Atheism is a System of Argumentation

"Cats and babies should not be called atheists ..." Refer to R1 where I specifically state applying a status of belief claims to entities unable to formulate belief claims or even religious perspectives is nonsensical to begin with. "Consider a man who was raised under a totalitarian government ..." Hypotheticals that do not deal with reality are generally only useful in respect to the hypothetical themselves. That said, again refer to R1 where I specifically state that the notion of entities incapable of forming belief claims related to religious perspectives are a nonsensical source for actually applying belief claims related to religious perspectives. There is no disagreement here, but it doesn't make your case at all, quite the opposite. Non belief is a negative *stance* as I defined in R1. Any entity incapable of taking such a stance by virtue of that, are irrelevant to the term itself. "That atheism is a set of argument seems indisputable." And yet your case is simply 'it is'. Surely such an indisputable claim would have proper argumentation to back it. "The problem of evil ..." Theodicies, proofs, syllogisms etc., fall under logic itself. That one can use logic towards a specific end is the entire point of logic itself; a system that deals with concepts. It doesn't make logical arguments related to existence of deities, ‘atheism' however. Again, as per R1, it requires you to acknowledge the root of the word in relating to god while additionally seeking to destroy the words meaning itself. Either atheism is non belief in God or you need a new word altogether. You don't even have an evolution of the word atheism on your side (yes word meanings shift, that hasn't occurred here however). To be clear, you haven't argued why the current usage is wrong beside it leading to what *you see* as absurdities. However I have already addressed that multiple times, and it's an argument you ignored entirely ... "I do ignore the etymological root of the word ..." Because the word itself as used now, which is the determinate factor, is supported by its root base and the term you seek to turn it into is entirely unsupported as it stands. Simply because people called X do Y does not make Y related back to X. " I don't ignore the current usage of the the term - its refutation is the very subject of this debate." Yet you can't even decide what the word is, as per the majority of your R1. You spend a lot of time trying to say what it isn't without first defining as it stands now. Additionally you have utterly failed to address the very essence of your argument itself - why it should be called a system of argumentation. You have simply boldly asserted the claim under the banner that it should be because you disagree. "I call the historical claim to this word in question ..." Strawman. I never argued that words don't evolve - the specific argument is that the word *now* is *properly* defined as 'non belief in gods' and that the current usage is the proper meaning. To assert it should be shifted requires more than a connection to what some atheists do - see the analogy, R1. "My proposition rejects this definition though." Still begging the question. You can't use your premise as the conclusion. "I do explicitly ignore the root base ..." By severing the etymological root you have no claim to the word atheism at all. May as well call fbuzzle the system of argumentation against god. "I was very clear that I thought the true definitional boundaries of "atheism" must be restricted to an engagement mentally or verbally with a set of arguments." And again, what arguments? All? An atheist is therefore one who adheres to all arguments? Again it simply doesn't work. God doesn't exist because I shave in the morning, though nonsense is still ‘atheism' under your ‘system'. It's not coherent and it's trying to assume a set where none exists. "What should be striking about this definition is its restrictiveness, not it's fluidity." Irrelevant to your case, however you stated it was specifically arguments in relation to theist arguments which by virtue makes it by necessity fluid. "Saying "As a system it is not a system if" seems to be saying A != A." Not at all, your claim is that it is a system, and yet in the same sentence claim it is in response to other claims. You are equivocating strongly if you wish to assert a system as that what happens later on. "You are right to say it is reactive ..." Should note that all of this is a side debate to the actual issue. What any argument against existence is, is irrelevant to the claim that it is atheism. To make your case you needed to present a clear reason why it is indeed the case. What you have done is gone, atheists argue which doesn't lead to your conclusion at all as demonstrated by your earlier begging the question. To make your case you must first assert your case as true under the premises it contains - not just using the conclusion as the base. It just doesn't work. "If one is an atheist one must be anti-religious if being anti-religious means to doubt/question the claims of a religion." What claims? All? Every claim? All religions? Again it begs the question and again it is simply too broad a brush. One can be atheist, 'non belief', and not be anti religious or one may be atheist and be anti theist. Under your definition the former no longer exists, and it is an issue you fail to address. By seeking to transform the word as you do, you destroy additional definitions that can no longer exist. "It does not follow that communism, for example, is definitionless." Strawman. "Why must a system be a philosophy?" For the meaning of system to be coherent it must have structure. Your explanations make it clear it doesn't. "A computer system isn't a philosophy." Equivocation. Note I never argued that your system was a philosophy, just that your claims are inconsistent. :) "Atheism is not that complicated. Any set of arguments against theism could rightly be called atheism whether they are good, bad, mine or someone else's." Ignoring the first part because it is irrelevant (someone else can take issue with it :P) - a system that is defined as 'anything goes' isn't much of a system. Again however this is still irrelevant to Pro's case itself which he has utterly failed to provide valid argumentation for. "There is no reason an atheist must adhere to all atheistic arguments." Then you divorce the two terms altogether if your want your definition to be coherent. "Con: "What doesn't Pro's 'system' entail? Where are the non believers?: It would be impossible for a person to be a non-believer because everybody has beliefs." Strawman; ignoratio elenchi. The context is clear in this debate what a non believer is and the point isn't addressed. What is someone who has non belief in gods? No longer an atheist they must choose a new term? But the root usage is stolen by your claim and there now exists a concept where there was a definition and a term but now exists none. This was raised R1 and again ignored. " Atheism is still here ..." Nope - ‘non belief in' disappears to the ether. Again you create conceptual chaos. "I want to argue what it must mean in language and what it could not possibly mean." And yet your arguments relies on circular reasoning and that's really all you've set it on. You ignored the refutation of why assigning nonsense claims based on a nonsense claim doesn't make your argument. == Regards, Puck. :)