An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

Quite right. You define yourself by your positive beliefs, not by the things you don't believe in. So why are we called atheists?

This has merit. For example, people do identify themselves as non-smokers and non-drinkers. Perhaps I went overboard on this point.At the same time, I think it would be difficult to find a common belief amongst non-smokers and non-drinkers outside of their shared aversion of these activities. Atheism tends to run into the same "problem".

On the positive side, hopefully you have a better understanding of what non-believers really think. Part of the reason for finding a new name for atheists is to break away from old stereotypes and preconceptions. I don't know if this is a good reason or not (hence the thread), but it is at least worth discussing.

It will come closer to an end when . . . :1. people are not stripped of freedoms because of the theistic beliefs of others.2. government policy is based on reason and evidence.3. education policy is not based on theistic beliefs.IOW, when these supposedly private beliefs stay private.

I think both sides of this discussion has been called one thing or another.How do you view people who believe in a god that you don't believe in? What word would you use to describe them?

If a 1,000 foot Zeus came down from the clouds and threw lightning at my feet I would be rather impressed, especially if this was witnessed by thousands of other people. To restate what was said before, I require the same evidence to believe in your god that you require for all of those thousands of other gods that you don't believe in.

When you have to fluff up the credentials of a little known philosopher who was used as a proxy for a book while he was suffering from dementia you really are barking up the wrong tree. Let's take a look at the words put in Flew's mouth. We have seen these arguments before, and have dealt with them extensively in other threads. This is not evidence. These are empty assertions. If I said that the very existence of rainbows points to the existence of leprechauns would you be impressed? Probably not. Flew also claims that life is intelligently organized. This, too, is an empty assertion. It is his ghostwriters' opinion, probably inserted without Flew knowing. We have tons of threads dealign with this very topic. I would suggest you give them a perusal. That is a faith based belief, not a conclusion drawn from evidence. I thought you didn't care what we thought? When you see me taking communion then you can accuse me of hedging my bets.