Why are we bound to definitions created by ancient theists to describe nonbelievers. We are also not bound to the definitions of atheist/agnostic used by nonbelievers in the 18th and 19th centuries. At this point in time the use of the word atheist as in the "New Atheist Movement" is simply one who rejects the concept of all deities. Religious ideas have been demoted to just that - ideas. The internet has spread the concept of atheism. I am sticking with this definition of atheism : The idea that no deity exists.

AlphaLogica,

"But that is absurd, if I told you that I am not writing to you on a computer but a banana, no matter how much I personally identify a computer as a banana, it does not change the definition or meaning of either of these words.

Yet according to the argument you put forth words mean whatever any one person chooses them to mean." -AlphaLogica

I think we are really on the same page but are looking through different ends of the telescope. If you defined the word "computer" as "banana," you are not making a statement about hitherto unknown properties of a fruit! You are simply saying that when you use the word "banana" you mean, in my usage, "computer." With AlphaLogica and Greensnake dictionaries in hand, we could have a very rational discussion on just about anything. Since this definition is a declaration of your usage for the word "banana," I am in no position to say that it is not the correct meaning. I can say that this definition is an obstacle to good communication since everybody else has this yellow-skinned (typically) fruit in mind when they see the word "banana." It also means that you would have to find another word for that fruit! (Maybe "computer"!)

I certainly agree with you that with a good background in Greek and Latin, we have a great window as to how words are probably used by a large segment of the population, and we even get an insight into the meaning taxonomic names used in the scientific literature. I agree that most words have a range of meanings that are commonly understood within a group, and that to throw in goofy definitions would be a hindrance to good communication and, hence, would be rejected by reasonable people. Call this the common sense approach which you seem to adopt.

My approach is to point out that disagreements over the "correct" meaning of a word cannot logically be resolved. Many a silly argument has raged for unseemly lengths of time, with great heat, over the "correct" definition for a word. Arguments about the true meaning of a word (rather than about how popular or useful a definition is) are meaningless unless some group is trying to define a word for their group use.