Atheism is a System of Argumentation

There are really only two main issues here that I need to contend. Firstly, what is atheism and secondly why it isn't a system of argumentation. To that end the majority of my opponent's argument can be ignored since I only need to address the one definition of what atheism is (it is nonsensical to defend multiple definitions of it). So what is atheism? In Greek the prefix "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." While theism the word has an origin in "theos" or "god", theism itself is a derivation that means "belief in God". From this, an atheist is someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. From its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterised by the absence of belief in God. [1] How can this be further justified and does it need to be? If you go to a dictionary, definitions of atheism tend to run a full spectrum that includes both weak and strong atheism. Weak vs. strong atheism are the positions based upon the existence of god; the latter posits that no god exists, the former makes no such claim. So how can two seemingly disparate definitions exist for the one term? Usually by ignoring what constitutes constructing the belief itself. Belief claims come with knowledge claims, whether you are an atheist or a theist. Belief claims not surprisingly relate to those statements regarding belief e.g. non belief or I believe in, whereas the knowledge claim relates to existence. http://2.bp.blogspot.com... Both weak and strong atheism are prefaced by 'non belief in', strong atheism adds the qualifier of non existence (usually a gnostic stance) - 'Non belief in' is the requisite for atheism whether one is a strong or weak atheist: "non belief in god and no god exists" (strong atheism) and "non belief in god and unknown whether no god can exist" (weak atheism). Should note that the latter statement of weak atheism does not preclude one from stating such knowledge shall never be knowable nor that any one definition or argument may be false. So why does Pro reject this definition? Because he sees it leading to absurdities such as the atheist cat. However this argument intends to use the nonsensical as its very base before asserting its conclusion as nonsense. To speak of belief and belief claims towards entities that can form no beliefs, is indeed, nonsensical. In the same manner we shouldn't and don't reject definitions of intelligence because doing so would give rise to 'unintelligent houses' for example, we shouldn't apply belief statements to those entities that are incapable of forming beliefs in the first place; to do so is an equivocation. Inanimate objects or those living entities incapable of forming concepts necessary for beliefs can't have religious perspectives and predicates involving beliefs cannot apply to them. == 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. This isn't the only concern however. Pro begs the question when trying to assert his position: "This person has not engaged in the system of argumentation called atheism and so is not an atheists even though he or she can be said to not believe in a god." Attempting to prove his definition by using it as a premise does his case no favour. The error extends further than this though. By attempting to define atheism as 'what atheists do' he engages in a cherry picking exercise. To assert that 'what atheists do' in relation to 'atheism' and assert it retains a relation to the existence of god both seeks to ignore the root base of atheism and its current meaning, while striving to maintain the etymological link. Either the etymology and current use is true or what atheism means is meaningless to Pro's position - he can't have it both ways. By ignoring the root and use of atheism, 'what atheists do', is open to anything atheists do. If atheists suddenly start enjoying coffee groups while discussing arguments and this movement spreads to where atheists drink coffee all over, then atheism can be said to be 'one who drinks drink coffee'. It is this type of fluidity that Pro can't control unless he acknowledges what atheism actually means. Does it even work as it is? Not really. "I propose that atheism is a system of argumentation that is developed *in response to* the religious claims that a freethinking person may find him or herself exposed to and possibly the victim of. Most Westerners are familiar with the instantiation of atheism that is in response to the claims of the Abrahamic religions." A system of argumentation. Of what? Non existence? Anti-religious? Anti-theist? As a system it is not a system if, as you state, it is *reactive* to another set of positions, it is a system that is always required to be fluid, hence, not a system at all. Can one be 'atheist' and non anti-religious? Yes under my definition, doubtful under Pro's. We see the same concern arising repeatedly. By denying the traditional definition of atheism you deny and destroy many definitional aspects that can be related leaving them definitionless. A system of argumentation. How? Logic? Logic is already a system. Empirics? Empirics is already a system. Philosophy? Pro denies it is a philosophy (while maintaining it is a system no less). Reason? Reason is a mental process that uses other systems, not a system itself. Will all atheists agree with this system? Is it your system of arguments? Someone else? The person who compiles the largest list? Any? Does that make all arguments in response to theistic ones 'atheistic'? If so an atheist under your definition is required to adhere to every single argument. Either that or forgo the word atheist all together. Doing that is again nonsensical however. What doesn't Pro's 'system' entail? Where are the non believers? Who are they exactly now that atheism is gone? 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'. Pro's idea is flawed for many reasons. It ignores the actual meaning and usage based on a nonsensical premise. Pro additionally tries to assert a new meaning that doesn't hold up at all either as a 'system' or as a replacement for a word in current existence and usage. [1] Martin. M. (1992). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.