Which part of the following do you disagree with and why?
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
Obviously the first. I mean, he does think it’s true that an atheist is such a person, but he disagrees that that completely defines an atheist; according to him, an atheist must also be capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
A car is a vehicle that has wheels.
A bike is a vehicle.
A bike has wheels.
Therefore a bike is a car.
Interesting that it plays out like that. Perhaps this would be better:
A person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists is an atheist
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
If I’m not mistaken, the first statement would not be true according to Arminius. And according to me, the first is true but the second is false. This is because I think a person is by definition capable of holding the belief that a god exists, whereas Arminius doesn’t.
I have answered all your questions many times. I do not have to answer your questions again and again.
An atheist must also be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. Of course!
Mutcer:
“An elephant is an mammalian animal with four legs.”
“A mouse is an mammalian animal with four legs.”
“Therefore a mouse is an elephant.” *** - ??? - Did you get it?
Please let change your false program.
You are mistaken. Please guess how many of them are false:
Well, if I’m not mistaken, 2) 2 statements, according to you. For the fourth statement is a conclusion from the first three statements. So if the first statement is false according to you, then so is the last. Note that I didn’t say that only the first statement would be false according to you!
And according to logic - so: you’re still on the right track.
According to logic that is true - so: you’re still on the right track.
Yes, but there are seven possibilities:
a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last;
b) if the second statement is false, then so is the last;
c) if the third statement is false, then so is the last;
d) if the first and the second statement are false, then so is the last;
e) if the first and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
f) if the second and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
g) if the first, the second, and the third statement are false, then so is the last.
Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don’t believe, it doesn’t change the fact that they don’t hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists.
The fact is that newborn babies are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists. If one is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then this one has nothing to do with your „statements“. Your “statements” are completely based on your false definitions, your false premises (preconditions), and your false conclusions.
B.t.w.: Not only his definition of “atheist” is wrong / false - many other definition are also wrong / false. He ignores reality and logical rules. His “world” is a “world of antiscientists, antilogicians, antirealists, antitheists (not to forget!), …”, just an “antiworld”.
So what shall we do? For example: Stop posting here? Do you have any suggestion, Zinnat?
I said it already… atheist has two definitions, one is anti-theist or non-theist, and the other is “lack of belief in…” This means that they don’t believe God exists or doesn’t exist, and by this definition… all rocks trees and babies are atheists. Sorry, that’s how the definitions work. That’s how the atheistic community uses the definitions… just because 90% of people believe in God and write the dictionaries, doesn’t mean the other 10% are wrong. All babies are atheists.
The latter is not an established fact. Both Arminius and myself dispute it. And though he and I define the term “person” differently, we both dispute your claim for the same reason. Let’s forget the concept “person” for a moment. Then Arminius and I both subscribe to the following definition of “atheist”, which is at odds with yours:
“An atheist is an entity that 1) is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and 2) does not hold the belief that a god exists.”
Do you, Mutcer, assert that newborn human babies are capable of holding the belief that a god exists?
I have read them. Anyway, if you want to do this with a dictionary, that’s fine with me, but I insist that we then stick to a single one. In your next post, you mention two, so please choose one of those and we’ll settle this by the hand of that one.
I was the one who introduced the terms “explicit and implicit atheism” into these discussions, by linking to the Wikipedia article on them. In that article, it says that the terms were coined by George H. Smith, and quotes him as saying:
[size=95]“The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.” (emphasis mine)[/size]
As Smith is silent on newborn children (ibid.), the implication–no pun intended–is that newborn children are not atheists at all, not even implicit atheists, because they do not have the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved.
