I hurt someone’s feelings but it is. You can’t claim that it’s illogical to believe in God if He can’t be proven and then say it’s logical to believe life can come from non-life. There is no known mechanism for that to occur. It’s not just chemistry. If you take a dead frog and blend him up in a blender you have all the chemicals necessary for life, but nothing you do to it will create life. It just doesn’t happen.
So really I think atheists just don’t have the courage of their convictions. They don’t want to defend their beliefs they only want to attack yours.