Words do not mean things outside of our use of them, language is not something that existed already for us to find, words mean what we use them to mean. — Inter Alia
You are misrepresenting language. Words need to mean the same thing to everyone otherwise none of us could effectively communicate (which seems to be exactly what's happening in this conversation). This is why we have
set definitions for words. Of course we ourselves create the definitions, but once they are defined we need to use the words in such a way as to adhere to their definition, otherwise we aren't saying anything meaningful whatsoever. This is especially true in philosophy. Did you study philosophy in an academic setting? This is very basic stuff. All terms used in philosophical argument
must be clearly defined, and
must be used to represent their exact definition, otherwise we cannot have an argument/conversation. Philosophy is based on logic, and logical arguments are dependent on clearly-defined terms. Changing a word's meaning from the definition or using it in multiple different ways is akin to trying to do math when the number 7 can represent both 7 and 10, for example. It's like me saying 7 plus 5 equals 15 because when
I say 7 I
actually mean 10. This is counterproductive and silly, and it's what both you and charleton are doing here.
Obviously this sort of thing happens constantly in the general public, but when discussing philosophy we need to hold ourselves to higher standards, otherwise nothing would ever get accomplished.
The relevance of the meanings as they are actually used is that it changes the argument with regards to the application of belief. Atheists aren't saying "there is no god and nothing that you could ever call a god no matter how esoteric you make it", they're saying that all the gods that have been thus far devised do not exists and any future gods that might be devised in a similar vein also do not exist." — Inter Alia
I don't see why you think leaving room for possible theism in the future is relevant. The terms "theism" and "atheism" represent what people believe
now. They make no claims about future possibilities. An atheist can become a theist in the future, and vice versa, obviously. But if a person currently believes that no deities exist, they are
by definition an atheist.
So, if I claimed there was a god and posited that this god was not all powerful, but was responsible for the laws of physics. He was entirely consistent, never changed his mind about how the laws of physics should be, in fact let's say that something about his properties makes him incapable of anything else. My god doesn't require any worship, has no special religious tenets, never reveals himself in any way, lives in another dimension, takes a completely non-human form and exists in the same way numbers exist. It basically carries out the laws of physics consistently and without fail and has no impact on our lives whatsoever. Do you really see any atheists objecting to a belief in that deity. In fact, if we call that deity 'physics', then all atheists do believe in it. That's why the properties of the proposed deity matter, and that's what I mean by doubting any atheists exist by your strict definition. I was, of course using rhetoric to make the point. — Inter Alia
The irony here is that
you yourself refer to this entity as a god, which means believing in it would make you a theist, no matter what the properties of this entity are. This is actually a good example of what Ive been saying, why we need clearly-defined terms to have a meaningful discussion. "God" is a term that
doesn't have a clear definition, which means that in order to use the concept in philosophy we need to first
set a definition for how
we are going to use it. That way., when we use the term, we know we are both referring to the same thing.
However, as I said, regardless of what properties or definition we give to the term "god", a person who believes in this entity will always be a theist
based on the definition of the term "theist".
I'll put it in the form of a logical argument:
A theist is someone who believes in at least one deity
John believes in physics
Physics is a deity
Therefore, John is a theist
This is a logically valid argument. You can question the soundness of it (whether the premises are true) but you cannot question whether the conclusion follows form the premises, because logically it does.
I hope that makes it clear.
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the point you've been making, but I hope now you also understand mine. In philosophical argument, there is no room for interpretation of the meanings of terms. They must be clearly-defined, and we must all use them to mean their agreed-upon definitions. When we have clearly-defined terms, where we can look them up in a dictionary and see that they have a specific definition, that is the definition we default to. If we want to use a clearly-defined term to mean something different from it's definition, we need to agree upon that beforehand. Otherwise we will be using the same term but talking about two different things.