In response to your 2 things ddunbar 1. Do you really think it reasonable I should desist from my proposition as you suggest, only because you have shown comment from others which you state disagrees with me? Even when I explain where the comments are inconsistent with my position - I should what, keel over because someone else says something else? Instead of that constant appeal to authority, which I dispute and give reason for, I again suggest you consider the argument on its own merits and not whether some other group might or might not seem to agree with me. Your attempt to reduce the proposition and my associated arguments for it to nothing more than unsupported and biased, ( as if yours wouldn't be! ) for the one reason that it does not tally with someone elseâs, is ridiculous. Unlike theism, there is no formal authority in open and inquisitive reasoning, other than the requirement to carefully examine and test the argument for its worth. For you to compound that error of appeal which you make to what is anyway a subjective authority, by dismissing out of hand the actual etymology of a word as wrong, for no reason, does not I submit, fit with a description of open-mindedness. There are a number of definitions one could extrapolate from the word. The example you gave creates a serious flaw by an assumption. I will go over that if you really want, but the main point is, no other definition I have ever seen excludes the one I give. You seem to be arguing that because somewhere in a non authoritative webpage there is a different explanation to mine , then mine must be wrong. For your information Internet Infidels which you used, hosts all views from theistic to atheistic and everything in between. Those damnable atheists hold everything up to scrutiny, unlike some others out there. My suggestion to you then was, having to adhere to a pre set formula which pre-concludes and pre-supposes (God), will require a natural line in the sand where it cannot pass. The change I noted in your overall tone , from reasonable discussion to aggressive dismissal, appeared to signify you had reached that limit and could endure no further what you saw as your theism being pressured that much. Just my own observation and I could of course be wrong, Read back some of your posts. The evidence seems to support that view. You admonish jem and you've done the same with the zzzzztroll. Then you anticipate empathy from jem and agree with the troll WHY? because you don't like my argument? It goes too far?? So then you start acting like they do, making flippant remarks and mild insult. So what happened to your measured reasonable approach all of a sudden?? Thank goodness you seem to have returned to it for now. Many people obviously agree with my proposition but overall I don't care how many do or or do not , atheists or theists. I am interested in the standards only of their and my own civil and reasonable discussion and sound argument for the sake of it. Not whether it coincides with one group or another. Even the zzz troll makes some reasonable points, but they are just as problematic in finding consistency. invariably laced with ad hominem, and then you cannot take discussion any way past that with a troll. For as soon as he realizes he is wrong, the childlike evasive absurdity overcomes him. It is just disappointing to see your responses heading that way, although so far to a much lesser degree. 2. The passage I highlighted in blue is nothing to do with "lexicon professionals". It is to do with ".....othersâincluding most atheistic philosophers and groups..." Groups who you described as "erudite atheists" , do actually agree where you say they do not. Nothing to do with the lexicography of the word atheist. You are the one who said others don't agree, here I give a very clear reference to the fact that they obviously do. But I don't care if they do or not, that is your argument not mine. I prefer my proposition stands on its merits. Which it does. By all means refer to other points of view, but don't tell me I have to agree with it just because it happens to be there. That is what you are supposed to do in Church, not in open discussion. There is no "top", no hierarchy that way, in open-mindedness. It is open source and "top" often get it badly wrong anyway. History shows. You mention scientists relying on their peers but they do not essentially. They rely on the scientific method demonstrating to their peers or any one else, that their argument is sound and thereby convince most by it. Their peers may or may not agree to start out with. The rest of your argument seems to be around the same point. I didn't start any of this up again, you did. Making that rehash in a distinctly long paragraph was unnecessary. You could have made the point succintly and neutrally in the "moved on / agree to disagree" way you talk about but don't do, and I can assure you, I would not have bothered. I don't seek either to make my point on the web, or anywhere else particularly. I respond to an argument. On Wiki which you raise, you cite it, but when I do, even for reasons only to show your statement incorrect, Wiki suddenly becomes unreliable. Now that is the jem approach. Why resort to such contradiction? At the base root core of the word and its meaning, babies are as a matter of fact in all human terms, atheist. That is my simple straightforward uncluttered proposition. It is a trivial observation which really warrants little excitement. Its not a worldview it is a statement of fact based upon the base meaning of the word. You can pile all sorts of worldview on top of that and so can I, but it doesn't alter the base proposition. Therefore I say it stands.
Stu stop bringing up my name in your pathetic arguments. You are a fricken clown. Language is able to connote meaning because people agree on usage. The arbiters of correct usage are mainly dictionaries and very well known in the field -- scholars. You are a fricken bozo to argue with dictionaries without proper support . Cease from using my name in your childish rants.
"At the base root core of the word and its meaning, babies are as a matter of fact in all human terms, atheist." Oh yes, babies are also 100% dependent on someone for their survival, unable to speak, unable to wipe their own arse, unable to feed themselves, unable to even burp without help, unable to control their evacuations, unable to turn over by themselves, unable to dress themselves, etc. Babies are undeveloped human beings with nothing much in their thought process, who cry quite a lot of the time as a means of communication, which again, fits perfectly with your display of atheism...
If you want truth, reason can lead you to where you can recognize it. The road is paved with consistency, simplicity and non-judgement/forgiveness/open-mindedness. Truth can't be learned, but it can be recognized. True learning is the unlearning of the irrationality of this world. Great learning goes into the construction and maintenance of this world. Yet senselessness can never really be learned, so it is depressing. Unlearning is joyful because the curriculum can be understood. Unlearning leads to knowledge where learning is alien. Therefore, follow a path of joy. All such paths lead back to Him. Jesus
So God has a grandson, a great grandson, a great great grandson...? Reminds me of one of those redneck jokes...