He had a better mind and a more rigorous temperament than me; he thought logically, and then acted on the conclusion of logical thought. Whereas most of us, I suspect, do the opposite: we make an instinctive decision, then build up an infrastructure of reasoning to justify it. And call the result common sense.”
― Julian Barnes, The Sense of an Ending
Yesterday I wrote on definition of atheism. The OP did a rebuttal to my post. The link is here. Since I have responded to most of it on his blog, I see no reason to rehash it here. I however would like to point out something which I think is his failure. He argues that by defining atheism as a lack of belief, this belief includes children and stones. The first is correct, the second is absurd.
Is there any absurdity in not polling children as atheists? No. It is absurd to call them this or that believer. Or to claim they belong to this or that party. Now that is absurd.
I have tried to make sense of this post, really tried and given it up. If it is an argument against atheism, it is silly. If it is an argument for theism, it has no legs. If it is an attempt at satire, I missed the joke. To argue because there are atheists, god must exist means Santa is real, fairies are real, unicorns exist and so much more. It is silly to say the least.