All this goes to show the difficulty and reluctance some people have in unloading preconceptions and prejudices, in order to consider only the straightforward original description and usage of a word. So ok before anyone says it I have my predjudices , everyone does. However my argument stands that atheism is first, a definitive state or condition, and second, a worldview. The first based not on a particular partiality or bias, but on its core root definition. Its not surprising only the worldview is considered as relevant by some theists, as worldviews require some degree of comprehension and understanding, which of course would exclude both babies and a particular common state which many adults have. But that one usage is not in fact the case, as corroborated in the words own actual construct. You do not need to first have something to be without it. You can simply...be without it. That is obvious. Though not obvious to some theists . That babies and grownups can simply be without something without first having it, apparently seems impossible to some. No choice reasoning or decision necessary, to be without theism. Much the same as being without 3 hands or 2 heads, they are without theism. Just like being without Ogd (isn't everyone without Ogd?). And it is as inconsequential. That is not a worldview anymore than blackness or whiteness is a worldview, but in that sense some theists as I see it , cannot tolerate that simple state when applied to the word atheist at its root derivation. Especially so as it includes babies and indeed shows up the intolerance in the attempt to marginalize those people generally who are atheist, by trying to label or infer them as ungodly and therefore wicked . ddunbar, you are one of those who will do anything but agree to the obvious, even side with ZZzz, and apparently only because it seems a word carries too much built in connotation for you to accept one of its basic and most manifestly evident significant expressions. Perfectly reasonable viewpoint and I would do exactly the same, until or unless it was brought to my notice that by doggedly sticking to that rule, outside ordinary usage I was being deprived of a noticeably evident meaning which I had been overlooking. No longer will I then take the word for granted at face value, but come to understand it for any other real information it carries. Atheism is such a word. In its original form and by its construct, it carries meaning which is being denied and excluded often by adverse descriptions which unthinkingly become added in ordinary useage. Look at commonly accepted word usage here by your own standard. The "establishment" you are generally referring to does not agree with the limitations in its common usage you are stuck with..... from wiki.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.[3][4][5] However, othersâincluding most atheistic philosophers and groupsâdefine atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).[11][12][ Here the word atheist is actually presented as meaning more than something you maybe only thought it could mean. That meaning is now included by your requirements of "erudite atheists" and it seems by the conservative usage establishment too!! That strain of meaning is legitimately being attached to its source etymology, which it is clear, became smothered by a common usage which is so full of connotation and additional prejudice, removal of a real and proper expression of it was to a large degree the intended result. That's why I say babies are atheist. I do not say a baby is an atheist or has atheism . Just it is atheist. Without connotation, additional, baggage, inference or suggestion at all. Its just simply the case that they are.. Many a theist will endeavor to change that state and the babies own worldviews' will alter or not when it does become cognizant. But until that time it just happens to be atheist.
The idea of sacrifice was the mainstream religion of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They did not understand what was meant by, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice". The idea of sacrifice is still perpetuated by modern day mainstream religion. So I must still be a rebel because I reject the notion of sacrifice, especially as any "plan" of God. The greatest sacrifice you can make is to deny yourself. This was done before the earth was ever made. You are the Son of God who denied himself. The earth was made because you denied yourself, as a "place" to deny yourself. It is a place the Son of God comes to "die", denying himself over and over again. It was never God's "plan" that the Son of God sacrifice himself this way. He asks the Son to "know thyself" and have mercy. Sacrifice is for losers, and the Son of God cannot lose. This world is for those who believe that someone can gain while another loses. It's for those who sacrifice everything for nothing. It's for those who exchange unlimitedness for littleness...power for weakness...knowledge for perception...life for death...sanity for sin. This world was made by the Son of God to sacrifice himself. Sacrifice is made daily upon the alter of, "I am Bob" "I am just human" "I am no angel" "I am mad" "I am sick" "I'm dead" "I'm a man" "I am a son of man" "I'm a woman" "I am a son of a ____" "I am special" "I am a sinner" "I am a ______" (fill blank with religion of choice) "I am a mechanic, lawyer, carpenter, etc" In this way the Son of God is mangled beyond recognition. I was not born to die...I was born to live, and I proved it. And so will you. Jesus
Yes, this is the idea I am explaining. This world is an attempt to prove the impossible...ie. "can a state that does not exist be produced?" The "state" in question is the state of fear. As such, it is a "dream". Who is the dreamer? The Son of God. Just because his dreams are the size of Texas doesn't make Texas exist. Gautama called such a state "maya"...the illusion that would hide your divinity from you. I called it "hell". Jesus
...if you could please include the price of fish in your response to that Iam, it would at least offer the semblance of something real. thanks stu
Created a creator, yes, you do. You have authentic creations, this world not being one of them. These creations love you, unlike this world. They await your return from this detour into fear. The mind is the creative aspect of your attributes. To be able to create with joy, it must have freedom. What you are experiencing is a brief moment when such freedom was tested to imagine imprisonment in bodies. In this sense, the Son of God can think to crucify but only himself. And only he can keep himself in a tomb. Time is an illusion. Billions of years mean nothing to such a powerful maker. You have already returned "eons" ago, and the detour was but for a single instant using half a mind and a pseudo will. You remained spirit, perfect, unchanged, and unchangeable... as you were Created. This may surprise you, but bodies appear only in the "past", or in anticipation of a "future"...in time. They do not appear now. They are toys gathering dust in the attic, long forgotten. If you can see bodies, your mind is reminiscing about "old times". Jesus
Two Things Stu: 1. You persist in this notion that theism prevents one from embracing a wider view of atheism, while at the same time I have shown you that there are Atheists ("a" theists) that disagree with the wider view of atheism you espouse. And they do so in a studious and erudite manner. This reduces your argument to nothing more than a critically biased exposition whose sole support rests on a contested and not completely researched etymology of the word atheos, a misplaced feeling that theism is the overlord that blocks critical thought, and what appears as a desire to gain acceptance of your worldview by artifically increasing your numbers. 2. The Wiki link you supplied, specifically the section you highlighted in blue, of course does not represent the establishment of lexicon professionals. So here too your point is moot. It's nothing more than saying, "see, these biased individuals agree with me too." It's circular reasoning. It's no better than a Catholic saying, "Even the Muslims believe there's a heaven. Therefore that makes it so." In this way, using the term "atheist" to extend to babies is nothing more than a colloquialism. A term bandied about in certain parts of the atheist community. What you and they who wish to have this term properly expanded need to do is to lobby the profesional English lexicon community to amend the definition. They will of course force you to undergo a vigorous process of proving your case. I suspect that additional etymological research will be required concerning the truest or additional context in which the Greek word "atheos" was used. As it stands, "atheos" was a derogatory term to mean Godlessness. Not in the sense of being without God, but denying or rejecting the established and revered gods of the day. Arguing this on a web forum is pointless. I'm not your proxy. You need to go to the top. There aren't going to be too many people who will run around saying an accredited and respected dictionary is wrong. If one can't rely on a dictionary to know the official meaning of words, what then can one rely on? That's why you must go to the top. Otherwise, all you say is nothing but opinion based on willfull bias, questionable reasoning, and unaccredited sources. This is no different than in the scientific community. Consider going to the top as peer review. Who knows Stu, this could lead to professional debate which extends beyond a lexical review. The biology community may delve into genetic research to see if the rudiments of atheism (in the sense that is an inability to believe in fanciful things) is an actual genetic disposition for some, most, or all of us. OR they may find the opposite. A wiki, though one of the greatest projects of our day, is not an authoritive source by any means. But it's a great starting point for research and fact finding.