"Humans are born as atheists"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. If you are ignorant of a concept altogether, you necessarily lack belief in it.

Not really relevant to the point I was making.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you agree that it also 'literally means' the principle (belief) of being without god' then?

What is this sentence supposed to mean?

So someone who described atheism as a belief could also use your fallacious reasoning to justify their perspective?

Obviously no because theism is the belief and a- theism is without the theism belief. Saying you're an a- theist only says something about what you don't believe nothing about what you do believe. You can believe in whatever you like except in the existence of gods.

Errr, that's not a definition of atheism. It is a criticism of the godless (atheists if you like). I'm pretty sure he would apply it to people who are aware of God but 'lack belief', just as much as those who believe.

Really? When it says people who say "There is no God."?

So do you agree that the Biblical description of people who say "there is no God" fits atheists of today and that only people who agree with this description should call themselves atheists?

 

[Augustus]

What is this sentence supposed to mean?

You are making an argument that the best way to decide on the meaning of the word is to identify what it 'literally means' by looking at letters/components of the word. You are then saying that people who use the word in an alternative manner to what it 'literally means' are wrong, as the word should only be used in a way that reflects what it 'literally means'.

You say the word 'literally means' a- (without) theism (belief in god). Therefore this is the only correct definition.

The word also presumable 'literally means' a- (without) the[os] (god) -ism (doctrine/principle) though. It is up to the person deciding on the 'literal meaning' if they want to see the word as being comprised of 3 rather than 2 components.

The 3 component a-the-ism 'literally means 'the principle [i.e belief] of being without god'

Do you agree that a-the-ism also 'literally means' the principle of being without god' then?

Obviously no because theism is the belief and a- theism is without the theism belief. Saying you're an a- theist only says something about what you don't believe nothing about what you do believe. You can believe in whatever you like except in the existence of gods.

I'm talking about a-the-ism not a-theism.

(A-the)-ism is about what you believe.

Based on your (flawed) methodology, surely both are equally valid readings of what the word 'literally means' as you are only looking at the components, not usage to define meaning.

So do you agree that the Biblical description of people who say "there is no God" fits atheists of today and that only people who agree with this description should call themselves atheists?

Do I (an atheist) think "they are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good" is part of the definition or criteria for being an atheist?

Don't be silly.

 

[`mud]

And add to those 'facts',
no really intelligent person gives a crap !
~
Never mind the lost out there,
they're waiting for Jesus, and maybe 'God' or someone.
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

How can you be apathetic about something you're not aware of?

But what does rejection of an idea have to do with atheism?

Babies are not born unaware of the concept of God?

If babies are born believing in God, why isn't this God belief more widespread and homogenous? A genetic trait I'd expect to be universal.

[/QUOTE]
take a look around you....
isn't non-belief a minority?

if babies are not aware.....they are not believers?

(I've been asking trick questions)

 

[Thief]

We think
1. Theism = with belief
2. Atheism = without belief since the word atheism literally means "without belief"

Who's ...we?

you gotta understand what is being denied before you can make denial.

it's a choice.

 

[Thief]

And add to those 'facts',
no really intelligent person gives a crap !
~
Never mind the lost out there,
they're waiting for Jesus, and maybe 'God' or someone.
~
'mud

and what are you waiting for ....mud....
nothing in the universe greater than you?
no chance of a Greater Person?

 

[atanu]

Atheism is an absence, not a decision.

These are meaningless wordplay.

A theist, or an atheist, or a weak atheist, or a strong atheist, or an agnostic, all know their particular orientations that conform to certain definitions and that involves an understanding, a decision, a declaration.

A baby or a stone does not do that.

It is surprising how people debate on notion of absence.

 

[atanu]

I don't see the equivalence, Atanu. I ask again, what would you call someone who neither believes nor does not believe? What other category is there?

There is a strong equivalence. A baby has Not considered truth of a proposition and a student has not taken an exam.

What would you call a student who has not taken a test yet? Will you label him as 'Failed'?

In Hinduism, there is a Sanskrit word, 'anirvachaniya', approximately meaning 'undefinable' or 'inexplicable', that represents this kind of situation best. Anirvachaniya means 'what cannot be specifically described.

 

[ArtieE]

You say the word 'literally means' a- (without) theism (belief in god). Therefore this is the only correct definition.

The word also presumable 'literally means' a- (without) the[os] (god) -ism (doctrine/principle) though. It is up to the person deciding on the 'literal meaning' if they want to see the word as being comprised of 3 rather than 2 components.

The 3 component a-the-ism 'literally means 'the principle [i.e belief] of being without god'

Do you agree that a-the-ism also 'literally means' the principle of being without god' then?

Yes of course. A-the-ism doesn't mean "the belief that god doesn't exist".

Theist = with belief
Atheist = without belief
And here you would have to invent your own word for "having the opposite belief of a theist"

As we see it it goes
Theist = with belief that gods exist
Weak atheist = without belief that gods exist
Strong atheist = with the opposite belief of the theist (with belief that gods don't exist)

Do I (an atheist) think "they are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good" is part of the definition or criteria for being an atheist?

Don't be silly.

But the Bible says "they are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good" and they are talking about people who believe God doesn't exist. A third of the world is Christian and believe the Bible. And you are actually encouraging the use of a definition that in the Bible is connected with people who are corrupt and do abominable deeds and can do no good. And you do that even if people like American Atheists want atheists to be defined as simply not theists to get rid of the stigma and remove this negative view of atheists... and on top of all that the word atheism doesn't even mean "belief that gods don't exist" but just "without belief that gods exist..."

 

[`mud]

Taking another circle around God's burning bush !
~
What new approach will they find in this new attack ?
~
Does the baby say goo ?
~
Where's the OP ?
~
Nipple first....'good book' later !
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

Which according to the OED 'literally means'

Ah. That's your problem, you see. You're quoting a prominent and long time authority of the English language. You shouldn't trust them. They're part of the theist conspiracy to falsify the true meaning. The true meaning is defined in Internet dictionaries like about.com and dictionary.com that haven't been around for 15 years and are run by modern Internet atheists. Don't go to the old and trustworthy dictionaries. Go to the new and arbitrary ones.

 

[McBell]

As long as "everything you have never head of" is the proposition you are considering, sure.

You avoid the point.

No worries, used to it from you.

 

[McBell]

I'd just like to say, for the record, that I get advertisements even though I have a "premium" subscription.

I don't.
Well, after I sign in I don't.

 

[Thief]

Taking another circle around God's burning bush !
~
What new approach will they find in this new attack ?
~
Does the baby say goo ?
~
Where's the OP ?
~
Nipple first....'good book' later !
~
'mud

likewise....nipple first.....denial later

no atheists in the cradle

 

[Augustus]

Yes of course. A-the-ism doesn't mean "the belief that god doesn't exist".

Correct. Using your logic, it 'literally means' the "principle of being without god".

It's interesting that the components of the word are seen as being definitive when they are subjectively interpreted to be a-theism.

When (correctly) treated as a stand alone word with its own history and usage (a-the-ism) however, the components magically lose their power to create 'literal meaning' because it doesn't suit the answer that you are trying to manufacture.

You can't claim that a-theism is definitive but a-the-ism can't be interpreted according to what it 'literally means'.

Why not just say "I prefer the definition 'lack of belief' because...." rather than creating some pseudo-'proof' through shamelessly cherry picking from within a flawed paradigm and insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is biased/irrational/stupid?

Theist = with belief
Atheist = without belief
And here you would have to invent your own word for "having the opposite belief of a theist"

As we see it it goes
Theist = with belief that gods exist
Weak atheist = without belief that gods exist
Strong atheist = with the opposite belief of the theist (with belief that gods don't exist)

I'm discussing your assertion that the components of a word establish what a word definitively and 'literally means', rather than the best definition in general.

But the Bible says "they are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good" and they are talking about people who believe God doesn't exist. A third of the world is Christian and believe the Bible. And you are actually encouraging the use of a definition that in the Bible is connected with people who are corrupt and do abominable deeds and can do no good. And you do that even if people like American Atheists want atheists to be defined as simply not theists to get rid of the stigma and break this negative view of atheists...

Why not just say that you prefer the not a theist definition because it carries less stigma then? Treat it as a personal preference rather than some kind of 'fact' that can be proved by looking at the components of the word?

I don't think redefining atheism to be a lack of belief will have any actual effect as those who are hostile to atheism probably aren't going to a) use that definition and b) pay enough attention to the subtle philosophical difference, but it is a legitimate argument to make.

 

[ArtieE]

Ah. That's your problem, you see. You're quoting a prominent and long time authority of the English language. You shouldn't trust them. They're part of the theist conspiracy to falsify the true meaning. The true meaning is defined in Internet dictionaries like about.com and dictionary.com that haven't been around for 15 years and are run by modern Internet atheists. Don't go to the old and trustworthy dictionaries. Go to the new and arbitrary ones.

Well, the Bible says:

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1


American Atheists say:

"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

American Atheists have existed since 1963.
https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

I leave it up to the readers of this post to decide.

 

[Willamena]

Wrong. Inability does not imply unwillingness.

I never claimed it did.

You said it yourself: if you don't know how many beans there are, you cannot rationally assign a "truth" value to the claim that the number of beans is either even OR odd. Hence, you lack a belief that the number of beans is either even or odd. Do you understand? This really isn't complicated.

I've not disputed that. The disagreement was that if you don't know how many beans there are that precludes you from having a belief about how many beans there are, making the claim that "you disbelieve that the number of beans is even" a falsehood.

Yes they do. You said that agnosticism is "being unable to assign truth value". That is wrong.

That the truth value is unknown or unknowable means it's also unassignable.

Do you understand how a "yes or no" question works? Do you believe there IS a teacup orbiting Mars? YES or NO?

I answered.

If you haven't invested belief then you do not believe. That's the very definition of disbelief!

Avoiding belief is not disbelieving.

 

[LuisDantas]

These are meaningless wordplay.

Not at all. This is Atheism 101, so to speak.

But if you truly think so, I fear you are destined to feel a lot of frustration for a long time indeed while trying to attain understanding with us atheists.

Whatever premises you are using are quite alien to me - and, I must assume, a significant number of other atheists.

A theist, or an atheist, or a weak atheist, or a strong atheist, or an agnostic, all know their particular orientations that conform to certain definitions and that involves an understanding, a decision, a declaration.

Except that it doesn't always. Implicit atheism exists.

A baby or a stone does not do that.

And therefore you expect people to agree with you that they do not qualify as implicit atheists.

I get it, but I sure will not oblige. I see no sense in doing that.

It is surprising how people debate on notion of absence.

I guess we can agree on that much.

 

[Willamena]

..

Look at it logically.

A entails B = If A then B
If ignorant of the concept of God one is necessarily without (lacks) belief in god.

I see it now.

Still, not having the capacity to believe is a meta state to not believing. They are only equated by casual use of language.

To say that the baby is "not believing" in an atheistic sense, when it's only a case of being incapable of believing, is to dilute "atheism" of meaning.