Question for the Atheist

[_Buffalo]

I don't think it's a recent innovation that the word means ""one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"

Babies meet the second half of that statement

You saying that a baby disbelieves the existence of God. That implies the ability to believe.

dis·be·lieve/ˌdisbəˈlēv/Verb:
Be unable to believe (someone or something).
Have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.

[_Quasimodo]

I think my dogs may be atheists. They have never expressed a desire to attend church or pray (they do roll over on command).

Would they vote for Ron Paul though?

They seem to be leaning towards Herman Cain. I've been playing CNN on the TV so they can keep up on all the scandals. We'll see.

[_Buffalo]

I don't think it's a recent innovation that the word means ""one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"

Babies meet the second half of that statement

Disbelieve means "to refuse credence to; to reject the truth or reality of." It's an active disbelief, not simply a lack of belief.

One of several definitions. Let's not play the DCP game of pretending that only one definition of many (the one that fits your argument) is legitimate.

[_Morley]

dis·be·lieve/ˌdisbəˈlēv/Verb:
Be unable to believe (someone or something).
Have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.

To you, rocks are atheists?

[_Quasimodo]

I think my dogs may be atheists. They have never expressed a desire to attend church or pray (they do roll over on command).

My dog's not an atheist. He thinks I'm god.

I'm sure he's right. You control the can opener.

[_MrStakhanovite]

That's not really relevant.

'fo real?


Atheism: A Very Short Introduction by Julian Baggini, Oxford Press, page 7

The definition I'm using is a legitimate one - albeit the most inclusive of possible definitions.

so "no belief in gods" can apply to anything, and has nothing to do with a cognitive ability to understand the proposition? Should the taxonomy of all animate and inanimate objects include the description of atheism, with an asterik next to human?

[_maklelan]

dis·be·lieve/ˌdisbəˈlēv/Verb:
Be unable to believe (someone or something).
Have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.

You deleted the example sentence which showed the usage actually indicates a conscious decision, not just an inability to affirm the opposing idea:

to disbelieve is as much an act of faith as belief

[_maklelan]

One of several definitions. Let's not play the DCP game of pretending that only one definition of many (the one that fits your argument) is legitimate.

Let's not play the far more common game of pretending that whatever usage among many is most helpful to you can just be nakedly asserted to be the usage to which a specific text appeals. Here's the entirety of the OED's definition of "disbelief":

The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief.

It can't get much more clear than this, Buffalo. Again, this kind of question lets everyone know who is thinking critically and who is not.

[_MrStakhanovite]

The definition I'm using is a legitimate one - albeit the most inclusive of possible definitions.

Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion (2002) page 18

[_thews]

Let me be very blunt... both foundations for the existence of God are built on infinite concepts. On one hand, who created God? On the other, who created matter? The end result is infinite and you are finite, so an infinite thought process is required to contemplate the answer.

I see a lot of argument by assertion here, with a lot of unsupported assumptions.

Are you claiming that the answer to matter *happening* one instance in time (pick the start of the timeline) is within the realm of comprehension for a human perspective? I'm not asking you to explain it, but rather do you feel it's feasible to come up with a theory that explains it? If you do, I would then counter that the properties involved that does supposedly explain it are built on properties that already existed.