A pantheistic argument.

[Anomalocaris]

Some people, in my experience, seem to think that if you change the label, you change the belief. For example, some people think they're not atheists even when they don't believe in a creator of the universe and god is defined that way. My point is it's not about the label, it's about what you actually believe. I can define god as "everything" and become a theist therefore and yet my atheistic beliefs haven't changed whatsoever because I was only ever atheist in the sense that I didn't believe in deities, it has nothing to do with believing in the universe. That was my point in this thread. I can be an atheist and a pantheist even though pantheism is a kind of theism and atheism contradicts theism because I'm an atheist in a different sense to the sense that I'm a theist.

I think for many people, using particular word with long standing connotations to describe certain independent concept of his would, overtime, subtlely shape and change his conception to more closely match the connotation of the word.

I think Christians are well aware of this, and often with conscious duplicity try to leverage the fact to the advantage of their silly god concept, as seen in their tiresome repetition of the Einistein quote about "god" playing dice.