By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:
JWeinCom said:

But your definition says nothing about being capable of thought.  It says lacking a belief.  So, you need to refine your definition.

So then, an atheist is something that is capable of thought and lacks belief in god?

How about an ant?

At this point, I am wondering if you are taking the Micky out of me.

For something to have a belief or lack-there of... It needs to have some kind of cognitive capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I'm aware that the things I'm saying are absurd, and that's the point.  They are the logical conclusion to the position you're holding.  If the only qualification, is lacking a belief, a sandwich would qualify.  If you object on the grounds that a sandwich is inanimate, then a cactus would still qualify.  

So, now you're adding cognitive capability.  But, an ant definitely has some kind of cognitive capability.  So, unless you believe that ants are atheists, then your definition is still not specific enough.  How much cognitive capability is required?  Where are we drawing the line?

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 13 September 2018