Buffalo wrote: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
This is something believers like to tell themselves when they're trying to convince themselves that science and atheism are religions. It's an act of insecurity on their part.
I didn't delete anything, by the way - it's as I found it.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: 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?
The context, I think, is human, but yes, technically rocks are atheist (atheos = godless). As Tarski has already said, the question of atheism in babies isn't terribly important, but anyone who does not believe in god is an atheist, technically.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
If God was once a man, is it possible He was once an atheist? (ouch my head is starting to hurt)
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Buffalo wrote:Yes, that's one definition. Let's not get all DCP "insider."
You've not been able to show your alternative definition is actually valid. You've only asserted it is. I invited you to show that the usage you advocate is found anywhere, but you didn't bother. The ball is has come to rest on your side of the court.
Buffalo wrote:This is something believers like to tell themselves when they're trying to convince themselves that science and atheism are religions. It's an act of insecurity on their part.
That you left out the part of the quote that precludes your reading is something believers like to tell themselves when they're trying to convince themselves that science and atheism are religions? How do you figure? I've never tried to insist that science and atheism are religions.
Buffalo wrote:I didn't delete anything, by the way - it's as I found it.
You didn't quote the whole thing because you knew that the example sentence appealed to a usage that conflicted with your reading. You're also neglecting to respond to the other definitions I've provided which show your reading is inaccurate. This is quite a weak showing, Buffalo.
Buffalo wrote:The context, I think, is human, but yes, technically rocks are atheist (atheos = godless). As Tarski has already said, the question of atheism in babies isn't terribly important, but anyone who does not believe in god is an atheist, technically.
Actually it's been shown repeatedly by appeals to actual publications that it does not "technically" refer to anyone who does not believe in God. It refers, technically and in every other sense, to someone who rejects the notion of deity. You've only been able to base your conclusion on the force of your own assertions.
Also, no, the question is not terribly important, but as I pointed out at the beginning of the discussion, those who prefer emotive rhetoric to critical thinking will fight tooth and nail for the little point they think this idea scores for them, which is what you're currently doing. There's always at least one of you guys around to prove that point for me.
Buffalo wrote:Yes, that's one definition. Let's not get all DCP "insider."
You've not been able to show your alternative definition is actually valid. You've only asserted it is. I invited you to show that the usage you advocate is found anywhere, but you didn't bother. The ball is has come to rest on your side of the court.
Well, my definition came from the Wiki entry on atheism, so I suppose that means someone besides me is using it.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Well isn't this argument rich? Adamant declaration of what it means to be atheist, but heaven forbid an atheist makes an assessment of what theists mean by theism.
Basically, this argument boils down to "my strawman is better than yours..."
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Buffalo wrote:The context, I think, is human, but yes, technically rocks are atheist (atheos = godless). As Tarski has already said, the question of atheism in babies isn't terribly important, but anyone who does not believe in god is an atheist, technically.
Actually it's been shown repeatedly by appeals to actual publications that it does not "technically" refer to anyone who does not believe in God. It refers, technically and in every other sense, to someone who rejects the notion of deity. You've only been able to base your conclusion on the force of your own assertions.
Yes, that's one definition. I understand your need to only acknowledge the definitions which support the argument to which you've attached yourself.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.