Christian Fundamentalist Attempts To Use Dictionary As A Magic Spellbook; And Fails.

My reply: [paraphrasing that video's author about the meaning of the term "atheism"]

"I cherry-picked a dictionary that says what I want it to say about the definition of atheism. Therefore, everyone must stop employing the other well-established definitions that don't suit my rhetorical interest of controlling the conversation and trying to shift the burden of evidence to all self-identified "atheists" by painting all self-identified atheists as making a positive claim.". --- [To continue] People who are merely unconvinced that the Eternal King of the Leprechauns exists (or Ganesh, or ancient Greek gods, or Yahweh, or a mysteriously mangled mashup of Yahweh+Jesus+Holy Casper, etc) ... are people who: [Surprise!] ... exist. But there are good reasons why such people may not want to use the term "agnostic". That term is understood by some to be the position that knowledge of "gods" cannot be known. By this definition, literally everyone is "agnostic" about any literal "God", even if they aren't honest enough, rational enough, or self-aware enough to realize or admit it. And yet, many who refrain from invoking the term "God" in the affirmative, ... think "just maybe" it IS possible for some people to glean and verify the existence of (whatever definition they have in mind for "God"). And so they'd want to avoid self-labeling as "agnostics". They aren't trying to be slippery about it. They merely have a different understanding of those words than you. Meanwhile, it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to: a.) not bother even thinking about such issues. or b.) be curious about such controversies, but not regard such matters as morally important, nor necessarily relevant to their own narrative of personal identity. or c.) give credence to such issues (researching exhaustively) but ultimately conclude verification is unavailable (due to severely lacking data and logic) regarding various popular and/or fringe "God"- definitions, rumors, and theories, or d.) ultimately conclude the entire domain of such propositions boils down to desperate copium, delusions, and Psy-Ops. If you want to say people need to stop "fence sitting" about faeries, that's fine. But then all "A"(a prefix meaning "lacking" or "without")fairie-ists ... are being fully reasonable to smirk and then return to more productive distractions. Meanwhile, all self-labeled "atheists" that I've ever heard from (or heard of) ... agree that "hard atheists" (aka antiTheists) have a burden of evidence because they are making a positive claim. I happen to be an antigodist (my preference of terminology). And I gladly accept my burden of evidence. So, then, nobody really needs to employ the **dictionary fallacy** as a rhetorical mechanism to *smoke me out of hiding* and confront me about it. ----- @bluefireburns6890 24 minutes ago Oxford is the leading body for definitions thats not cherry picking. ---- @ApPersonaNonGrata 0 seconds ago ​ @bluefireburns6890 It absolutely is cherry-picking when the apologist selectively/only lets his viewers know about a dictionary that cites the definition he wants to use, and avoids all the other reputable dictionaries that cite definitions that fail to align with his agenda. -- Just as importantly, the argument he is making with that is the "Dictionary Fallacy". [A "dictionary fallacy" is a term used to describe the misuse of dictionary definitions in an argument.

It occurs when someone relies on a dictionary definition to support a claim or conclusion without considering the context, nuances, or limitations of that definition.

This often involves treating dictionary definitions as absolute and universally applicable, even when they may not accurately reflect the intended meaning in a specific situation.]
Just as importantly, he chose not to let his viewers know that Oxford has ALSO published the definition he doesn't like. From Oxford editor: Robert Parker Published online: 22 December 2015 Extract [Link] The Greek for (the term) atheism is: 1. ‘not to recognize (νομίζειν) the gods’ or 2. ‘deny that the gods exist’ or, later, 3. ‘to remove (ἀναιρεῖν) the gods’. Meanwhile, Oxford's reference (as cited by that video's Christian-fundamentalist author) was referencing ancient non-English equivalents to the term. Although this may not be obvious to anyone attempting to Google this, because (and this is the reason you shouldn't be relying on Oxford) ... Oxford is currently locking most of its content behind a paywall. Meanwhile, how was it first used as a self-description, in English?

Meanwhile, dictionaries are *descriptive*; not *prescriptive*. They report on how words are (or have been) used in widely circulated publications and common usage, for various specific regions and eras. If it becomes widely circulated or commonly employed to use the word "banana" as a way to say "automobile", it would become true that many people drive a "banana" to work each day. As such, one of a (every responsibly up-to-date) dictionary's entries for "Banana" would (in this hypothetical example) be "automobile", after it becomes a common enough usage that it graduates from "slang for automobile" to simply "automobile". Dictionaries do not function the way you think they function.

Meanwhile, "a" remains a prefix that means "absence of" or "without".

The prefix "a-" (and its variant "an-" before vowels) generally signifies "absence of" or "without" in English. This prefix, derived from Greek, is used to negate or indicate the lack of something when attached to a word. 

Examples:

• Anhydrous: Meaning without water (an- + hydrous).
• Asexual: Meaning without sexual reproduction (a- + sexual).
• Asymptomatic: Meaning without symptoms (a- + symptomatic).
• Amoral: Meaning without morals (a- + moral).
• Atheist: Meaning one without belief in God (a- + theist). 

Also important to note: The special usefulness of Oxford is its research into the history of how words were used. Etymology is not the study of "whoever first called dibs on the eternal meaning of a word". Meanwhile, religious fundamentalists (ie. that channel's host) do not have some cosmic right or power to dictate how other people are allowed to use words. Nor does he possess reality-altering magical powers specific to using Oxford dictionaries as incantations to rewire the minds of everyone who merely "isn't convinced that anything worthy of the title "God" exists" ... to spontaneously poof(!) them ...

... into people who insist "no gods exist", so that he can then say "Now ye all have a burden of proof to prove no gods exist".