"Following your logic that only atheist have the proper definition of atheism, then only theist have the proper definition of theism."
If the majority of theists, theistic authors, and the philosophical
community, agreed on the condition, then THAT WOULD BE THE DEFINITION.
"There may be clubs and groups of atheists who like to write their own definitions of their beliefs, but have a belief of non belief is forever a belief."
Maybe. But I have yet to come across one as an atheist.
These clubs would be the small minority and they do not
have the authority to change the definition of ATHEISM
for the majority of the atheistic community, philosophical
community, and learning communities (colleges, etc).
"A plant is an atheist. That is as absurd."
Calling it absurd does not make it so.
Here you clearly show us that you simply dont know
what atheism is. ITS A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD. Period.
Does a plant believe in god? NO. So its an atheist.
Is a plant CAPABLE of believing anything? NO.
So it MUST be an atheist since it cant believe in god.
"Oh, and you continue to avoid countering my arguments, but simply sit back on definition of and from "authority." "
I have done no such thing. You simply FAIL to realize
that my appeal was NOT fallacious and perfectly valid.
This has been explained by me and Missed the Boat, and
if you asked any critical thinking college professor, he would
tell you the same. YOUR ERROR is that you continue to
claim this is fallacious when it obviously is NOT.
"It is logically impossible to have a concept of God and at the same time have a position of non belief in the concept of God that has been accepted. "
You have a logical error here.
Having a CONCEPT of God is NOT a requirement for a position
of non-belief.
If a man were raised on a desert island, and NEVER heard of
god, he is not capable of having a concept of god.
And yet... HE LACKS THEISTIC belief, ***WHICH IS ****
the definition of atheism.
He is therefore an ATHEIST.
" It can be rejected as non valid and real, it can be accepted as valid and real, or one can make a conscious and active decision to neither reject or accept the concept as valid and real for. In every case though, a mental process that involves belief systems takes place. A choice and a decision is made. It involves the belief process to come to a conclusion, thus belief is involved even in the process of non belief."
Wrong again. If you have NO knowledge of god, then
no DECISION in possible. Further, a decision is also NOT
required to be an atheist. If FOR WHATEVER REASON, you
lack BELIEF in god, you are by definition an ATHEIST. Period.
"I disagree that incapacity of belief in God of any entity is necessarily the proper definition of an atheist."
Strawman. I never said it was.
I said that a simply lack of belief in god makes you an atheist.
Wether or not you have the capacity to believe is simply not relevant.
"Again, ask any reasonable man if a plant is an atheist, and they will think you mad, as capacity of belief in necessary to claim active non belief, or even conscious passive non belief. Where there is choice, there is consciousness."
FALSE. Can you prove this? Nope.
Lets be more specific here. A reasonable man who KNOWS
the definition of atheism would immediately agree that a plant
MUST BE an atheist, since it is NOT capable of believing in god.
A reasonable man IGNORANT of the definition of atheism,
may agree with you, but only because he doesnt know what
atheism is, just like you.
"Suggesting that entities without consciousness sufficient to chose a belief system are "practicing atheism" is non sensible. "
Thats because practicing atheism is about as silly as saying
people who dont play soccer practice a-soccerism.
How do you "practice" something which is defined by
that which you do NOT do??? Your not making any sense here.
"An atheist, by all reasonable understanding is a person who practices the belief of atheism,"
FALSE FALSE FALSE. You already made the same error.
ATHEISM is NOT a belief. Its a lack of belief.
Your claim of "reasonable understanding" is also blatantly wrong,
because anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS what atheism IS,
would never make such a claim.
You may claim that the AVERAGE PERSON does not UNDERSTAND
what atheism IS, and therefore would make this claim because
if his IGNORANCE.
But there is no way you can claim that someone who knows
the definition of ATHEISM would reasonably make this claim.
"The concept of atheism can exist without anyone practicing atheism, but an atheist does not exist as an atheist until that atheist practices atheism. It is the practice of atheism that makes one an atheist, not the other way around. Atheism is a practice of the atheist, in the same way theism is the practice of the theist, communism is the practice of the communist, elitism is the practice of the elitist, etc."
Bolt already destroyed your bad "word logic", with your ism's.
Once again... ATHEISM is not something which is practiced.
I dont "practice" atheism. What is there to practice?? Nothing.
Again... a man on a desert island that never heard of god
is an ATHEIST. So what is he practicing???
You claim that an atheist is someone who practices atheism.
This sentence doesnt make any sense.
You cant practice the "lack of a belief".
"In case you didn't know this, most people don't believe their house plants practice atheism."
Oooooh... so now you KNOW what "most people" believe?
Have you read the minds of MOST people on earth to
determine this?
Most people never PONDERED if a plant is an atheist.
And what if they DIDNT believe their house plant was
an atheist? Does that make them correct? Nope.
Weak weak weak argument here.
"I suspect that if you go around telling everyone that your lawn practices atheism because your lawn is an atheist, they might just think you are a bit loony."
Thats because its stupid to claim ANYTHING or ANYONE
practices atheism. Further... their reaction doesnt mean
its true.
Your totally confused 777.
Let me put it into SIMPLE terms for you.
In the NEXT post.
peace
axeman
RS
RS
