Are babies atheist?

[leibowde84]

Lol, of course not. Never seem to with this topic. But maybe it will change this time.

He said this:
"But atheist, rather than the obvious 'without theism', simply HAS to mean more than that, because......reasons.

Prefix Meaning Example(Greek)
a, an

without, not

asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism"

He is obviously saying that "atheist is a person without theism". He could have been a bit clearer, I guess, as he did not include "a person". But, he is correct. He probably should have said "atheism, rather than the obvious 'without theism', simply HAS to mean more than that, because ... reasons."

But, it would be pretty darn petty to pick out his mistake in using "atheist" rather than "atheism". Is that what you are doing?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes but theism wasn't a word yet.

First theos, then atheos, then atheist/atheism, then theist/theism

But, "theos" was as was "atheos". So, the Greek "theos" (the basis for theism) came before "atheos" (the basis for without theism).

What significance do you think this has in this conversation?

 

[Curious George]

Not that it matters, but you are incorrect. The greek word "theos", meaning "gods", came well before the term "atheos", which means "without gods". "Atheism" is merely the english version of the term "atheos" (without gods) that goes a step further in explanation, meaning "without belief in the existence of gods".

Except that wasn't how it was used... it would have applied to people of other religious belief as well. It meant without gods, not without belief in gods the way you are using the term. That is beside the point. You are the one who said that atheism is defined in relation to theism. I am pointing out that it was originally the other way around.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not the point. The point is that atheist/atheism came before theism.

There was no theism to be without. It was the doctrine of denying a personal god.

The belief in the existence of God or gods existed, which is all that matters. Atheism is the absence of the belief in the existence of God or gods. It doesn't matter whether the word "theism" in english existed, as the Greek root "theos" existed, and the term "atheism" is based on the term "atheos", meaning "without god".

 

[leibowde84]

Yes but theism wasn't a word yet.

First theos, then atheos, then atheist/atheism, then theist/theism

It doesn't matter. Atheism is the absence of the belief in God or gods. It is based on the Greek word "theos".

If it was coined out of thin air, you would have a point. But, both words came from the existing greek roots.

 

[Thief]

I say.....early man
and infants

were simply unaware

that doesn't lead to a premature conclusion ....there is no God

and a declaration before you die.....there is no God
could be spiritual suicide
(self destruction comes in many forms)

back to burning babies......

 

[Curious George]

He said this:
"But atheist, rather than the obvious 'without theism', simply HAS to mean more than that, because......reasons.

Prefix Meaning Example(Greek)
a, an

without, not

asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism"

He is obviously saying that "atheist is a person without theism". He could have been a bit clearer, I guess, as he did not include "a person". But, he is correct. He probably should have said "atheism, rather than the obvious 'without theism', simply HAS to mean more than that, because ... reasons."

But, it would be pretty darn petty to pick out his mistake in using "atheist" rather than "atheism". Is that what you are doing?

He is saying that atheist means without theism. But let that go for a second. His premise a means without.

So,
Premise
A means without

Conclusion
Atheist means a person without theism

Even if you are correct it is still a non sequitur. It is still a jump in logic.

 

[leibowde84]

Except that wasn't how it was used... it would have applied to people of other religious belief as well. It meant without gods, not without belief in gods the way you are using the term. That is beside the point. You are the one who said that atheism is defined in relation to theism. I am pointing out that it was originally the other way around.

Without gods meant without belief in gods. It's the same exact thing.

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't matter. Atheism is the absence of the belief in God or gods. It is based on the Greek word "theos".

If it was coined out of thin air, you would have a point. But, both words came from the existing greek roots.

Not true. You can have a belief in god and still be abandoned by the gods and you would still be atheos. Therefore, it is god that is negated not the belief.

 

[leibowde84]

I say.....early man
and infants

were simply unaware

that doesn't lead to a premature conclusion ....there is no God

and a declaration before you die.....there is no God
could be spiritual suicide
(self destruction comes in many forms)

back to burning babies......

I never said that babies made any declaration. They are atheist by definition, as they are without a belief in the existence of God. They don't make any decision or declaration on the subject. Thus, I don't see why God would "burn them" as you suggest. But, that would be on God.

 

[Thief]

and where is the devil when you need him?

 

[Thief]

I never said that babies made any declaration. They are atheist by definition, as they are without a belief in the existence of God. They don't make any decision or declaration on the subject. Thus, I don't see why God would "burn them" as you suggest. But, that would be on God.

they are babies

labeling the unaware is childish

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't matter. Atheism is the absence of the belief in God or gods. It is based on the Greek word "theos".

If it was coined out of thin air, you would have a point. But, both words came from the existing greek roots.

Words that can't mean what you want just because you want them to do so.

 

[Curious George]

Without gods meant without belief in gods. It's the same exact thing.

No it did not.

 

[leibowde84]

Not true. You can have a belief in god and still be abandoned by the gods and you would still be atheos. Therefore, it is god that is negated not the belief.

Not true. "Atheos" referred to BOTH those who did not believe in the gods AND those who were abandoned by the gods. So, like many many other words, it has alternate meanings. It meant without belief in gods, rejection of the gods, and being abandoned by the gods.

The prefix "a" referred to both belief and the gods themselves, depending on context.

And, since the word "theos" came before the term "atheos", it goes against your argument here.

In short, it doesn't matter when the english word came into existence. It matters when the root of the words came into existence.

 

[leibowde84]

Words that can't mean what you want just because you want them to do so.

This is just childish. Step up and be an adult. Prove me wrong. Don't just make the unsubstantiated accusation that I am wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

No it did not.

Yes, it did. See below how number 1, 2 and 3 include being "without gods" (no belief), rejecting or disdaining belief in gods (no belief), godlessness (no belief), etc.

ἄθεος - Wiktionary

ἄθεος • (átheos) m, f (neuter ἄθεον); second declension

1. without gods
2. rejecting or disdaining the belief in the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)
3. generally: godless, secular
4. abandoned by the gods

 

[leibowde84]

they are babies

labeling the unaware is childish

You label them babies. Atheism is merely a word that means without a belief in the existence of God or gods. It is a descriptive term just like the word "babies". To deny its meaning just because you think God will punish everyone that the term "atheist" applies to is childish. I can't imagine God would be as cruel as you are suggesting he is.

Remember, as I have showed over and over, atheism is not necessarily a declaration or decision. Babies don't choose to be atheist. They are atheist by definition. And, I'm pretty sure God would not judge them for it.

 

[Curious George]

Not true. "Atheos" referred to BOTH those who did not believe in the gods AND those who were abandoned by the gods. So, like many many other words, it has alternate meanings. It meant without belief in gods, rejection of the gods, and being abandoned by the gods.

The prefix "a" referred to both belief and the gods themselves, depending on context.

And, since the word "theos" came before the term "atheos", it goes against your argument here.

In short, it doesn't matter when the english word came into existence. It matters when the root of the words came into existence.

You say this, but you have no proof. All you have is something that says "without gods" you are using that to include your understanding of what it means to be without. I dont think people were saying i dont believe and i dont not-believe back then. But if that is your claim, provide an example.

The idea that someone could be abandoned by the gods means that belief is not what a person was without.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, it did. See below how number 1, 2 and 3 include being "without gods" (no belief), rejecting or disdaining belief in gods (no belief), godlessness (no belief), etc.

ἄθεος - Wiktionary

ἄθεος • (átheos) m, f (neuter ἄθεον); second declension

1. without gods
2. rejecting or disdaining the belief in the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)
3. generally: godless, secular
4. abandoned by the gods

You are putting the word belief in there. It is not there. Clearly the writers knew how to use the word belief, because they used it in number 2. But it is ommitted in number 1 where you want to put it.