JWeinCom said:
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? |
No. A sandwich wouldn't qualify as it is an inanimate object.
Hence your argument is absurd... You are using conflationary tactics.
And if you think you are going to try and run some weird-ass circular logic, then you are highly mistaken... At this point you haven't offered a compelling argument.
It is also not my definition.
A-Theism. Absent-Theism. Anyone who doesn't hold Theistic convictions is an Atheist, it's as simple as that... Thus a new-born baby would fall into that category as per my original argument, it's only later in life that it is indoctrinated into various religions/cults/beliefs.
If you disagree with that, then fine, but this never ending back-and-forth is going nowhere and has gotten rather droll.
| OhNoYouDont said: I almost feel bad for theists these days. It's tough being so obviously wrong, yet having to stalwartly defend your position to save your own sense of identity. |
I feel even worst for Flat Earthers... Seen many that tend to leverage the Bible to justify their absurd position.

www.youtube.com/@Pemalite








