Must be a Gilbert mystic revelation to lill stu. Praise be! [-> Don't forget now! Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m]
Mr Imposter STU --- read the fricken article. You prefer to think with your emotions rather than your mind. I site you dictionarys. I site you atheism magazine I will site you to evilbible.com. Certainly these guys are not christian fundamentalists. In fact I normally think their cite is poorly researched but this time they have some good references which I included. The lack of public acceptance for a âlack of beliefâ definition of âatheismâ is reflected in the fact that no reputable dictionary has a âlack of beliefâ definition for either âatheismâ or âatheistâ. However, this has not kept a few morons from incorrectly claiming that various dictionary definitions have a âlack of beliefâ definition. On page three I have posted and examined many reputable dictionary definitions. On page four I have posted excerpts from reputable Encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. On the next page I have posted some of the arguments these people have used, and I explained why why they are so damn stupid. But first this would be a good time to read the following links. Here are some highly recommended links: Atheism and Natheism. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the Autumn 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine. Atheism and Natheism: part II An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the Winter 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine. Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an Essay by Theodore M. Drange. Read these fricken articles STU. Read the major dictionaries STU. Learn something. then come back. Just do not cite wikipedia or about.com
It is all a nonsensical argument from stu anyway. Given his chosen definition, a turnip lacks a belief in God, so a turnip is an atheist? Puuuuleeeeeze. It is not as if these atheist like stu, axeman, GG, etc. suddenly have a void where the concept of God is concerned. The suggestion that their lack of belief is some passive condition is sheer intellectual dishonesty. It is not as if they at one point had a belief in God, then suddenly nothing. Nope. They have a negative position on God, an axe to grind, anything but a neutral position that lacks the process of belief concerning God. They have a belief concerning God, that is outrageously obvious to anyone who reads these threads. I don't understand why stu and others push this foolish definition game, makes no sense. I don't see the payoff, either intellectually nor emotionally for such equivocation and casuistry. Perhaps they are too ashamed to simply admit that they are as emotional and dogmatic in their presentation of their beliefs as those they reject.
C'mon, Is it so difficult to formulate a definition ..then stick to it? They're only words, just say what it is! Then don't contradict yourself down the road just to win points!! geeez, this ain't rocket science btw, stu, nice job
jem, you are getting angty again. Probably because of your propensity toward abusive tones, you have once more completely missed the point I was putting forward. I am criticizing the tradition. I am questioning what I notice to be restricted and inappropriate descriptions of a word. Whether Websters, Britannica or the Great Fairy itself made those definitions, I am saying to you, they do not allow for another real, obvious and relevant alternative, which is -"without" - ....meaning just that. My contention is, you can be without politics (a-political).. without a particular desired purpose or intent. Then lilkewise, you can be without theism (a-theist)... without a particular desired purpose or intent. Doesn't mean to state every atheist is atheist without intent, but it is the case that it is reasonable and expected that there need be no intent to be atheist. Simply people are atheist for no reasons to become theist. After all, everyone was naturally born atheist. Just as in symmetrical .. with symmetry .. asymmetrical ..without symmetry. One has, one hasn't. No particular intent necessarily follows. If someone is without theism, it does not follow they are with intent to be without theism, which is what Websters states. You can skip around forever quoting this atheist and that theist, this dictionary and that, from all over the web, giving this and that explanation. I didn't ask you for that, and I am not wanting their version of it. I asked for YOUR own explanation why it must be incorrect (as you would have it) that 'a' is used one way as a prefix, then for no other reason than what appears to be an omission, is used in another without valid reason and with a different connotation. But can't you think and talk for yourself ?! Do you HAVE to blindly accept everything you are told without question because someone or something else tells you so? Look at Websters explanation for the word fundamentalist. It is connected to Christians. It gives the explanation that the word is derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is common knowledge and there is real and relevant understanding, that the word fundamentalist is also directly associated with Islam and the Koran. So is the traditional Westers fundamentalist as Christian the only explanation!!?... and is it correct in not mentioning fundamentalist Islam which was present at the same time the Christian derivation is attributed ?? Will it be revised and updated!!?? Perhaps in the same way the word atheist needs to be given an update, as there are obvious and relevant meanings traditional explanations do not cover or mention. nonsense is confused because ZZzz can't answer questions with answers connected to the questions, and can't decide what a word means one minute to the next. Do you think you are really doing all that much better by completely relying on others to decide all meanings for you? You may understand something in a way not previously generally accepted. Do you think you should deny yourself reasonable and useful understanding because Dictionaries Bibles and Korans tell you to? btw jem, you cite something when making reference to it. A site is what you put a building on. You being a lawyer an all.... sheeesh. Are you sure you are a lawyer? Did you just take someone's word that you were a lawyer. Should you go back 'n check?
Doesn't mean to state every atheist is atheist without intent, but it is the case that it is reasonable and expected that there need be no intent to be atheist. Simply people are atheist for no reasons to become theist. After all, everyone was naturally born atheist. So if a man has no intent to believe in God any more, formerly believing in God, now opting to practice atheism, then his being without belief is the same as a newborn child's condition of being without a belief in God? The atheistic condition of a newborn child is the same atheistic condition of an adult who has rejected the practice of belief in God? Okay, let's apply that same logic to a new born baby and the normal developmental process of a human being in a civilized society. The newborn baby is without literacy at birth. The baby is a-literate. The baby doesn't have the faculty for literacy at this stage of human development, as the mind of the baby is not matured sufficiently for literacy upon infancy and the baby has had no training to read or write. The potential for literacy is latent in the child and dependent on a normal developmental process and exposure to a written language for literacy to manifest in his life. The baby grows up normally, and learns about language through listening to the language of his parents. At a certain stage of normal and natural development of the mind and proper training, the child learns to read. So now the child is literate, a practitioner of literacy. Say the literate child makes a decision to not read or write any more. Is the child now a-literate? Or as we commonly say, illiterate? Has the child magically returned to the state of illiteracy of his infancy because of his choice not to read and write? According to your logic, if the child could read and write, but makes a decision not to read or write, because the child no longer has an intent to read and write, the child has suddenly become illiterate once again. I would argue that the child is not illiterate at all because of the intent not to read and write again. The child is literate still. The child has the ability to read and write, but has decided to never exercise that practice again. This present condition of not reading and writing any more is not at all the same condition of being without literacy due to being unable to read and write. The literate child doesnât read and write any more, but the child is not illiterate. The child now has the status of a failed literate. The infant was illiterate, the infant grew to be a literate child, then the child chose not to practice his literacy. No matter how much or how often the child would claim to be illiterate, the reality is that he is literate still....he just doesn't practice his literacy. Why would a child decide not to read and write again? Bad English teacher, bad grades, some disappointment, some disillusionment with literacy, who the hell knows? It doesn't matter; it is irrelevant to the condition of literacy or illiteracy because the child is not a-literate, not illiterate, but a literate child who has chosen not to practice literacy any more. The child willingly chooses to not practice literacy for any number of reasons, but the reasons are immaterial to the condition literacy or illiteracy, as having the skill of literacy and intending on not practicing literacy are two entirely different conditions. Unlike the newborn illiterate child who only has a latent undeveloped capacity and potential for literacy, the literate child who chooses to no longer read and write is not illiterate. This is the condition of an atheist like you, or axe, or GG, etc. A decision has been made to move from a positive belief in God, to a negative belief in God. This decision to move to a negative position, to a dis-belief in God is fraught with intent. You could again practice theism if you intended to do so. The infantâs condition of atheism is not a function of an intent, but a condition of being incapable of reading and writing. Intent is not an issue at that state of development of a newborn. So your practice of atheism, your choice to be without belief in God in no way synonymous to the way an illiterate child is without literacy due to lack of exposure or development of mind's capacity for literacy. You didn't suddenly lose the ability to be a theist; you made a decision to become an atheist. It is like being a virgin stu. Just because someone may decide never to have sex again because they were disappointed with the experience or failed to be a good lover doesn't make them a virgin again. Your condition of atheism, which is the practical understanding of the state of practicing atheism is one who has made a decision to willingly and with full intention to reject belief in God. You may be without belief in God, but only by choice, not the involuntary condtion of an ignorant infant. If a person decided to no longer read or write, having formerly been quite literate, it would take a great deal of effort and practice to maintain that position of not reading nor writing while living in a society where there is constant exposure to the written word. Every time that person saw a written word, he would have to force himself not to read. Reading is nearly instinctual once one has learned to read. Were he isolated from all input of the written word, living in a society where there are no written words, it would certainly be much easier. Similarly, every time a former theist, now practicing the religion of atheism hears the word God, or sees the written word God, this atheist must practice being without a belief in God. Our society is however filled with theism, making the practice of atheism for the former theist quite difficult, as now the atheist has to maintain a constant practice in rejecting the belief in God. (It is no wonder you guys are so pissed off all the time, all that effort to maintain your discipline and practice of atheism in a theistic world.) This rejected condition of being capable of belief in God, but now being "without belief in God" due to rejecting the practice of theism is clearly not the same condition as a person who is without a belief in God on the basis on having no capacity to have belief in God. There is no illumination coming from your trying to define atheism as you want to. It serves no practical purpose that I can see for an atheist to define atheism in the manner you are attempting, beyond trying to divorce yourself from the reality of your chosen religion, i.e. atheism. Your being without belief in God is not innocent, virginal, uninformed or natural at all. You are no more atheist by condition of birth any more than a literate child opting to shun reading and writing in modern society would retrun to being an illiterate infant. You might act like an infant terrible, but certainly that is no excuse for said behavior.
A few bits on "Everyone is born an atheist". (i) John: "1.17. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 1.18. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Nobody, young or old, will be able to know anything definite about God by any other means than the Christian teachings; (ii) people born and grown up without such teachings are not "born atheists". This plain fact is clearly visible: All cultures at all times show a yearning of the soul towards divine truth. Without Christ's teachings, these people will end up adhering to many forms of transcendental belief. Atheism is hard to find in any culture at any time; (iii) the atheism/agnosticism fad of the last 200+ years is in most cases a satanist ploy to suck in their wretched 'useful idiot' victims.
Sorry, but I don't see an argument from you. A testament to your faith, which is fine, but hardly an argument to counter stu's position.
I leave this pleasure to you. I don't have the patience to deal with obvious half-witty posturing. _____________________ [-> Don't forget now! Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m] stu