"At least I have never heard Steve Shaw repeatedly use the circular arguments which regularly ar advanced by the other side."

You are not reading his writings (rantings) as a whole. He constantly contradicts himself. But you have to take into account that he is not trying to put forth a rational argument. He only attempts to provoke and to ridicule others.

He said he calls me "Jacko" to taunt me and squeals like a stuck pig when I don't address him in friendly and familiar manner as "Steve."


On the other hand.
This thread is about definitions isn't it? Definitions go back to word origins. Don't they?


Pretending that there is a single type "real" atheist is nonsense. Isn't it? The terms "atheist", "agnostic" and may others of that ilk were made up and defined by Christian theologians more or less as diagnostic categories of conditions to be cured.

American Atheists, mentioned in this thread, are trying claim the term and re-purpose it in a positive light. But the prevailing use of the word atheist is as someone with a recognizable flaw in their Christianity. So Don, the best you can say is "my idea of a "real Atheist" and that would preclude you from implying that someone else's view of a "real atheist" is wrong. Wouldn't it?