At sometime in the incessant debates between Theists and their unbelieving rivals, namely Atheists, the meaning of words came to be used rather cleverly.

The Atheists came to the realization that a re-branding was needed, if they were to have an edge in the game. Oh they would still be Atheists, but what that meant would come to take on a special nuance. Henceforth, no longer would they be positive deniers of God or gods, rather they would be neutral observers unconvinced by any evidence of God’s existence and not making any claims about God or divine things, but simply agnostic or indifferent to the topic.

The point of the sleight of hand was not to be missed. Now, us unwitting Theists would be on the hook to prove our God exists, but the atheist need not prove anything-she is only neutral and not making a positive assertion that God does not exist.

Let’s look at this.

What do we do with this current definition of Atheism? Let’s unpack a few points and see if there is a canard to deconstruct.

When we look at how words are used, It’s clear that Atheism means what it says: literally “No God”. The alpha privative is a negation of the concept of theism or God/divine things. That is normally what is meant when it IS used.

Atheists are denying a concept, regardless of certainty of the matter.

The way atheists live and talk about God etc shows that they are not neutral.

Ask the atheist what best explains the universe and things like design and morality and ethics: God or naturalism?

Then they are no longer neutral.