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.
Atheism isn’t a single word exceptional of the rest of English. You have a misunderstanding. Whether you improve on it or not is dependent on your ego, however an entire established d language will not change itself to suit a your opinion.
The term you’re likely thinking of is ‘non-theistic’. That is a state of being without deities; thoughts, being, existential state. I recommend you do some quick reading into morphemes, specifically -ic, -ism, -ist. You will confuse people less—especially multilingualists that have English as a second lamguage—and not make impossible statements like ‘newborns are atheists’.
Bud I’m using the literal dictionary definition here. I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but sometimes words in English are used differently than their etymology or structure might suggest.
And you notably, again, refuse to answer the question.
Please show a dictionary definition that a newborn can adhere to. They all speak of disbelief, belief, or ideology. These are phases no being is able to be without first having an understanding of the thing they are disbelieving, believing, or adhering to. This is the literal point of an ism. This is why words end with ism.
As for your question, it has been answered. I’m starting to think you simply have a misunderstanding you are not willing to adjust due to pride. Please point out how the question has not been answered and I will do my best, though, this is clearly a huge waste of time for both of us and I won’t participate much longer if there is no benefit for either of us.
You’ve said it… disbelief. not believing. Infants do not believe in any gods, so they lack belief in gods. By definition.
My man, if the insults and digs were going to work they would have worked a long time ago. The question is clear, and has been repeated ad nauseum. I was willing to listen, but you were not willing to respond, so forget it. Either you can tell me what you don’t understand about my question, or you can leave.
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.
deleted by creator
No, once again restating the distinction you are making does not explain the value of making the distinction.
The phrase “adhere to an ism” is absolutely meaningless in the context of atheism. It feels like pedantic word games.
Atheism isn’t a single word exceptional of the rest of English. You have a misunderstanding. Whether you improve on it or not is dependent on your ego, however an entire established d language will not change itself to suit a your opinion.
The term you’re likely thinking of is ‘non-theistic’. That is a state of being without deities; thoughts, being, existential state. I recommend you do some quick reading into morphemes, specifically -ic, -ism, -ist. You will confuse people less—especially multilingualists that have English as a second lamguage—and not make impossible statements like ‘newborns are atheists’.
I’m just trying to help.
Bud I’m using the literal dictionary definition here. I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but sometimes words in English are used differently than their etymology or structure might suggest.
And you notably, again, refuse to answer the question.
You’re not.
Please show a dictionary definition that a newborn can adhere to. They all speak of disbelief, belief, or ideology. These are phases no being is able to be without first having an understanding of the thing they are disbelieving, believing, or adhering to. This is the literal point of an ism. This is why words end with ism.
As for your question, it has been answered. I’m starting to think you simply have a misunderstanding you are not willing to adjust due to pride. Please point out how the question has not been answered and I will do my best, though, this is clearly a huge waste of time for both of us and I won’t participate much longer if there is no benefit for either of us.
You’ve said it… disbelief. not believing. Infants do not believe in any gods, so they lack belief in gods. By definition.
My man, if the insults and digs were going to work they would have worked a long time ago. The question is clear, and has been repeated ad nauseum. I was willing to listen, but you were not willing to respond, so forget it. Either you can tell me what you don’t understand about my question, or you can leave.