Does God Suffer From Vanity?

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

Perhaps if you define what a 'state of being is' seeing you use the term.

No actually you were using it to attempt to trump the notion that the suffix "ism" refers to an ideology/worldview/methodology when it comes to atheism. In fact the dictionary quote you bolded showed how "ism" when refering to such things as barbarism (a property/quality, not a worldview), can properly be used to refer to a condition, state or quality.

Theism with God . A/the state of being with God. What's the problem?

And that actually makes sense to you? A state of being with God is called... "heaven." Wink-wink-nudge-nudge. You cannot be in a state of possessing a worldview. Worldviews, ideologies, methodologies are either embraced/accepted or ignored/rejected. They are intangible things which cannot be used to describe a condition, state, or quality. You are not with God. You simply embrace the notion (worldview) that God exists. Thereafter you accept/embrace a theology of some sort. Hence the term the-ism. The suffix "ism" attached to "theo" creates a term that intimates that there is a doctrine or worldview concerning God. In this case, a doctrine/worldview that is a positive affirmation of God.

The counterpart and/or opposite of theism would necessarily have to be a worldview/doctrine that is a negative affirmation of the worldview/doctrine that is a positive affirmation of God.

It's strange ddunbar, you attach a requirement for the significant basic meaning of 'state of being', but the very etymology and purest form of meaning for the word atheist it seems you have no tolerance of.

I have little tolerance for grossly improper word use. Except for reasons of comedy. If I had no tolerance, I couldn't consider myself an atheist when it comes to Gods other than the one I embrace.

It's simple. If atheism did not on any level attempt to address the ultimate questions whihc it invariably does (such as what happens when you die, where life comes from, what is the meaning of life, etc), then yes, I would readily accept the idea that babies are atheist. Why? Because then atheism would not be a worldview or doctrine and therefore could be properly used do describe a state, condition or quality.

I know, atheism is also termed as the absence of belief in dieties. And that's perfectly acceptable. But a baby is not capable of believing anything. So it doesn't have an absence of belief, it has an incapability of belief. And that condition is not termed atheism. It's termed non-cognitive.

I know, I said before that it was a last post. I cheated. I'm a bad man. So I've now made up my mind to agree to disagree. This debate exists in the world as unsettled. Great minds are hard at work making their cases or so I believe.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Can everyone else feel the love and heart that noted theist Z brings to the table at every opportunity?

It's the same love and heart one feels when they say "bless your heart." (Love the sinner!)

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You continue to think of your Catholicism when you project onto me what a theist should be...

Quote from Thunderdog:

Can everyone else feel the love and heart that noted theist Z brings to the table at every opportunity?

 

[TM_Direct]

Im so confused....somebody makes what they think is a valid argument...you use their own logic to counter their argument and show that it may be misguided...and then they tell you that your argument has no logic?....ok here it is again...Stu's words not mine:





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from stu:

You've missed the point. At birth there can be no indoctrination. The child is oblivious to concepts of a God ie: theism. The child's cognizance of such things is as ddunbar's 'clean slate'. But we know it is without any theism. There is a word which commonly describes that state. Have a guess what it is. Yes that's right, atheism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so i ask the question but at the opposite end of life...which is a person with the infliction below would be no different then a baby....


...a person with Alzheimer then or all people with brain damage or in a coma are OBVIOUSLY atheists i guess is the point???


what point did you not get?

 

[stu]

Quote from TM_Direct:

what point did you not get?

The point I don’t get is why you don’t get the point.

clue...

we were talking of...

new born babies
'clean slate'
no previous cognizant experience.

not adults
'messy slate'
with previous cognizant experience

what's next? You going to do a ZZzz and ask if your car's an atheist?

Get the point yet?

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:
No actually you were using it to attempt to trump the notion that the suffix "ism" refers to an ideology/worldview/methodology when it comes to atheism. In fact the dictionary quote you bolded showed how "ism" when refering to such things as barbarism (a property/quality, not a worldview), can properly be used to refer to a condition, state or quality.

The the description / definitions I have given which you are still trying to dance around with semantics are now being muddled by you, although circumstances of use also were clearly explained.

Atheism can properly be used to refer to a condition, state or quality according to the dictionary quote. You can perfectly well have a worldview which centers around ideas of barbarism or theism or any other -ism.

The baby is born atheist. Nowhere do I say the baby is itself exercising atheism.
A state of atheism exists in general terms to onlookers. Us, not the baby.

A baby is born atheist. Without God. God is a state of mind. The baby has no state of mind which includes God therefore it is without that state of mind.
By strict definition there may be a case for baby atheism (lol) but I don't need to even go there. What is your problem with this clear and simple state of affairs?

is this what you are thinking is applicable to the baby...?
"Theism is not therefore atheism is, in its most basic uncluttered definition , but it is so because we know theism exists in the world.

....to us ddunbar, to us. Not the baby!! I've said that over and over.

Quote from ddunbar:

And that actually makes sense to you? A state of being with God is called... "heaven." Wink-wink-nudge-nudge. You cannot be in a state of possessing a worldview.

No it makes no sense at all but people express such thoughts when declaring their 'state of mind' on the subject.

But what utter balderdash your comment is. People cannot have a state of mind which is their worldview?? Since when??. You have a state of mind both physically and philosophically. The philosophical IS your worldview.

That's why I asked you to define what you are calling a "state of being". It is not only physical.

A state of 'Being with God' is a state of mind.. not a "state of heaven" or any such nonsense. That is why the dictionary definition for 'ism' as in barbarism and theism, is a state or a quality and not just the act itself.

A baby is not in that state of 'with God', does not do that, and is why it is atheist.

Quote from ddunbar:

I have little tolerance for grossly improper word use. Except for reasons of comedy.

Then you must be joking because the contortions you are going through to avoid the proper use of the word atheist by its etymology and purest meaning is astounding.

Quote from ddunbar:

But a baby is not capable of believing anything. So it doesn't have an absence of belief, it has an incapability of belief. And that condition is not termed atheism. It's termed non-cognitive.

Christs sakes ddunbar. It doesn't have to believe in anything. It's just atheist - without God. It only has to be without God.
If it was with God it would be theist. It cannot be . For whatever reason is irrelevant although it happens to be by a natural state - somewhat ironic.

Without God is without God. That is known as atheist. The baby IS (an) atheist. That you cannot come to terms with such a simple fact is testament to the block I notice which restricts such understanding. It, also, has a common definition. Religion.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Good point. But why take my word for it? Deprive yourself of air, or what you believe is the concept of air, for an extended period of time. And if you are alive after this experiment, let me know what you think.

You are being intentionally obstinate about your own silly argument. That's disingenuous. You have succumbed to obfuscating. If you don't know for a fact, an irrefutable fact, that you need air to survive, then we have nothing more to talk about.

I am making a point. So why is it ok to believe what you read in your 9 th grade biology book but it is not ok to believe what someone wrote in the bible? Both were written by strangers who you know nothing about yet you believe one and not the other.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:


Without God is without God. That is known as atheist. The baby IS (an) atheist. That you cannot come to terms with such a simple fact is testament to the block I notice which restricts such understanding. It, also, has a common definition. Religion.

Really? Hmm. Yet there are many atheists who also reject the use of the term atheist for a baby. What's their block?

Edit: (wish I found this sooner) Wait, here's a great atheist site which disagrees with you and has laid out many proofs why:

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

There's a bunch of other atheist sites, (books also about atheism written by atheists which I know of offhand) but this one lays out in a neat little package and exposes what I already suspected was the case as to why someone would want to obtusely redefine what atheism actually is.

Ok, this time I'm really done. I promise. Scout's honor and all that.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from volente_00:
I am making a point. So why is it ok to believe what you read in your 9 th grade biology book but it is not ok to believe what someone wrote in the bible? Both were written by strangers who you know nothing about yet you believe one and not the other.

Huh????

Yes, that's a good analogy. The author of my chem text, a woman who I could go and see and shake hands with and talk chemistry with, is roughly the equivalent of the mythical figures of the apostles. Ummm.... yeah, I can see that. That's logical.

Wow... with friends like this, the ID side hardly needs enemies.

Isn't it fascinating how the zealots have no ability to see outside of their faith. They're almost a different species.

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from stu:

The point I don’t get is why you don’t get the point.

clue...

we were talking of...

new born babies
'clean slate'
no previous cognizant experience.

not adults
'messy slate'
with previous cognizant experience

what's next? You going to do a ZZzz and ask if your car's an atheist?

Get the point yet?

No ....so you have made this point about slates being messy or not ......how can you have a messy slate enless you have a belief? Lots of people think certain things are totally acceptable...drugs, sex, rock n roll.....how are you messed up unless you have the belief that you did mess up...you make absolutley NO sense some times...BTW who deicdes whether the slate is "messy" as you say?