Another example of your illogical and irrational thinking. If a theist is "a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy", then if you put "not" in front an atheist is not "a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy".
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are babies atheist?
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
If someone is part of "deity", they can't believe in gods? Seems like you've made a few unsupported leaps there.
The brain is a tool. Without that tool no belief... Simples
Curious George
Veteran Member
You missed the point Artie. That wasn't for when we just read a-theist as "not theist" that is when we have agreed that such is not the way to read it. If you want to go back to reading it as "not theist" then we are back to my previous logical arguments.
Cheers
Curious George
Veteran Member
Absolutely. And without capacity to believe then no belief, simples again. I think we are in agreement. Obviously capacity for belief is the better requirement. A tool is no good if it doesn't work. Capacity for belief gets right to the heart ofthat for which you are arguing. "Brain" by itself does not. Since it is possible to have a brain and still not have belief.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Except if you or any poster was using logic, they would point to the logical problem within the argument, instead of restating their claims or using ad hominems.
You see Artie, I am asking you to think. I know it is not what people are used to doing, and many are not necessarily comfortable with the process but it is possible. There are no scientific claims here you need to research, there is no superstitious magic or the like. Just logic. My claim: one word with several very distinct definitions lends itself to equivocation more so than one word with a distinct definition.
I know you don't like my definition. That is fine. If you want to acknowledge that my definition is logically and pragmatically more efficient but ultimately you like yours better for no other reason than you are more comfortable with it-that is ok.
But do not tell me that something doesn't make sense when you can't even point to what doesn't make sense, let alone a logical error.
I wrote: "A lot of what Curious George and Willamena says only makes sense in their heads nowhere else. You are trying to use logic and reason to answer illogical and irrational posts and often in their case it is futile." It was just a statement of fact.
It doesn't make sense to say that the word atheist, which literally means "not theist", doesn't mean "not theist" but actually means "a person who believes gods don't exist".
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I was hoping for a more conceptual debate.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I am sorry, but I don't really care about your personal take on the word. Words are defined by common usages not by "logic." I mean all you are doing is displaying how little you actually understand the English language. This is why I don't care for semantical debates, as so many of you think language is comprised of perfect shapes that you plug nicely in a corresponding holes, you think you know what you are talking about, but you actually don't have a clue. Language is more like water, it goes all over the place, it makes a mess, and you just have to go with the flow. Actually understanding the full use of most words is more involved than just tying to shove it into the right hole.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Semantics is generally the last wall of defense of a failing augment. The point is babies do not believe in gods. Humans are not born believing in any gods. It is something that has to be taught and conditioned into people.
Is that meant to be profound?
Augustus
…
The persistence of this 'proof' is quite amusing as it has (at least) 2 very basic flaws.
1) There is no rational reason that the word should be considered a-theism (without belief in gods) rather than athe-ism (the doctrine or belief in being without gods). If we go the 'meaning comes from the letters' route than it still gives you no reason to prefer one definition over the other.
2) Much more importantly, as it relates to the fundamentals of language an communication, you cannot definitively derive the meaning of a word either from the letters which make it up or the knowledge of the meaning of a completely different word (theism, apolitical, etc.).
While it is true that knowledge of prefixes and suffixes can help you to guess the meaning of unfamiliar words, these rules do not necessarily hold true in all cases.
For example anti-hero and inflammable do not follow the expectations of the prefixes they contain. Moreover, we can't tell simply from the letters whether or not a word is actually contains a prefix or a suffix. Aback doesn't mean without a back and prism isn't a doctrine or belief in PR.
The only way you can know this is to know the actual meaning of the word in the first place, which comes from convention and its usage in context. Words also don't have meaning in isolation, they gain their meaning from the other words around them and the situation they are used in. When ibn Taymiyya refers to Avicenna as an atheist I know this is different from referring to Richard Dawkins as an atheist.
Language is use of language, and everything else is hot air (which differs from the hot air of a balloon).
Only when we are pressed against the wall.
Sure it is. Why would anything more be required?
What are you limiting belief to? In atheism that belief is limited to just one device, god. There are many other beliefs for reasons you would consider triviality or profound.
Children are born believers in God, academic claims
Apparently not much intellect is required to be a theist either.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
well gee......if the nursery is your back up
let's get their opinion......
yeah right
dirty diapers here we go......
Thief
Rogue Theologian
granted.....and I didn't need to read your offering
I don't have a religion
mainly because of the frame of mind displayed by the congregation
still.....I would argue in favor a belief in God
and you won't hear me say.....goo goo
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I have seen a science documentary about the development of belief in children
it had to do with cause and effect as influenced by an adult feeding info.....
if you teach a child a spirit is present when the light goes on.......they will believe it
I would agree.....teaching children about God....
should be done with a great deal more care
belief is not about recital
denial is not about empty heads
it had to do with cause and effect as influenced by an adult feeding info.....
if you teach a child a spirit is present when the light goes on.......they will believe it
I would agree.....teaching children about God....
should be done with a great deal more care
belief is not about recital
denial is not about empty heads