Are babies atheist?

[Curious George]

Exactly the same. I guess we can chalk this up to a reading comprehension misfire on your part.

Sure both of you made a leap in logic that I explained. My mistake. I misread liebowde's post and it suffers from the same non sequitur as your did.

But if what you are trying to state is that atheism is without theism.
And and atheist is a person who is adheres to the state of Atheism.

Then I have to ask, are you aware that this interpretation is in direct conflict with how the terms arose?

 

[Thief]

You've said that many times without providing any evidence whatsoever.

How is a declaration necessary to merely be without a belief. Everyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of God (like babies) is, necessarily, without belief in God. No declaration is necessary.

You are obviously using a new definition of the term "atheism" that doesn't include being "without belief in the existence of God or gods." Can you provide a link to that definition?

you're not doing well here.....
do you proof read?

the lack of belief when discussing God has to be considered

it is a declaration

 

[leibowde84]

So you are asking for a literal translation of a- with regard to atheism and theism, and then defining atheist relative to atheism?

Don't have to do all that. The term "atheist" includes people who merely "lack belief in the existence of God or gods" (it includes both those who disbelieve and those who merely lack belief). To "lack" means to be "without".

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[leibowde84]

Fine, but I was arguing against what you said, when you said, "they aren't theists, then they are, by definition, atheist."

They are. Either you believe in one or more deity or you don't. Those who aren't familiar with the concept of gods necessarily lack belief. Thus, they are atheists, as they are without theism.

 

[leibowde84]

you're not doing well here.....
do you proof read?

the lack of belief when discussing God has to be considered

it is a declaration

You're not doing well here. You might have a reading comprehension problem. Or you just don't know what the word "lack" means. It means "to be without".

It doesn't require any consideration to be without a belief. If you don't believe something, you lack that belief. Every single person who is not familiar with the concept of gods necessarily lacks belief in gods. There is no declaration necessary, according to the definition of the term "atheist".

The term includes those who believe that god(s) does not exist AND those who merely are without a belief in god(s).

"lack" means "to be without" in this context.

 

[Curious George]

Don't have to do all that. The term "atheist" includes people who merely "lack belief in the existence of God or gods" (it includes both those who disbelieve and those who merely lack belief). To "lack" means to be "without".

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Hmm, you are mistaken.

If you are sayimg that a-means "without" and theist means a person who follows theism. Then an atheist is an object without a person who follows theism. You are just making more absurd statements.

And then tagging a dictionary definition at the end.
Premise 1:
"To "lack" means to be "without".

Conclusion:
"The term "atheist" includes people who merely "lack belief in the existence of God or gods" (it includes both those who disbelieve and those who merely lack belief)."

The conclusion does not follow from your premise.

It is not logically cogerent. You obviously do need to do something more than you have.

 

[leibowde84]

Hmm, you are mistaken.

If you are sayimg that a-means "without" and theist means a person who follows theism. Then an atheist is an object without a person who follows theism. You are just making more absurd statements.

And then tagging a dictionary definition at the end.
Premise 1:
"To "lack" means to be "without".

Conclusion:
"The term "atheist" includes people who merely "lack belief in the existence of God or gods" (it includes both those who disbelieve and those who merely lack belief)."

The conclusion does not follow from your premise.

It is not logically cogerent. You obviously do need to do something more than you have.

You are obviously confused. So, I'll clear it up real quick:

Theism = belief in the existence of God or gods
Theist = a person who believes in the existence of God or gods

Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Atheism is the absence of theism ("without theism"). If Atheism applies to you, you are an atheist. If Theism applies to you, you are a theist.

The "without/absence" prefix "a" relates to the belief, not the person. An atheist is not a person without a theist. It is a person without theism. Obviously enough, you don't go from "theist" to "atheist", you go from "theism" to "atheism". Then you go from "theism" to "theist" and "atheism" to "atheist" respectively.

If you are sayimg that a-means "without" and theist means a person who follows theism. Then an atheist is an object without a person who follows theism. You are just making more absurd statements.

This is just absurd. I never said that the "a" in atheist means "without theist". The "a" prefix in ATHEISM (not atheist) means "without theism". An "atheist" is merely someone who the term "atheism" applies to.

 

[Willamena]

They are. Either you believe in one or more deity or you don't. Those who aren't familiar with the concept of gods necessarily lack belief. Thus, they are atheists, as they are without theism.

I just think it more accurate to define atheists in terms of disbelieving or lacking belief in God or gods. Defining them in terms of theists isn't supported by either dictionary or common use.

 

[Curious George]

You are obviously confused. So, I'll clear it up real quick:

Theism = belief in the existence of God or gods
Theist = a person who believes in the existence of God or gods

Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Atheism is the absence of theism ("without theism"). If Atheism applies to you, you are an atheist. If Theism applies to you, you are a theist.

The "without/absence" prefix "a" relates to the belief, not the person. An atheist is not a person without a theist. It is a person without theism. Obviously enough, you don't go from "theist" to "atheist", you go from "theism" to "atheism". Then you go from "theism" to "theist" and "atheism" to "atheist" respectively.

This is just absurd. I never said that the "a" in atheist means "without theist". The "a" prefix in ATHEISM (not atheist) means "without theism". An "atheist" is merely someone who the term "atheism" applies to.

Ahh see you did need to do all that like I said. Now, are you aware that this logic disconnects from how the words arose?

 

[Curious George]

The "without/absence" prefix "a" relates to the belief, not the person.

Why does it relate to belief?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Sure both of you made a leap in logic that I explained. My mistake. I misread liebowde's post and it suffers from the same non sequitur as your did.

But if what you are trying to state is that atheism is without theism.
And and atheist is a person who is adheres to the state of Atheism.

Then I have to ask, are you aware that this interpretation is in direct conflict with how the terms arose?

That is not what anyone was 'trying to state'. Nobody said anything about adhering to anything. I don't 'adhere to a state of atheism', I have merely never been convinced of any of the deity claims I have seen because there is never any evidence. Show me evidence and we can have a discussion. Until then, it sits along side claims of unicorns and lizard people in the 'random claims' department.

Oh, and what 'non sequitur'? What doesn't follow what?

 

[Curious George]

That is not what anyone was 'trying to state'. Nobody said anything about adhering to anything. I don't 'adhere to a state of atheism', I have merely never been convinced of any of the deity claims I have seen because there is never any evidence. Show me evidence and we can have a discussion. Until then, it sits along side claims of unicorns and lizard people in the 'random claims' department.

Oh, and what 'non sequitur'? What doesn't follow what?

-ist implies a person who follows something. Adhere is a synonym for follower which is more amenable to your wanted definition of atheist/atheism.

 

[Curious George]

Oh, and what 'non sequitur'? What doesn't follow what?

I find some people's persistence in this matter to be amusing.(emotional rhetoric) Asymmetrical means something lacks symmetry. Apolitical means someone abstains from politics. Asymptomatic means without symptoms.(examples supporting premise)

But atheist, rather than the obvious 'without theism', simply HAS to mean more than that, because......reasons. (emotional appeal of sarcastically stating the opposite of the conclusion)

Prefix Meaning Example(Greek) (premise)
a, an

without, not

asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism

Emphasis mine.

So your argument
A means without or not
Therefore atheist means without theism.

Your conclusion does not folow from your premises or in this case premise.

That is a non sequitur.

 

[Thief]

You're not doing well here. You might have a reading comprehension problem. Or you just don't know what the word "lack" means. It means "to be without".

It doesn't require any consideration to be without a belief. If you don't believe something, you lack that belief. Every single person who is not familiar with the concept of gods necessarily lacks belief in gods. There is no declaration necessary, according to the definition of the term "atheist".

The term includes those who believe that god(s) does not exist AND those who merely are without a belief in god(s).

"lack" means "to be without" in this context.

it doesn't require any consideration to be without belief......

your words

and no.....you are NOT doing well here

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

-ist implies a person who follows something. Adhere is a synonym for follower which is more amenable to your wanted definition of atheist/atheism.

Yes..as in 'theist'. The negation also negates the 'ist' part. Stee...rike.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Emphasis mine.

So your argument
A means without or not
Therefore atheist means without theism.

Your conclusion does not folow from your premises or in this case premise.

That is a non sequitur.

None of that actually supports what you are trying to say, and you haven't shown any nonsequitur. Were you drunk when you posted this?

Linguistically and etymologically, the word means a (lack of) theism(a belief in one or more personal deities).

That's it, that's all.

 

[Curious George]

it doesn't require any consideration to be without belief......

your words

and no.....you are NOT doing well here

Lol that is the part that is a person. We already went down that road logically. Try again.

 

[Curious George]

None of that actually supports what you are trying to say, and you haven't shown any nonsequitur. Were you drunk when you posted this?

Linguistically and etymologically, the word means a (lack of) theism(a belief in one or more personal deities).

That's it, that's all.

Sorry you cannot understand. You made a conclusion that does not follow from your premise. That is a non sequitur. It is pretty simple.

Because a- means without, does not entail that atheist means without theism.



Cheers.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Sorry you cannot understand. You made a conclusion that does not follow from your premise. That is a non sequitur. It is pretty simple.

Because a- means without, does not entail that atheist means without theism.



Cheers.

Actually it does. The premise flows quite obviously to the conclusion, as per the structure of Greek language.
A (without)
Theism(a belief in personal deities)

You might disagree that say..the word stems from the Greek,(good luck), or that the a prefix is a negation(again,good luck), but you simply can not argue non sequitur. You have devolved(again) into incoherency

 

[Curious George]

Actually it does. The premise flows quite obviously to the conclusion, as per the structure of Greek language.
A (without)
Theism(a belief in personal deities)

You might disagree that say..the word stems from the Greek,(good luck), or that the a prefix is a negation(again,good luck), but you simply can not argue non sequitur. You have devolved(again) into incoherency

According to your statement atheist=atheism. This is not true. You are wrong. Cheers.