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.
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.
