The Word is not the Thing

“Every thing must come into being within a pre-existing ‘Thing’.
True, False, ‘Debatable’ , or “None of the foregoing” ?

The following ‘case-in-point’ was submitted via today :-

Q. What is your personal opinion of atheism without other religion’s perspectives?

A. To be “sound”, a definition needs to be wholly positive, and not depend upon any negative definiens.
It needs to state what a ‘thing’ is – not what it is not.
So, “Atheism” has been “Red-Herring-Trapped” under the very rules it says do not exist; it is “playing its enemy’s ‘Game’” !
“The Extinction Rebellion” is another such “Red-Herring-Trapped React-er”
A very similar “Big-Issue” actually lurks within Religions’ Dogmatic-Claims, too:
they claim that that Religion holds a “perfect truth” –
e.g. that [‘] The Earth is infinitely bountiful for those who “believe”[“].

NB if you will:
Economics actually makes the same ‘definitively-false- “perfection” claim’;
and even extends it more ‘absolutely’ by beginning a textbook with
“Economics recognizes that
(1) humans are Insatiable
(2) Earth’s resources are self-renewable.”

Under (1) we next find (in the same textbook) the
Law of Diminishing Utility –
instantiable by the vignette
“You’ll pay £3 for the first cup of coffee,
but the second cup might only ‘feel’ to be worth £2;
and the third “hardly worth a quid” –
you are being “satiated” –
under the Economics “Thinking” basis of being “Insatiable”.
One of the
“mental/mindful/thinking/ascertaining/proving” problems
in that,
is that
once you have achieved “perfection”
you not only no longer need to learn anything “new”
but –
your overarching Organisation(s) will not** allow** nor encourage you
to learn anything thus “new”.