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

In this case, I actually was kind of hoping someone would chime in.  I thought I was being fairly clear but since two people misunderstood me in the exact same way, I had to wonder.  You're allowed one more crack about the future Super Bowl champion New York Jets and future Hall of Famer Sam Darnold. 

All the considerations of babies, sandwiches and cactuses can be shelved once it's understood how words work.

If one thought that "not a theist" is equal to "atheist", then that same person should also believe that "not good" is equal to "bad" for consistency's sake. But in reality, "not good" can mean a whole lot of things that are not equal to "bad", such as mediocre, meh, so-so, average or New York Jets.

The Jets have the second highest point differential in the NFL, which clearly proves they are the second best team.  Checkmate.

But, on topic, the considerations of babies and stuff can't necessarily be shelved.  Once we agree that atheist does not mean "not a theist", we have to decide how we should define atheist.  We can define it in such a way that would include such things.  I'm arguing that we shouldn't, because that's not really what we mean when we're talking about atheists.