"Atheist"--the term itself

[Curious George]

Are you serious? Toasters can't become theists even when they grow up.

Go ahead and process the rest of my post.

 

[Mister Emu]

Then I believe a mirror of his logic would conclude: since as far as we know babies are not capable of being theists, the term only applies to non-baby humans.

Of course. It will be denied, but the logic remains. If toasters due to inability cannot be atheists, then neither can babies based on their inability.

 

[Curious George]

I like that answer. It proves something, doesn't it.

Hopefully, it suggests that atheists and theists are not exhaustive. Because if we are going to accept the middle ground of I am unsure, for a position on Gods existence, why not for whether we believe someone is an atheist or theist. But that said, at least the assumption that an unconscious person is atheist or theist could be said based upon the assumption of continuity of a previously expressed position.

 

[Ouroboros]

I still wonder about opinions regarding this topic relating to split brain research.

 

[ArtieE]

Of course. It will be denied, but the logic remains. If toasters due to inability cannot be atheists,

Toasters can't be theists even when they grow up.

then neither can babies based on their inability.

LOL Humans can become theists when they grow up, toasters can never become theists. Try applying a little logic, reason and common sense.

 

[prometheus11]

I still wonder about opinions regarding this topic relating to split brain research.

Yep!! That's fascinating stuff! Essentially, it's been shown that one side of a persons brain can believe in God while the other side is atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

I find them equally preposterous, actually.

Curious position. If a boxer is a theist and is knocked out he stops being a theist until he regains consciousness again? If a boxer is not a theist and is knocked out he stops being not a theist until he regains consciousness again?

 

[prometheus11]

Hopefully, it suggests that atheists and theists are not exhaustive. Because if we are going to accept the middle ground of I am unsure, for a position on Gods existence, why not for whether we believe someone is an atheist or theist. But that said, at least the assumption that an unconscious person is atheist or theist could be said based upon the assumption of continuity of a previously expressed position.

Agreed. However, there have been cases if people "waking up from" a severe stroke and having a completely opposite view of God. Atheists have woken up believers and believers have woken up atheist.

 

[prometheus11]

Curious position. If a boxer is a theist and is knocked out he stops being a theist until he regains consciousness again? If a boxer is not a theist and is knocked out he stops being not a theist until he regains consciousness again?

Yes, if we are concluding that babies are NOT atheists due to their lack of logical processing ability.

What'll the Christians say about that?!?

 

[Mister Emu]

I still wonder about opinions regarding this topic relating to split brain research.

Nuance? In this discussion? Best of luck.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, if we are concluding that babies are NOT atheists due to their lack of logical processing ability.

What'll the Christians say about that?!?

Would that apply to all Christians that not being atheist is due to lack of logical processing ability?

 

[outhouse]

If toasters due to inability cannot be atheists, then neither can babies based on their inability.

Rhetoric.

 

[Augustus]

If agnosticism doesn't mean "having the opposite knowledge" why should atheism mean "having the opposite belief"? Where's the logic? Moral, amoral, immoral. Why in the world should we claim that amoral actually means immoral?

Agnostic was a word created out of thin air for a specific purpose, it wasn't created according to some immutable laws of how letters are used in words. People use words then they mean something, they don't mean something before people start to use them.

Also the term atheist is 2000 years older than the term theist. How could it mean 'not a theist' before the concept of theist even existed?

The term theism also originally used to mean what we now call deism. So, for a time, did the word atheist mean 'not a deist' because of the 'logic of letters'?

You can't argue what a word 'should mean' based on how its letters are used in other words, especially when it is blindingly obvious that for the vast majority of the word's history it didn't mean what you claim it now means.

If you want to enforce some iron standard between word construction and meaning in the English language you are in for pretty big job.

 

[outhouse]

It would be as specious as the opposite.

That's the problem, you refer to a credible term as specious.


Theism is a learned trait. Atheism is not always.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yep!! That's fascinating stuff! Essentially, it's been shown that one side of a persons brain can believe in God while the other side is atheist.

Exactly. It's a very strange phenomenon. I wonder, is it possible that anyone can maintain both propositions as true simultaneous in a normal brain?

 

[outhouse]

. How could it mean 'not a theist' before the concept of theist even existed?

Non sequitur.

Today it means not a theist.

 

[prometheus11]

Agnostic was a word created out of thin air for a specific purpose, it wasn't created according to some immutable laws of how letters are used in words. People use words then they mean something, they don't mean something before people start to use them.

Also the term atheist is 2000 years older than the term theist. How could it mean 'not a theist' before the concept of theist even existed?

The term theism also originally used to mean what we now call deism. So, for a time, did the word atheist mean 'not a deist' because of the 'logic of letters'?

You can't argue what a word 'should mean' based on how its letters are used in other words, especially when it is blindingly obvious that for the vast majority of the word's history it didn't mean what you claim it now means.

If you want to enforce some iron standard between word construction and meaning in the English language you are in for pretty big job.

"Atheist" coming first is irrelevant. It was still manufactured from root words, prefix, and suffix. Since "atheist" came first, "Theism" could therefore only mean one thing. God belief. The "a" signaled without/not for the root.

 

[prometheus11]

Exactly. It's a very strange phenomenon. I wonder, is it possible that anyone can maintain both propositions as true simultaneous in a normal brain?

Of course. You should try it. It's as fun as it is easy.

 

[outhouse]

Also the term atheist is 2000 years older than the term theist

I doubt it.

Provide sources.

 

[ArtieE]

Also the term atheist is 2000 years older than the term theist. How could it mean 'not a theist' before the concept of theist even existed?

How could there be a term "atheist" when there was no term "theist"? None of those terms simply didn't exist yet.

The term theism also originally used to mean what we now call deism. So, for a time, did the word atheist mean 'not a deist' because of the 'logic of letters'?

Seriously? No. For deism we have adeism.