The etymological fallacy


Often you’ll find atheists (or atheismists, as I’d like to call them – and you should too) claiming that the definition of atheism is the lack of belief, and despite over a dozen other dictionaries saying otherwise, atheists will adamantly stick to the one or two dictionaries they can cherry pick to suit their agenda. Alternatively, a subset of these atheists will resort to using the etymology of atheism as proof of its definition and will reposition your rebuttal and rejection of etymology as proof of the definition of a word to the strawman that you are rejecting etymology. What these atheists commit in this case is the the Etymology Fallacy, where they claim the definition of atheism is its etymology.

An example of this fallacy is using the word breakfast. When you eat breakfast you are not strictly and necessarily breaking a fast. It is possible, and often so, that you haven’t eaten at all while you slept through night, not waking up to drink or eat something. Despite that, however, you are not breaking a fast in the morning but are having breakfast. Words go through semantic change and depart from their etymology. Breakfast food  is food that we associate with having in the morning, perhaps cereal, toast or eggs.

The Economist has an interesting article on this fallacy, using the word transpire, which etymologically means “to breathe across”, a meaning no one uses today. Check the article out here: Etymology fallacy.

Enjoy and use it on an atheist TODAY.

UPDATE: No sooner than posting this on our popular Instagram page did an atheist commit the very strawman I said they commit, namely shifting the argument from rejecting etymology as necessarily the definition of a word to the strawman of rejecting etymology. You can see the post here. Thanks for the gift Aaron!



The Atheismist



In my debates with atheists, a recurring theme and a trend gaining momentum is the notion that atheism is not a belief that there is no God but a lack of belief in God. The goal of the atheist is to position themselves in a debate to have the upper hand by claiming they have no beliefs and are therefore not liable for anything. Touche, atheist, touche. However, we can differentiate between this definition of an atheist and an atheist that specifically has beliefs about atheism. What kinds of beliefs about atheism? Almost any, and here are some common one’s that I’ve come across in my debates with atheists on Instagram, Twitter and now Facebook.

  • “Atheism is a conclusion”
  • “Atheism is true” or any positive assertion about atheism.
  • “Atheism is science and science is atheism” and statements like this linking atheism to science.

Here are two examples. The first an atheist on Instagram who vehemently asserts atheism and science are the same thing:


And the American Atheist’s homepage that states, regarding an upcoming convention,

Speakers will cover a broad range of topics…but we will pay particular attention to the intersection of the sciences and atheism”.

You can see this statement in the screenshot below. Why does atheism, supposedly only a lack of belief, all of a sudden now have an intersection with “the sciences”? Here’s why. The atheist has decided to associate anything positive they possibly could with atheism and then hide behind the “definition of atheism” when disassociating or positioning themselves to remain on the offense.



For these kinds of atheists, I propose a new term: atheismist. An atheismist is an atheist that has any type of positive belief about atheism or negative belief about theism. They also typically  associate or correlate atheism with anything positive. What does emerge mentality about atheism is a body of popular beliefs atheismists have. Which is what I focus on debunking. If atheists feel they can hide behind a definition of atheism, they shouldn’t be spared on the beliefs they have about atheism.

Till next time, tootle loo.


The Definition of Atheism

Instagram Debunk

When debating atheists, it is not uncommon to arrive at a point in the debate where atheists use the definition of atheism as some form of shield from what ever argument they are trying to make or evade. Often, atheists will have certain beliefs regarding atheism and when these beliefs are questioned, such as the belief science and atheism are linked or that atheism is an outcome of refuted evidences. These beliefs are then shielded behind the definition of atheism, as atheists feign the notion that these beliefs require no substantiation because atheism is defined as merely and simply the lack of a belief in God and is not a claim. Theists fall into this trickery and are advised to learn to separate atheism from the beliefs atheists have about atheism and force atheists to substantiate the beliefs they have for atheism. Even still, as we’ll see below, atheism is predominantly defined as a belief and not a lack of one. Hence the need for a word and hence many atheists are very active in defending their supposed lack of belief.

What is helpful is to understand how atheism is defined in the English language. Most atheists will cherry pick a certain definition of atheism and use that. Particularly, if atheism is defined as a lack of belief, atheists will peddle this definition and hide behind it. Below we show several dictionaries and an atheist philosopher and how they define atheism. Share it with atheists and eliminate that shield they hide behind.

First up at bat is Julian Baggini, PhD, an atheist, and in response to the question on what he understood by atheism he states:

It’s a belief that there is no God or gods. But it’s slightly more complicated than that because, for most self-identifying atheists, it’s not just that they don’t believe in a God or gods, but that they don’t believe in any kind of supernatural realm. So I think an atheist is, 95% of the time, a naturalist.

He wisely does not state atheism is a lack of belief. Let’s look at a few other dictionaries. I’ll display the actual screenshot from the dictionary accompanied with a link to the dictionary’s page for your verification.

Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines atheism as

The BELIEF that God does not exist

definition-of-atheism-oxford-learners-dictionary defines atheism as:

The DOCTRINE or BELIEF that there is no God


Merriam-Webster defines atheism as:

A DISBELIEF in the existence of deity and also as the DOCTRINE that there is no deity


Here’s Macmillan with a heavier slant on it:

The BELIEF that God does not exist


Collins makes it a little more severe:

REJECTION of belief in God or gods


Cambridge Dictionary agrees:

The BELIEF that God does not exist



The BELIEF that there is no god


The Free Dictionary:

DISBELIEF in or DENIAL of the existence of God or gods



The BELIEF that God does not exist


(Getting the point so far?)

The American Heritage Dictionary:






I think we get the point, as much as atheists are desperately seeking to eradicate atheism (yes, atheism), by eradicating it’s true definition, atheism is still a belief.

Requiem for atheism


A common retort atheists make on the Atheism Is Dead Instagram page is that “atheism is rising.” Here’s why that’s not true and why atheists feel the need to use it as an argument.

Tell an atheist that there are far, far more theists in the world than atheists and you’ll get some snarky response like “Numbers don’t matter” or statement (misstatement) of some category of fallacy such as “appeal to authority” or, more accurately, an “appeal to popularity”. Despite knowing this category of fallacy, atheists will still peddle the notion that atheism is rising. This notion is no less an appeal to popularity but atheists will conveniently adjust positions to suit a particular argument or debate, a tactic we like to call with a term we’ve coined: arbitrary posturing. Why do atheists have a need to call out a fallacy and then turn around to commit it themselves whenever it is convenient? The answer is simple: To project an image of imminent dominance and obscure the fact that atheists have been the global minority for thousands of years.

So is atheism rising? Not really. According to Pew, atheism is projected to decline globally.  Here’s a graph (click here for source) from Pew that shows the percentage of the unaffiliated declining. Now, mind you, because someone is unaffiliated doesn’t make them an atheist. What that means is that atheists are even a smaller segment of the global population than the unaffiliated.


Pew even goes on to say:

Some social theorists have suggested that as countries develop economically, more of their residents will move away from religious affiliation, as has been seen in Europe. But there is little evidence of such a phenomenon in Muslim-majority countries. Moreover, in Hindu-majority India, religious affiliation is still nearly universal despite rapid economic and social change.

So the future for atheism is grim. Advancement in technology and an increasingly educated population are no guarantees people will move away from religious affiliation, much less become atheists.

Cracking Enigma: Atheists get it wrong


Recently we asked atheists on our Instagram page who they thought was the first person to crack the German Nazi Enigma, an act that many believed ushered in an end to WWII.


It wasn’t a surprise when many atheists responded with Alan Turing as their answer.



However, Alan Turing is not entirely the correct answer. This is possibly because the two movies on the subject, The Imitation Game and Enigma, are centered around Alan Turing and atheists tend to pass around fallacious information on Instragram without taking the time to research the matter thoroughly.  Alan Turing alone cannot be credited with the success of cracking the Enigma. Poland was first able to decipher the Enigma. At the forefront of this work was the Polish mathematician Marian Rejewski. In fact, there is a plaque in Bletchley Park which states in “commemorating the work of Marian Rejewsk, Jerzy Rozycki and Henryk Zygalski, mathematicians of the Polish intelligence service, in first breaking the Enigma code.” The US CIA page also attributes Poland with first breaking the code here.

And here is Sarah Knapton from the Science section of The Telegraph stating “But few people realise that early Enigma codes had already been broken by the Poles who then passed on the knowledge to Britain shortly before the outbreak of war”

Sorry, atheists.

And so it begins..


This is what we’re going to do. We’re going to focus on criticisms of atheism, the implications atheism has, the actions of atheists – specifically the anti-theist and New Atheist – and we’re going to debunk them. We’ll look at the massive amounts of fallacious content atheists are produce across various social media and debunk them. We make no claims, we don’t ask you to believe in anything.