Those are two different things. I’m pretty sure your roommate will have considered belief in gods. So in his or her case I would think I knew they were an explicit atheist. If, on the other hand, you would tell me they had discovered a hitherto unknown tribe on some remote tropical island, and that the members of that tribe were atheists, I would not presume to know they were explicit atheists. Here’s my definition again:
“An atheist is a being who is capable of holding beliefs with regard to gods, yet who does not hold the belief in at least one god.” (By the way, I realise I mixed up explicit and positive atheism at one point. What I wrote formerly should read: “Now if he(/she/it) has never considered this belief, he is an implicit atheist. If he has considered it and has rejected it, he is an explicit atheist. And if a positive atheist asserts that that no gods exist, he is a positive atheist (a.k.a. strong or hard atheist). All other atheists are negative atheists (a.k.a. weak or soft atheists).”
A newborn human is an atheist. So your assertion that it is not possible to say that a newborn human is an atheist has been shown to be false.
What attributes would you say are required for one to be an atheist?
What word would you use to describe a human who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?
Please indicate which definition or premise is false and why it is false.
It sounds like you’re saying some types of humans who hold the belief that a god exists are theists and others are not theists. Please explain how a human could hold the belief that a god exists and not be a theist.
Likewise, it sounds like you’re saying some types of humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists are not theists and others don’t fall into the category of “not theist”. Please explain how a human could not hold the belief that a god exists and not be “not a theist”.
Please answer the question.
Does non-theist mean the same as “not a theist”?
So you would agree that a newborn baby doesn’t fall into the category of those who hold the belief that a god exists. What term do you think appropriately describes those humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists?
Line 1 - Not necessarily. A zebra is a being and it can’t be a theist, atheist or antitheist.
Line 2 - Again, I agree with you
Line 3 - A godbeliever can be a Antitheist
Line 4 - What do you mean by ‘Intellectual’?
Line 5 - A child can be a theist, atheist or antitheist. All 3 of your choices are wrong
Line 6 - One who is against theism can be an atheist
Line 7 - What do the hyphens mean? BTW, one who is against atheism can be an atheist
Line 8 - One who is against antitheism can be an atheist. I know many of them.
A newborn baby by definition is an atheist. Please provide your source which says a newborn baby isn’t an atheist.
Please answer the question.
Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?
Would you say a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists to not be a theist?
Would you say one who is not a theist is a non-theist?
Would you say a non-theist is an atheist?
Right, I wouldn’t. A non-theist is not a theist, but not-a-theist is not a non-theist. That is, every non-theist is not a theist, but not every not-a-theist is a non-theist. A kettle, for example, is not a theist, but it’s not a non-theist. A non-theist is a person.
Yes, though not necessarily an explicit atheist–let alone a positive atheist.
Correct? You asked me how I would define “atheist”. This is how I define “atheist” (noun). More precisely, I subscribe to this definition, which I extracted from the Wikipedia pages on positive and negative atheism and on explicit and implicit atheism, because I consider it perfectly sensible.
And you are the one who dictates who and what an atheist is. Oh, no. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are absolutely false.
Read my posts. I have answered your questions over and over again.
What word would you use to describe a robot that does not hold the belief that oil does not exist?
Mutcer, I have said that again and again. Please read my post and do not say the same again and again!
It does not “sound”, because you are not able to hear my writing.
Why should I? Is it because you hear my writing on a keyboard?
It does not “sound”, because you are not able to hear my writing.
May I hope that you can learn?
Why should I? Is it because you hear my writing on a keyboard?
Please explain how which human can hold a belief.
I have answered your question and many other questions again and again, but you are ignoring everything. Please answer my question why you are ignoring everything.
Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it, or do you even ignore it before you have read it?
No, and I said you this many times. A human newborn is not able to do that - as I said to you several times in plenty of posts and in two threads, over and over again.
Read my posts - without ignoring.
It does not matter.
It is defined. Read my posts - without ignoring.
No one of them is wrong. Like I said over and over again: [size=109]A newborn or other children are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists.[/size]
Not by definition, and here we are talking about definitions. Like I said again and again: It is the prefix “a” that tells us why an atheist is not against theism and not against antitheism. And it is the prefix “a” too that tells us why so many antitheists call themselves “atheists” - either they do not know better, or they lie.
Guess what they can mean! It distracts you from your usual doings (e.g. ignoring and repeating).
Should that be the summit of nihilism? An Atheist can never be against atheism - by definition.
Then they tell you lies. It is the prefix “a” that tells us that an atheist can never be against anything which has to do with theism (including antitheism) - by definition! You are an antitheist, and those you know are probably against you, against your atheistic character, or they are telling lies, or both. There are merely a few humans in the world who are really atheists. Most of them who call themselves “atheists” are either antitheists or theists.
A newborn human is not an atheist, can never be an atheist, and will never be an atheist. A newborn human has nothing to do with that. Again and again: The answer you get, if you ask whether newborns can be atheists is always: NOT DEFINED.
Newborn humans have nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism - as I told you over and over again.
[size=104]The sources are all results of science (all their disciplines that have to do with it), the common sense, the perception / awareness / cognition, all experiences with newborn humans.[/size]
Babies are also no pretheists; they have absoluetly nothing to do with theism, atheism, anititheism.
According to Mutcer’s false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus false conclusions everything and anything is an “atheist”.
I hope that you know what it consequently means when someone “deals” with such false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus false conclusions and insists on them as strongly as Mutcer does.
Since you and I have different ideas of what atheist means, unless you knew what I meant by atheist, you wouldn’t really know much about my roommate merely by my referring to him as an atheist.
How would you categorize those humans (or homo sapiens) who don’t hold the belief that a god exists? Would you agree that they are not theists? Would you consider them to be non-theists?
So it was a trick question? In any case, note that I wrote “I would think I knew”, not “I would know”.
Yes and no, in that order. If by “humans” you mean homines sapientes (sapientes), a human that does not hold the belief that a god exists is not a theist, though not necessarily a non-theist–a baby, for example.
Why would a non-theist and “not a theist” be different? Are you of the position that “non-theist” suggests the person has some familiarity with theism?
