I reiterate, atheism is not a condition or a state of being, it's a worldview. Why is it a worldview? Because it, like its counterpart, theism, invariably addresses the ultimate questions. "Ism" is a suffix added to words to denote a worldview, methodology or ideology. "Ist" is a suffix added to words to denote an adherrent to a worldview, methodology, or ideology. Are you seriously going to argue that? Nice try trying to claim I'm the one playing semantics. I'm adherring to proper word use and reason. And I wasn't using my example of "American" to prove propensity or citizenship but what happens when words are used irresponsibly. To sum up; given that atheism is a worldview, to claim that a baby is atheist is irresponsible word use for how can a baby embrace a worldview? For this reason, the only sensible means to categorize a baby as an atheist is to describe what type of atheist it is. A description which overcomes the fact that atheism is a worldview, yet at the same time exapnd the meaning of atheist to include a mere ignorance of God(s). That label has already been conjured up by atheist. It's termed non-cognitive atheist. Which ultimately means a human who is without knowledge and currently without the ability to acquire knowledge (unable to comprehend) of God(s). Or you could say, a baby is non-religious. But given that a baby cannot also embrace the worldview of atheism, it is also non-atheist. Strong and weak atheist are also terms atheists embrace to describe the specific type of atheist. Atheism is not the opposite of theism, it is a counterpart. Why? Because both worldviews address ultimate questions. To a theist; there's life after death. To an atheist; there is no life after death(strong) or it can't be determined with certainty(weak). But weak atheists invariably will atempt to address the ultimate questions as that all humans are hard-wired to do so at some point in their life. Survival instinct and their high level of cognitive reasoning sees to it as humans do not readily want to die and will wonder what happens when they do. Atheists (strong or weak, explicit or implict), when presented with the question, "what happens to you when you die?" do not repsond with, "Atheism doesn't consider such things." You see, my approach is not in the least a game of semantics (perjoratively speaking). Playing semantics is taking a word and expanding its meaning beyond what is reasonable and associating a word with things to which it cannot logically be extended to. Therefore, my position is that humans are born a "blank slate" for what their instincts and intrinsic nature (social,curious, capable of imagination) does not immediately address. They are born without any type of "ism" (worldview) because they cannot comprehend any "ism"(worldview) and therefore cannot be labeled an "ist." Can a baby be labeled a non-cognitive atheist? Sure. But it's not exactly saying much is it? An unthinking atheist is essentially not an atheist at all since atheism requires thought. Anyway, this is my last post on the subject.
You are incorrect. You are still playing semantics. Atheist/theist is, always was, not only a worldview. Oxford English Dictionary - ⢠suffix forming nouns: 1 denoting an action or its result: baptism. 2 denoting a state or quality: barbarism. 3 denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement: Anglicanism. 4 denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination: racism. 5 denoting a peculiarity in language: colloquialism. 6 denoting a pathological condition: alcoholism. â ORIGIN Greek -ismos. American Heritage Dictionary - -ism suff. 1. Action, process; practice: vegetarianism. 2. Characteristic behavior or quality: puerilism. 3. State; condition; quality: senilism. 4. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism. 5. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: Darwinism. My example clearly illustrates you are using the words innate and propensity irresponsibly. What has become obvious is an apparent block you display at this point. Reasonable argument up to and no further, where your religiosity is broached a step too far. It doesn't work. ism and ist are not what you intend them to be. Those in the world who know theism exists merely denote the lack of it by attributing the personal noun to the baby. That the baby is unaware of what would or would not make it atheist is not what causes the state of atheist. It's the fact that theism is not present which makes the state of atheism. I have addressed this three times now and it therefore appears to be not reluctance on your part, but an incapability that cannot make distinctions between description from the baby's state and the onlookers ability to describe states. We in the 'outside world' to the baby have that cognizance, so it is clear the baby is without something known to exist. That state is theism. Being without theism is the state of atheism. That the baby does not yet know, is secondary to the actual known circumstances. So to step away from atheist for no other reason it seems you don't like certain connotations of the word you appear to be locked into , you say who wants a baby be labeled a non-cognitive atheist?. So are you in any way bothered about a baby being labeled non cognitive human being? I understand how this simple baby fact might get under your skin and so appreciate you not wanting to reply further. But I think it fair to say babies really don't care they are atheist. It only really seems to worry some theists.
Interesting stuff: (not to jump into your argument...) http://www.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Atheists Positive definition: the belief that no deities exist Numerous dictionaries recognize the positive definition of atheism, as a "belief" or "doctrine". This reflects a view of atheism as a specific ideological stance, as opposed to the rejection or simple absence of a belief. In philosophical and atheist circles, however, this common definition is often disputed and even rejected. The broader, negative has become increasingly popular in recent decades, with many specialized textbooks dealing with atheism favoring it. One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labelled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheistâfor he is not denying any theistic claims. Some atheists argue for a positive definition of atheism on the grounds that defining atheism negatively, as "the negation of theistic belief", makes it "parasitic on religion" and not an ideology in its own right. While most atheists welcome having atheism cast as non-ideological, in order to avoid potentially framing their view as one requiring "faith", writers such as Julian Baggini prefers to analyze atheism as part of a general philosophical movement towards naturalism in order to emphasize the explanatory power of a non-supernatural worldview. Baggini rejects the negative definition based on his view that it implies that atheism is dependent on theism for its existence: "atheism no more needs religion than atheists do". Harbour, Thrower, and Nielsen, similarly, have used philosophical naturalism to make a positive argument for atheism. Michael Martin notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism".
stuey, the atheist, crying like an atheist.... <img src=http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg> Rolling on the floor, laughing my azzzz off....
Ah, God is such a special concept, that normal logic that applies to other concepts does not apply to God. I see, you have to suspend logic when you think about God. So God is not a rational concept.
So then theism can also be a state, condition, or quality as opossed to a worldview? Recall, according to the way in which you'd like atheism to be the opposite of theism, theism would have to possess the same attribute given to the suffix "ism" as you'd like for atheism. Edit: lol this is post number 666 for me. Just thought I'd throw that in for a bit of humor.
what is worrisome to theists is when atheists attempt to indoctrinate their children with their belief in the absence of god. using catchy phrases like "santa claus", the "giant spagehetti monster", "flying unicorns", etc, etc ... Granted, there are no children on this site, but there is a concerted effort by atheists to subvert people's beliefs never-the-less. You blame religion for war for god's sakes. "No religion, No war" .....what a silly notion. If religion is not an innate tendency, slaughtering your fellow man certainly is.
Actually God owes me $50... He took the Falcons over the Cowboys and now claims that betting is beneath his Greatness and he refuses to pay out. Certainly a vain person if you ask me...
All concepts come from the conceptual part of the mind and are rational as such, as they are formed and understood in the intellectual mind. The heart doesn't generate concepts. This is why the pure rationalists struggle to understand love, art, as love and art etc, are not a product of conceptual understanding, but rather direct experience. In the world of pure reason, direct experience is not important, which is why mathematics can work conceptually even though it might not work in real life applications and known realities. No human being has ever seen, touched, tasted, felt, smelled a number, they have only experience the symbols for numbers, which are purely conceptual. This issue is whether or not any particular concept is practical, useful, beneficial, true or false, or reflecting reality independent of the human mind. God as a concept, is entirely rational.