If you divide people into people who smoke and people who don't babies belong in the second category no matter whether you find that useful or not.It's okay: the same people find it useful to call babies non-smokers.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you divide people into people who smoke and people who don't babies belong in the second category no matter whether you find that useful or not.It's okay: the same people find it useful to call babies non-smokers.
It is not reasonable to assume an atheist has a stance against thiesm.It is not reasonable to consider that babies have a stance against theism.
So let us apply your logic.I find some people's persistence in this matter to be amusing. Asymmetrical means something lacks symmetry. Apolitical means someone abstains from politics. Asymptomatic means without symptoms.
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
Rocks are hyper intelligent beings that are beyond such silly notions as "atheism" and "theism."So let us apply your logic.
A-theism
Something that is not theism.
A-theist
Something that is not theist
What is a theist: someone who believes god exists.
Therefore a-theist is something that is not someone who believes in god.
Therfore rocks are atheists.
Satisfied?
Babies are as much atheists as are the frogs in my back yard.
.
I suppose if they truly are beings it is possible. But this is only the first step. Just wait until we get to abstract concepts. I think one of ny favorites is that theism is an atheist.Rocks are hyper intelligent beings that are beyond such silly notions as "atheism" and "theism."
Using a correct definition of atheism, i.e. without belief in theism, I would say absolutely not, a child's mind is a blank slate, nada, niente...... Some religions say this is not true, that newborns may have the sins of the father, or forefathers, but if gods and goddesses are all imaginary from the git-go, I can't see how a child would 'inherit' the sins of the father, that doesn't seem possible. Men create gods....... gods don't create men.
Using differrent language corpora? Or just based on what dictionaries you have surveyed?The generally accepted definition of atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Using differrent language corpora? Or just based on what dictionaries you have surveyed?
Regardless, commonly used does not entail the most logical usage.
Legion wrote some good posts regarding language use over time regarding atheism. If you are interested I can dig them out. But I can't really argue them, my background is not strong enough.Dictionary definitions, English language dictionaries, both ukb and american English, plus French.
Then heading off to the Greek roots of the word
"a" (not) "theist" (one who believes in the existence of a god or gods)
If you don't divide people, you unite them.If you divide people into people who smoke and people who don't babies belong in the second category no matter whether you find that useful or not.
Just against theism.It is not reasonable to assume an atheist has a stance against thiesm.
And if they are knotted you untie them.If you don't divide people, you unite them.
If it is of no utility to define atheist that way, and there is another way to define atheist...why not use the way that offers utilitity?
Sure they are. Atheism is a very simple concept. Anything that does not hold some form of god-belief in atheistic.Are babies atheist? What do you think? Yes? No? Please explain.
That was not the question, as here we are now.How many times am I in an argument where the atheism of babies is called into question?
I'm diametrically opposed to atheist tables and chairs.Sure they are. Atheism is a very simple concept. Anything that does not hold some form of god-belief in atheistic.
IMO that would only change when they were taught some god-concept, and then only if they decided to adopt it.
Legion wrote some good posts regarding language use over time regarding atheism. If you are interested I can dig them out. But I can't really argue them, my background is not strong enough.
Also interesting we can find plenty of disagreement behind how these words a- and -theist fit together and what they are then supposed to mean. But as far as the a=not and theist =person who believes a god exists. Rocks are atheists...is that what you mean to say?