Explain how the original meaning of the word does not apply to modern atheists.?
It's not that it doesn't apply to atheists, it's that the original meaning applied to more than those who simply lacked the belief in gods. I.e. The original term was broader than the term now is, and included all those who actually believed in the existence of gods but chose to reject them on a practical level.
So while the original meaning is still attributable to those currently labelled atheists, the original meaning can be applied to those not currently labelled atheists. You ignore this distinction. The meanings are different, yet you blatantly choose to continue using only the original meaning.
Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
I think you'll find it does: labels for a group are only good as labels if they accurately describe those who use that label and can not be applied to those who are not part of that group. Your usage of the term "atheist" can be applied to those who actually aren't atheist (modern usage).
"Atheist" describes a fundamental characteristic of the person.
No, it doesn't. It is simply a label to describe one's stance on a very specific issue: their lack of belief in the existence of God. Given that you would be hard pressed to notice the difference between many who are atheists and many who are not, it is not exactly a fundamental characteristic. It is only as significant characteristic of a person if it is a matter that dominates their personality. And for most atheists, it really doesn't.
A person who comes out as gay is a homosexual. Correct?
He/she may not like the term, but it describes, basically, their sexuality. Is that correct? .
That is the modern meaning, yes. The original meaning simply meant "bright, merry, happy, lively" etc. The point being that you use the label as intended by the ones using it.
It's not an argument, it is a fact. An atheist is a person without God. Do you deny that?
The modern usage is more than that, though, as it is specific to those who lack belief in the existence God, and no longer covers those who believe in the existence of God (or gods) but choose to live life as though God (or gods) does not exist.
So if you want to call those latter people atheist, even though they believe in the existence of God, then feel free, but they are not atheist in the modern sense of the word.
So for you to continue to use a word with a broader meaning than just those you intend it to be a label for, as you are doing, is blatantly flawed.
You intend it to basically mean 'a lack of belief'. Correct?
Lack of belief in the existence of god, gods, God etc.
It doesn't mean you accept God exists but you choose not to not believe in God.
"not to not believe in God"?
It means you don't perceive God. It means there is no God. It means you are without God.
Indeed. But those who do believe in the existence of God and choose to ignore him would also be "without God", and thus from your point of view, your usage of the term, they would be atheist. Yet they would not fall under the label of atheist under the current usage.
You think a theist is such because he believes that God exists.
By the modern broad definition, that describes a theist: belief in the existence of God.
But whether you agree with that or not, we are not talking about theism but atheism.
Existence is always at the forefront of debates and discussions with theists.
Is it? Or do you mean with atheists?
With atheists it is likely to be (at least in context of a discussion about God) because that is what defines an atheist: lack of belief in the existence of God.
This is because they cannot perceive God. and if you cannot perceive God the you are for all intent and purpose, without God. But for some reason you cannot accept that.
I do accept that. But you are committing a logical fallacy: all those who lack belief in the existence of God (modern usage) are without God (original usage) but not all those without God (original usage) lack belief in the existence of God (modern usage).
Can you see how equating the group of atheists (who use the modern term) under the original meaning of the term is simply fallacious?
You cannot accept that God exists, but you don't have the perception.
So you claim. Who is to say that our perception is not perfect, and yours happens to have a bit of distortion?
You most likely feel offended by it because it could be seen as you are unable, or incapable of such a perception.
Sheesh, Jan, you're grasping at straws to find some way of feeling superior, aren't you!
Offended about what? Not seeing things that possibly aren't there?
I'd surely get offended about being colour-blind then, wouldn't I? People can see patterns in the Ishihara tests that I can't see... how dare they!
And people who see alien UFOs in every picture of an unexplained object... damn them all to hell, I say, for the offence that they cause me!
You see, Jan, if I honestly felt I was missing out on something and you theists were rubbing it in my face that I was lesser for it, then yes, I may have a reason to feel offended. But since the closest we get is you and a few others simply trying to insist there is something, yet not being able to show what it is or any advantage to it (least of all through personality traits), then being offended is pretty much the last thing I feel.
Frustrated at your logically fallacious reasoning, perhaps, and not specifically you.
Irritated by the pushing of beliefs into the public domain where it is not warranted, again perhaps, but not specific to religious belief.
Indeed, if I feel anything at all for the theistic tendency it would be pity.
