No, they are not. To be an atheist, you must have first heard about and understood the concept of gods, thus being then able to form the ism (idea) that you are without them.
No ism can be born into as they are not states of being, they are ideas, concepts, opinions, etc. States of being end with -ic.
Yeah, and that’s correct for you. However a newborn doesn’t know what gods are, so they’re unable to adhere to a belief, opinion, idea, concept, etc (Isms) in whether gods exist or not. It is not that they don’t believe gods exist, it’s that they are unable to believe or disbelieve, since they don’t know what gods are yet.
Do you often find it useful to talk about “people who do not believe in gods but are aware of the concept” while explicitly excluding “people who do not believe in gods and are not aware of the concept”? That seems like such a rare distinction to need to make.
It’s the literal opposite of rare. It would be rare if people were born preloaded with all the knowledge of previous generations. As far as I know 100% of people are born without knowledge of deity concepts and therefore must be taught it in order to align with theism, monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or autohteism—yeah, there’s more, but that covers the main ones of gods, singular, many, none, and self.
I think this discussion is using philosophy, ironically, to disguise failures in literacy.
Hey bud. Reread my comment. I said it was a rare distinction to need to make. I’ve actually asked you in two different comments now why you feel the distinction is useful, which is the crux of our disagreement, with no response.
It’s clear, though. The distinction is atheism or not. By understanding what an ism fundamentally is, you’re able to distinguish what it is not. Someone cannot adhere to an ism based on a thing without knowing what the thing is first.
It’s a distinction of 1 or 0.
I had assumed this was clear enough response to your questioning.
And it’s not a disagreement, really. This isn’t an opinion of mine, it’s one of the cruxes of the English/Latin language. It is the reason the -ism suffix exists. Your statement is simply incompatible with what any word ending with -ism is. A newborn cannot be any of them.
Oh, for sure. But as an atheist, I don’t tarnish the idea by being narrow-minded and exclusively anti-Abrahamic.
I’m of the opinion that you can’t be atheistic without first knowing theism. Knowing just one of them is a start.
Wild. I don’t think there is a pre-requisite knowledge to be an atheist. All babies are born atheists. Religion is learned later.
No, they are not. To be an atheist, you must have first heard about and understood the concept of gods, thus being then able to form the ism (idea) that you are without them.
No ism can be born into as they are not states of being, they are ideas, concepts, opinions, etc. States of being end with -ic.
I don’t see the point of this distinction. When I say “an atheist” i mean only and exactly a person who does not believe any gods exist.
Yeah, and that’s correct for you. However a newborn doesn’t know what gods are, so they’re unable to adhere to a belief, opinion, idea, concept, etc (Isms) in whether gods exist or not. It is not that they don’t believe gods exist, it’s that they are unable to believe or disbelieve, since they don’t know what gods are yet.
Do you often find it useful to talk about “people who do not believe in gods but are aware of the concept” while explicitly excluding “people who do not believe in gods and are not aware of the concept”? That seems like such a rare distinction to need to make.
It’s the literal opposite of rare. It would be rare if people were born preloaded with all the knowledge of previous generations. As far as I know 100% of people are born without knowledge of deity concepts and therefore must be taught it in order to align with theism, monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or autohteism—yeah, there’s more, but that covers the main ones of gods, singular, many, none, and self.
I think this discussion is using philosophy, ironically, to disguise failures in literacy.
Hey bud. Reread my comment. I said it was a rare distinction to need to make. I’ve actually asked you in two different comments now why you feel the distinction is useful, which is the crux of our disagreement, with no response.
3 comments if you count this one.
It’s clear, though. The distinction is atheism or not. By understanding what an ism fundamentally is, you’re able to distinguish what it is not. Someone cannot adhere to an ism based on a thing without knowing what the thing is first.
It’s a distinction of 1 or 0.
I had assumed this was clear enough response to your questioning.
And it’s not a disagreement, really. This isn’t an opinion of mine, it’s one of the cruxes of the English/Latin language. It is the reason the -ism suffix exists. Your statement is simply incompatible with what any word ending with -ism is. A newborn cannot be any of them.