Atheism is a System of Argumentation

I may not have fully understood some of your more subtle points so let me apologize now if I inadvertently misrepresent your views or argue against something you did not assert. I will reassert, in the light of your objections, my argument that atheism is not a lack of belief in a god. Cats and babies should not be called atheists because they can't be said to have rejected a belief in a god. Likewise, a human who has never needed to refute a religious claim is not called an atheist. Consider a man who was raised under a totalitarian government which strictly and successfully prevented its subjects from every being exposed to a theistic ideas. This man has never been exposed to an atheist argument either because that would require an exposure to theistic arguments. I ask you: Is this man an atheist. Is it fair to call him an atheist when he has never been given an opportunity to consider atheistic or theistic arguments. Please answer this in your rebuttal. Con: "Why isn't atheism a set of arguments? well the first reason is addressed above. Not only does it ignore the actual root and usage of the term itself, Pro intends on inserting a baseless word for one concept while leaving another concept, that has historical claim to that word, wordless. If we were to take Pro's case then it does by necessity remove what are 'atheists' and that definition." That atheism is a set of argument seems indisputable. The problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations and the argument from nonbelief all combine to form a set. I do ignore the etymological root of the word. The Greek, Latin, Germanic, etc... origin of a word rarely corresponds to its current use anyway; so why wouldn't I ignore the root? I don't ignore the current usage of the the term - its refutation is the very subject of this debate. I call the historical claim to this word in question. There is no reason history should dictate that we continue to misuse a word. Con: "Attempting to prove his definition by using it as a premise does his case no favor. " My proposition rejects this definition though. Con: "The error extends further than this though. By attempting to define atheism as 'what atheists do' he engages in a cherry picking exercise. ..." I do explicitly ignore the root base (I assume this means etymological root). My definition severs the etymological link and seeks to clarify the current meaning, which I believe to be misunderstood and therefore in need of clarification. It does not follow, however that this renders the word meaningless. 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. What should be striking about this definition is its restrictiveness, not it's fluidity. I was adamant that the meaning of the word "atheism" could never logically seep into the domain of politics, beliefs about the uses of conversation or anything else (such as coffee consumption). Con: "A system of argumentation. Of what? Nonexistence? Anti-religious? Anti-theist? ..." Saying "As a system it is not a system if" seems to be saying A != A. I don't thing you are saying that but it makes the rest hard to follow. Atheism is a system of argumentation or a set of arguments against (not "of") the claims of theism. You are right to say it is reactive. An infinity of religious claims and deities could potentially be proposed, given an infinity of time or space and a number of human beings to populate these dimensions. Therefore, a countervailing refutation of these claims must be developed and employed if the mythologies are to be resisted. This is atheism, and in this sense, it must be fluid because religious claims are fluid (i.e. they are always changing or being invented). Who says systems can't be fluid (i.e. adaptive) by the way. If one is an atheist one must be anti-religious if being anti-religious means to doubt/question the claims of a religion. Your last statement is untrue. I do deny (I would say "refine") the traditional definition of atheism. By doing this, I deny that there are certain things (political philosophies such as communism) are attributable to atheism. It does not follow that communism, for example, is definitionless. Con: "A system of argumentation. How? Logic? Logic is already a system. Reason? Reason is a mental process that uses other systems, not a system itself." Unfortunately, I cannot understand this so won't be able to respond to it. Con: "Pro denies it is a philosophy (while maintaining it is a system no less). " This seem reasonable enough. Why must a system be a philosophy? A computer system isn't a philosophy. I think I may have been clearer though if I had simply used the phrase "set of refuting arguments". What do you think Con. Would that have helped? Con: "Will all atheists agree with this system? Is it your system of arguments? Someone else? The person who compiles the largest list? Any? " 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. Con: "Does that make all arguments in response to theistic ones 'atheistic'." All arguments that refute the claims of theism are atheistic. Con: "If so an atheist under your definition is required to adhere to every single argument. " There is no reason an atheist must adhere to all atheistic arguments. 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. I simply don't use the word and am not clear on what you mean by it in the context of this debate. Con: Who are they exactly now that atheism is gone? Atheism is still here. Atheism is the set of arguments that refute the claims of religion. People still adhere to the set of arguments and use them in discourse and in their thinking. Con: "There is no longer an 'atheist' as it is now under,Pro, simply 'the definition of atheist but we won't call it atheist because I want that word'. I don't "want" the word "atheism". I want to argue what it must mean in language and what it could not possibly mean. I want to propose a definition of atheism that is free from contradictions and absurdities. That's to say, a definition that accurately maps on to the world of linguistic concepts which language must do to be useful. Con, you said you would ignore most of my arguments. I was wonder if you could provide your opinion of them anyway. If not, could I at least trouble you to indicate which you agree with and which you don't. Thanks. Here they are in their original form: Atheism is a set of refutations to religious claims (I refined this for clarity as I mentioned above) Atheism is only a set of refutations to religious claims (If not, what else is it briefly?) . Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not the type of thing that comes in different forms. Atheism is not a philosophy or belief system. Atheism is not a conviction that there are no gods. In conclusion, I want to say thanks for this debate. This is my first one here so let me know if I failed to follow any of the established rules in the comment section.