[size=109]UTTER NONSENSE ![/size]
Did anybody say that "newborn humans are no humans? Besides you yourself, Mutcer, and Sauwelios, no one else!
Your nonsensical question also shows that you are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.
Your “statement” that “a newborn human is not a human” is a contradiction, absolute nonsense. Of course. And: Your “statement” that a newborn human is like an adult human" is also a contradiction, absolute nonsense. In addition: These two contradictory “statements” also contradict each other, so that the conclusion of this absolutely contradictory “statements” is: “A human is a human and not a human” - which is a typically contradictory “statement” of nihilistic debutants.
No. The burden of proof is upon you, dear magic Mutcer, to show that “newborns are capable of holding a belief that a god exists”, because in order (a) to believe that a god exists and/or (b) to believe that a god does not exist one has to be capable of holding a belief that a god exists, as I said and showed several times, and newborn humans are not capabe of holding a belief that a god exists, as I also said and showed several times - again and again.
Stop ignoring everything, Mutcer!
In addition:
You are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.
Ignorant. :shrug:
You have actual knowledge that a god exists?
Doh!
operator error.
Sorry, Late to the party. Twas just a response to the op. I did not intend to imply that you personally or anyone, but the babe, was ignorant. :center of the universe?:
I don’t think I have “actual knowledge” whether I exist. I’m in good company.
Do your sources indicate that newborn babies have the cognitive abilities to believe that a supreme being exists?
Atheism is the lack of belief that a god exists. It doesn’t require that the atheist be aware of what a god is.
Rocks and trees aren’t atheists because they aren’t people. An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.
The people discussing atheism in this forum are explicit atheists. A newborn baby is an implicit atheist.
Can you show why it is utter nonsense?
An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.
A newborn baby human is a person
A newborn baby human doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists
Therefore a newborn baby human is an atheist
I’m not positing that newborn babies do hold a belief. As the default position is one of non-belief - whether it be UFOs, aliens, the tooth fairy, Bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - it is assumed newborn babies don’t hold a belief until it is shown otherwise. So the burden of proof is upon you to show that newborn babies do hold the belief that a god exists.
All your posts imply the false premise that “newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists”. This utter nonsense is what you are implicitly saying, again and again, by ignoring anything else. In order to be an atheist one has to be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. This is what I said to you again and again. If one is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then (and only then!) this one is capable of becoming a theist, an antitheist, or even an atheist.
I said this again and again, Mutcer, so please stop ignoring it.
Arminius and Mutcer, do you agree with the following definition, which is based on the definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno, but edited to incorporate what Arminius has been saying? “An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.”
A newborn is a person, but a newborn is not a person capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
A newborn is incapable of holding the belief that a god exists… hence not an atheist.
Person and newborn are not synonyms.
That depends on your definition. To me, a person is by definition an entity capable of holding such beliefs–in the sense of “capable” I subscribe to. In my view, a person is an entity that understands what a person is (compare Heidegger’s concept of “dasein”). All natural gods are personal gods; belief in impersonal gods is already a kind of atheism.
Agreed.
“An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists” - this is already my defintion! So there is nothing to “edit” or to “incorporate”. In addition: Mutcer’s “definitions” are false.
A “definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno”? That can only be a false definition.
Which one do you mean?
Suggestions:
This “definition” is false. “Atheism” is the “lack of theism” (“a-theism” = “non-theism”, “lack of theism”). The “lack of a belief” is an “a-belief” (= “non-belief”, “lack of belief”), so “lack of the belief that a god exists” is merely “a-belief-that-a-god-exists” (= “non-belief-that-a-god-exists”, “lack lack of a belief that a god exists”). The word “theism” does not mean “belief” but “god + ism”. Theism and its successors (not ancestors, Mutcer!) antitheism and atheism imply the belief in god, but these words do not mean “belief” or “religion” but “god and ism” (and not more, Mutcer!).
This “definition” is false, because it lacks the capability of holding the belief that a god exists.
This “statement” is false. A “newborn baby” can be any mammalian newborn baby. But the main point is that any newborn baby has nothing to do with atheism. So the the definition of “atheist” is not possible without mentioning the capability of holding the belief that a god exists. Theists, antitheists, and atheist must be capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and all newborns are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
If you were a “newborn baby” and an “implicit atheist” (???), what would you “intellctually say” (???) about god or even about theism? Theism is a precondition of antitheism and atheism. Both antitheism and atheism are impossible without godbelief and especially theism. If you want to be an atheist you have to know what “godbelief” and “theism” exactly mean before you can overcome them and become an antitheists or an atheist.
What Mutcer and his friends do is also comparable with what the egalitarian(ist)s have been doing since the so-called “french revolution”: confusing the future with the past and saying “back to nature (!), because the real humans are those who live in natural state (!), have no power (!), and do not believe in god (!) but in those humans who know what is good for them” (???). Who is really meant by the word “them”? What “is good for »them«”? What? For whom?
Exactly, so I edited it:
“An atheist is a person [who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but] who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.”
Not a single post I have made suggests or implies that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
It’s utter nonsense to you because for reasons you won’t make clear, you seem to think that a newborn baby isn’t an atheist and isn’t capable of NOT holding the belief that a god exists.
An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists. Whether or not they are capable of holding the belief is immaterial with respect to whether or not they are an atheist. Please learn the difference between implicit atheist and explicit atheist.
You’re describing a particular type of atheist. Such a person could be an explicit or implicit atheist. A person doesn’t need to be capable of holding the belief that a god exists to be an atheist.
Okay, but exactly I defined “atheist” in this way: “An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.”
The term “who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but …” should not be put in brackets, because it could be misinterpreted as an “option”, although it is no option, or in the direction of “not that relevant”, but it is most relevant. This term is the premise of that whole definition and of other premises and conclusions.
Then you have no idea of the English adverb “implicitly” and no idea of logic. I know that the English language is not suitable for logic, science (including philosophy). That is no surprise. Can you speak other languages? Maybe we will find a solution in another language. Mutcer, all your posts contain the implicit statement that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and that statement is false.
I “seem” to think that? Are you not able to read, not capable of reading? In each of my posts of this thread I wrote that a newborn human is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists and therefore not capable of being a theist, or an antitheist, or an atheist.
That is again utter nonsense.
You are implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause.
No one of the humans was an atheist before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! And no one of the humans have any single ancestor who was an atheists before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! In order to be an atheist one has to know what the prefix “a” in the substantive “atheist”, the suffix “ist” in the substantive “atheist” and the suffix “ism” in the substantive “atheism” mean. By definition: as an atheist one has to know what one “is not”, what one “lacks of”, and one has to know that this requires an intellectual processing in a modern / nihilistic sense. One can know this then (and only then), if one is at least capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
An atheist is an atheist - the exact definition: An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.
You want to “create” an animal or a stone-age human animist out of an atheist. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. You want to turn the time back to the Stone Age because of your “dream”: you want your „atheistic baby“. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. Rethink it, please!