I am not sure if you are yet aware of the insults and general tone in your arguments jem, so I colored one in for you. Perhaps if you adopted a better temper you may get reasonable discussion. Unless of course your attitude is that you are owner of the moral high ground, in which case just makes what you say look pathetic. jem, explain this for me.... Main Entry: apo-lit-i-cal Pronunciation: "A-p&-'li-ti-k&l Function: adjective 1 : having no interest or involvement in political affairs; also : having an aversion to politics or political affairs 2 : having no political significance from websters Here Websters do not acknowledge the 'a' in 'a' political. It is widely accepted that the 'a' is from the use in Greek which used as a prefix denotes the meaning 'without'. So 'a' political becomes "1 :having no interest or involvement in political affairs; also 2 : having no political significance[/i] Now look at the dramatic change in emphasis and explanation ..... Here Websters do acknowledge the 'a' in 'a' theos. Main Entry: athe-ism Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity But in my view, especially for the modern era, attributing a meaning "without God" (a- theos) as only an extended meaning which infers - if not declares - "without recognizing the righteousness of an Almighty Creator God and the wickedness that person has thereby committed" (the archaic interpretation).... must clearly and wrongly be attributing the 'a' to a meaning of purposely or intentionally having 'none' or 'no' theism. Whereas it is known that people have 'no' or 'none' or are 'without' things for other reasons than only those which Webster explain and certainly not by purposeful intent . Belief and disbelief being the purposeful intent Websters (wrongly in my view)only refers to. As in political, the usage of Greek 'a' against political (a-political) has the same and valid explanation for usage against the word theism (a-theism)...so we have a-theism: 1 : having no interest or involvement in theistic affairs; also : having an aversion to religion or religious and theistic affairs ( I don't agree that definition necessarily follows) 2 : having no theistic significance. So people are a-political because for one reason politics is of no significance to them. So people are a-theist because for one reason theism is of no significance to them. Neither need be insignificant because that person intends or wants either to be insignificant. I think that reasonable. You want to call me names for that or discuss it? Let me guess ...you will assume you must be right and call names anyway intending to offend 'cause you think a Theos is on your side.
Which is it? The Empire Strikes Back, or Revenge of the Sith? LOL. Anyway, I believe I addressed your question, and provided an answer. If you didn't understand my response, or missed it, I will answer it again if you just ask the question and drop the apeshit analysis.
In practical life, people who are apolitical are not denying the existence or questioning the existence of politics....they simply don't engage in politics. They believe in the existence of politics, but willingly choose to practice non politics, as politics is a practice. They don't doubt politics as something imaginary. They may doubt the validity of politics for them or others, they may be disgusted with the process of politics, they may be disheartened about politics, they may be disinterested in politics....but they don't doubt that politics is very real. So are you now telling us that you believe in God, but are simply willingly not practicing God?
stu, Pray to your mystical master Gilbert that he may help you getting over your obvious & documented crappy hangups. He probably considers you're still too wet behind your ears to believe in anything more advanced than run of the mill atheism. Right now it appears like you'll remain stuck for eternity in the lowest rank of Gilbert's slaves. [-> Don't forget now! Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m]
STU I could site you to dozens of resources. All traditional solid resources stating that atheism is the denial of the existence of God. The disbelief. From my reading your are incorrect about what the greek "a" means You also have just about every traditianol resource telling you what an athiest is and was. You have a history of famous atheists almost all uniamously standing for the fact that deny the existence of God. Now you have a few way out of the maintream trying to make athiests = agnostic. Why? An atheist denies the existenece of God always has. You might want to read this magazine article. There are many others. Atheism and Natheism. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the Autumn 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
stu is losing it.... So people are a-political because for one reason politics is of no significance to them. So people are a-theist because for one reason theism is of no significance to them. Neither need be insignificant because that person intends or wants either to be insignificant. People are not apolitical because they think or believe politics is unreal or a figment of their imagination. According to this definition and logic being presented by stu (seems illogical to me), atheists are disintereted in God (these so called atheists stu is describing) for unknown reasons....as it would be very hard to imagine a person thinking and believing God is real....where they are mentally holding God to be true yet also finding themselves disinterested in God or seeing no significance in God. Of course, the Devil certainly believed in God, knew God to be real....and he became disinterested in God. Is that the case that stu is building, that atheists are followers of the Devil? This boy is very confused, having painted himself into an intellectual corner.....I don't think even Gilbert can help him now....
An Lo, yea again The Trinity spoks in unison. And so it was or was it?.... jem, you have given no reason why a-theism cannot be described or have the meaning without theism, along with the understanding of no intent or purpose to deny or accept Gods. Everyone is born an atheist. You were born atheist and purposely became a theist. Others were born atheist and had no purpose to change themselves. Tt's just that you've believed the people who've told you you're not atheist and now of course, you are not.
Yes, everyone was born without thinking as an adult thinks, as they have not matured into adulthood. Yawn..... So you are now claiming the status of a undeveloped immature infant? On that I guess I won't challenge you.... Wait...wait...I can feel the turnip argument is coming.... stu is an atheist, a turnip is an atheist, a big steaming pile of poop is an atheist..... ROTFLMAO....
So you have 'matured' into thinking turnips and poop are atheist. That's what I meant by your inability to hold reasonable discussion .Anything beyond your own personal absurdity is obviously completely alien to you.
I use your definition against you, demonstrating the ridiculousness of it, and you go on the attack. Infante terrible..... Come one, use the axeman turnip argument to explain what an atheist is.....