saltesc comments on Vulnerability tactics

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (16 children)

Oh, for sure. But as an atheist, I don't tarnish the idea by being narrow-minded and exclusively anti-Abrahamic.

I'm of the opinion that you can't be atheistic without first knowing theism. Knowing just one of them is a start.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 0 points 10 months ago (15 children)

Wild. I don't think there is a pre-requisite knowledge to be an atheist. All babies are born atheists. Religion is learned later.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (14 children)

No, they are not. To be an atheist, you must have first heard about and understood the concept of gods, thus being then able to form the ism (idea) that you are without them.

No ism can be born into as they are not states of being, they are ideas, concepts, opinions, etc. States of being end with -ic.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (13 children)

I don't see the point of this distinction. When I say "an atheist" i mean only and exactly a person who does not believe any gods exist.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

Yeah, and that's correct for you. However a newborn doesn't know what gods are, so they're unable to adhere to a belief, opinion, idea, concept, etc (Isms) in whether gods exist or not. It is not that they don't believe gods exist, it's that they are unable to believe or disbelieve, since they don't know what gods are yet.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 1 point 10 months ago* (9 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 0 points 10 months ago* (7 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 0 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

Disbelief is a form of belief. On the spectrum of faith, it is refusal of the thing.

Choosing to not believe in something is disbelief. Not believing in something choicelessly is not.

How could a child express disbelief in something they have no knowledge of? They cannot believe or disbelieve in it. They don't know what it is. The spectrum is non-existent for them, literally. They cannot align themselves on whether something is true/real or not because they don't know what the thing is yet. They cannot be an ist in ANYTHING without knowing what the prefixing topic of the ism is.

There are no insults, so that's affirming news to me on your position. Thanks for calling me a man. Good luck with your interpretation of English and ideologies, but don't expect the world to change for you any time soon.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments