The argument essentially trims down to your have a minority position among the atheists with your view of what an atheist is, nary a single theist would see your opinion as valid, and an agnostic may well say you are daft to hold so tightly to such an impractical and useless definition. However, it seems to suit stu the atheist quite nicely to be buried under a pile of atheist produced by another atheist... To each their own position... stu, face down in his...
"I wanted out, but they pulled me back in." - Godfather III Stu, that's misrepresentation of my position and you know it. Especially this: Go back a few pages except this time quote my rethorical question and answer, "Are babies born w/o god? Yep." in its context. Atheism is a worldview and not a state of being. If babies cannot have, maintain, or comprehend a worldview, babies cannot be termed as being in possession of a worldview. Therefore, babies cannot be termed as atheist. Or any term associated with any other worldview for that matter. However, As I previously stated in that other thread, babies can be termed non-theists or noncognitive atheists. Both of which mean essentially the same thing. As for this: Take it up with the authors of the world's most accredited and respected dictionaries on the English language like Oxford, Webster, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and Cambridge. Sheesh, man. I mean really now. You expect me to defer to your take on things as oppossed to a dictionary's? Come now, get real. If you can't rely on dictionaries for word meaning, what the bloody so and so can I rely on? Slang? Idiom? Colloquialism? I'm guilty of what then? Proper form? Proper word usage? And as to what you think the etymology of the word means, have a look at what Webster's etymology suggests: "...to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. " Hence the modern understanding of the word, Atheist/atheism, which is as defined in the most respected dictionaries on the English language as, "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God." Only an adult can deny or have a lack of recognition of state gods. Considering the word atheos was a derogatory term, (most closely meaning godlessness) it should be patently obvious that even the greeks wouldn't have used the word for babies. Hey, take heart. Considering that language evolves, perhaps in 100 years or so, you'll have the best minds on the English language agreeing with the notion that atheism can extend to babies and redefine the word as such. Or even invent a new word or compound phrase. Until then, you won't mind if I and many others stick to what the experts of the language determined what the word should mean, will you? Thanks in advance. And that's what I mean by freak-a-zoid. You're fighting not against me, but against an establishment of lexicon professionals who I just happen to agree with considering I'm not a lexicon pro - but you're using me as a proxy for that fight as if it were I who defined what atheism should and shouldn't mean. If you and whatever atheist buds of yours want to make "slang" out of the word, by all means. I do it for a few words myself. For instance, I'll call one of my friends, "governor." Just because he likes to be in charge. But he's not a governor in any sense as defined by any dictionary. See ya, Stu. Anything that you might post subsequently I ask that you take it up with the Atheists who disagree with you and your use of the word for babies (of course, they would be insulted by such a notion of babies being named amongst their ranks considering the great thought and struggle that went into atheism) and the authors of the world's most respected dictionaries. I'm serious Stu. Take it up with them. I'm a poor grassroots candidate for your cause. I have too much respect for great minds to scoff at or contend with the authors of the aforementioned dictionaries. I know my strengths and weakness. Now, you have a good day, sir.
Most reasonable folks know that an atheist is an atheist out of intellectual choice, not because they lack an intellect to reach that conclusion. Theism is a point of view, so is atheism in practice. I could see an argument that a child who is told to believe in God is not really a theist, as they don't have the real intellectual development to consider the options and make a choice of what to believe. However, theist is commonly accepted and understood, and the vast majority hold that a theist has belief in God by any means, and an atheist has no such belief in God by choice. stu is going to hold that his point of view as to what an atheist is represents his condition... We can only guess at why he has forsaken the reasonable and dominant position. My guess, from what I have read from both stu and axemonkey of the past, is that they are trying to argue that atheism is the normative and natural condition of man. This argument, is deeply flawed, because this type of "logic" then applied to other areas of human life means that the normative and natural condition of man is a non thinking, non speaking, non developed intellect, fully dependent, creature. The non thinking, non speaking, non developed intellect, fully dependent is a stage of human existence, of course, but something that normal folks naturally progress from... The majority of a natural lifespan of a normal human being is spent in the condition of holding a world view, either with God in that world view, or in a world view that there is no God, or in a chosen position of not forming any world view with or without God. What also makes stu's position so silly, is that the argument is that babies are born without God, due to their intellectual condition and mental capacity as a baby, yet it is not known if they are really without God or not. God may well be with them, but their minds cannot understand it. The atheist position stu puts forth is filled with just as much dogma and the doggedly holding a belief system as we see in the fundamentalists of any religion. Perhaps stu will wrap himself in swaddling clothes, suck his thumb, shit his pants, unable to feed himself and speak in gibberish...in order to demonstrate a return to the natural and normative condition of human beings from which he defines atheism... Really silly, but then axemonkey claimed that a turnip is an atheist...so we do have the extremists amongst us. Hmmm, thinking about it, maybe we should accept stu's position as the most accurate. That an atheist is so because of lack of mental capacity. Then taking this as a ground state, a theist would be the opposite, i.e. one who has the intellectual capacity and mental development to believe in God, to be with God. So from this perspective, the atheists are mentally retarded so to speak, and the theists are the ones actually exercising a fully developed, properly functioning human mind.
Yes, as long as the theist's perspective of God is correct. There is God, and then, there is the "god of this world". Jesus
Yes because history is a function of time. Time cannot bind God or the Son of God. Time is the "whim" of the Son of God, not his will. Will exists, whims don't. As the antideluvian era passed away, so shall this entire world of time and space. Whatever can pass away or change is not real, and can be considered as not ever occured. All events in time and space are neutral. This is both the Will of God and the will of the Son. You are part of the Son, so this is your will also. "What plays in Vegas stays in Vegas", is true for this world also. Keep playing, keep staying. And when you come home, all is forgot. There is no "sin city" after all. Jesus
as gautama himself has taken the pain to explain, the theists' perspective just isn't, correct... not that it shld be a problem though...