According to the resident senior atheist and "logician" the following is true: "In fact, ANY entity which is INCAPABLE of believing in God is technically an ATHEIST, even a plant." Above quote from this page: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25092&perpage=6&pagenumber=66 I bet you didn't know that technically speaking your front yard and the salad you had for dinner was full of atheists.
Nonsense. This is a form of equivocation that the Atheists are using to attempt to claim their belief system is the correct first belief that all human beings are born with. Your "logical statement" is as useful in describing man's reality as the following. All plants have no capacity for belief sytems. All human beings from the age of birth to the age of 6 months have no capacity for belief sytems. All are human beings from the age of birth to 6 monts are plants. It is fallacious reasoning because Theism as it is practiced requires conscious and willing choice. Not practicing Theism is also a conscious and willing choice as long as the concept of Theism is understood. Claiming someone or something has no understanding and/or capacity for Theism is Atheistic is not a proper functioning definition as Theism and Atheism are both mental conditions and require a maintenance of will to hold their respective concepts in the mind. Even having "no opinion" on Theism or Atheism is still a concept of the mind that requires activation of the mental mechanisms that relate to the thinking, which is at the very nature of man's nature to have belief systems. Computers also process information the way the mind does, but computers have no belief system that is self generated. They lack self awareness, and intellect. They form no opinions. The intellect is that mechanism that is constantly judging to accept or reject on a purely logical basis. The emotions are equally at play along with the intellect in this process as it is the nature of the emotional mind (heart) to accept and unify. The intellect separates, the heart unifies. The intellect understands everything in relative terms (this, not that) while the heart longs for unification. The ego maintains its sense of "I." The pure intellect, when influenced by a fear of the ego losing its sense of "I" rejects those concepts and belief systems which speak of losing "I" to become "WE." The heart embraces those concepts and belief systems which foster a feeling of "WE" and a loss of the importance of "I." The point is that if plant is an Atheist is defined as an Atheist on the basis of the plant's lack of capacity to form and hold a belief system, the moment a plant would be capable of forming and holding a belief system, it would no longer be an Atheist. Consequently, if we go by that technical definition, the moment a human being has the capacity for a belief system and holding that belief system in the mind something changes which makes it impossible to remain an Atheist. The definition as axeman is using it has its understanding in the "lack of capacity for belief system" being the foundation of Atheism. In this technical definition, the Atheist is such not because of choice or mental state, but rather because of the "lack of capacity" to form a concept and belief system. Where there is capacity for belief systems, there is choice. By this definition, and Atheist has no choice, as no capacity exists for hold the concept of nonGod in their mind. It is fallacious reasoning and runs contrary to their own human experience. The very moment any human being with the capacity for belief hears about God they necessarily must chose to accept or reject the concept as true or false. This is hard wired into our nervous system, and is at the heart of our human functioning to make decisions on any new data that is presented to us. We either accept as true, we deny as false, or we can say we have no opinion due to insufficient data to verify truth or falsity. Yet to even come to the conclusion that we have no opinion in itself is an opinion and a belief. We can imagine someone who is born on a desert island and whose parents are immediately killed. The child is raised by a dog. The child learns nothing beyond what the dog can teach. Is the child a dog? No, of course not. Does the child "think" like a dog? No, the child thinks like a human being who has been exposed to no other human beings. The capacity for belief continues to exist. Is the child once the mind develops the ability to form and hold a belief an Atheist? I respond no, as nonGod can only be understood when the concept of God is understood by the mind. I can say the word asdoiuemouiyaeyclkzleuoiuos. Next if I state the term non-asdoiuemouiyaeyclkzleuoiuos does that make the word asdoiuemouiyaeyclkzleuoiuos any more intelligible? See, this is exactly what the current wave of Atheists is trying to do. This is the key point, pay attention! They are trying to say that a working concept of non God is exactly the same as no capacity to form the concept of non God. Ergo the statement that a plant is an Atheist. If this definition is true, that an Atheist is such because of non capacity, then the moment one has capacity one is no longer an Atheist. No capacity for concept and a decision not to accept a concept as valid are absolutely are not synonymous, and that is why their argument is illogical and nonsensical. They are trying to fool people into thinking that their belief system is the correct and indigenous system on the basis of a technical and flawed argument. Definitions are absolutely important when deeply discussing these topics, as it the definition someone uses is reflecting their belief systems. I challenge the definition as axeman is using it as a false definition of Atheist as Atheism is practiced by Atheists. It absolutely is a practice of the mind based on belief systems of the mind.
No, the fact that a plant has no capacity for belief is only incidental. It is the fact that the plant HAS no belief that makes it an atheist.
Is there a full moon somewhere? Plants are atheists now? Goodness gracious me! Never crossed my mind.
A plant is neither "theist" or "not theist," since a prerequisite to thought is consciousness. However, many atheists don't seem to do much thinking, so perhaps there is a correlation there. If a plant is "not theist" then it is just as much "not not theist." Think about it.
Axeman also said that atheists have the right to precisely define what they believe. They have a right to believe what they beleive. They have a right to describe what they believe but they have no right to "define" what others think about their beliefs. When Dick Grasso defined the NYSE's treatment of customers orders did I have to believe him. When a religious person says you are born with apriori knowlege of God do you have to believe him. I do not give a crap how the council of athiests or whoever they are want to portray their athiesm. It is what it is. Watch out for the orwellian definitional crap they teach in schools these days. Not everyone has a right to define how I think. There is a correct and incorrect--- and plants are not denying the existence of God.