<Then if I follow the logic of your definition, socialists, Buddhists, homosexuals, and
any other group of people who have "gone against the common belief systems in
their societies" also qualify as atheists. Atheists are nonconformists, but their
nonconformity doesn't define atheism. The literal definition of atheism is clear and
unvarnished as evidenced in its etymology.>
I didn't say that nonconformity defines atheism. Lack of belief in God defines them. However, since most people do believe in God, it follows logically that atheists are by definition also nonconformists.
<Regarding your strawman assertion that "godliness often leads to wickedness", I
would simply request that you define the term "godliness" using non-demominational
language so that we can examine if your assertion holds any water. It appears to be
the equivalent of saying "manliness often leads to war" Doesn't the definition of
"manliness" have to be clearly established before we can establish the truth of this
statement? eg., What constitutes being a "man"? "Willingness or a propensity
toward war?",etc.>
Manliness does lead to war, according to a new study of population patterns I read last week. It seems from this research that in populations where there are a lot of young men, there is a lot of war. I am sure you also know that there is a lot of violence in societies when there is a big bottleneck of young men, and that it declines when the population ages.
I looked for the article I read about this, but could not find it. If I do, I will be sure to post a link to it here.
While I was looking, I did find a review of a book about Los Angeles that got my attention, however. Some people might find it interesting. I am originally from Los Angeles, and just hate southern California--I cannot even stand being there. This is about chaos theory, etc.:
sfgate.com |
