no God. Therefore, because I believe in a God, I am not an atheist, by definition. William Lane Craig addresses this statement here . The person who brought up the question curiously counters Craig by saying "That's semantics." Funny, considering that's what the atheists are doing: making up semantic word games. Redefine terms to win a debate: atheism at any cost. The Statement Is Irrational As I've argued elsewhere, the statement is simply irrational. The atheist is literally saying that the theist is an atheist: necessarily, for any human b , b is either theist ( T ) or ~ T . But Christians are T , therefore they are necessarily ~~T . In English, it is true that any human being is either an atheist or a theist. Christians are theists, therefore, they are necessarily not atheists. ( here ) But then what the atheist is saying is that the b who is T = ~T in regards to T`, T", etc. This is simply false, however, because the b who is T is necessarily ~~T . So the atheist is claiming that a contradiction is true. The Statement Proves Too Much Consider the following statement: there are a theoretically infinite number of possible answers to the equation "Two plus two," but only one actually true answer. To say that "Two plus two equals four" is to automatically make me an unbeliever in all the other possible answers. It's not rational, however, for the atheist to say, "Well I