Your statement is nonsense, because it has nothing at all to do with reality.
That is the bottom line truth of it.
Also called “Secularism”.
Yep.
That is why the languages change so much, people using the language against the masses; not allowing certain words, insisting on other words, constant manipulation … just like what is happening on this thread.
Yes. Exactly. That makes this thread and many other threads terrible and shows their nihilistic character. Such threads are threads for ILN, for example: ILN 1 („I Love Nietzsche“), ILN 2 („I Love Nonsense“), ILN 3 („I Love Nothing“); and besides ILN also for: ILSC (“I Love Social Criticism”). So I remind you of this:
ILN = (4) ILN 1, (5) ILN 2, (6) ILN 3.
If you wish to address my latest post on the thread topic with an intellectually honest reply, I’ll be happy to continue the discussion with you. Otherwise, I’ll skip over your posts in this thread.
Don’t forget ILBS
… I’ll let you ask Mithus what that means. 
Yes, but excuse me, because the problem is that I do not always understand your language: Mutcerish. For example: In Mutcerish questions are “not questions” (“a-questions”? or “anti-questions”?), and answers are “not answers” (“a-answers”? or anti-answers"?), contradictions are “not contradictions”, … and so on …
The following shows a semantic feature analysis for the words “theist”, “atheists”, “antitheist”:
[size=140]Features _______| Lexemes ____________________|
---------------------| “Theist” | “Atheist” | “Antitheist” |
Living being ___| yes | yes | yes ____|
Human being __| yes | yes | yes ____|
Godbeliever __| yes | no | no ____|
Intellectual ___| yes | yes | yes ____|
Child _______| no | no | no ____|
[/size]
One could add more features as basis for those lexemes (“theist”, “atheist”, “antitheist”) which are also conceptual preconditions, but more features or preconditions are not necessary for this thread. Mark my words: “theist”, “atheists”, “antitheist” are no children! Newborns are children and are not able to really intellctually process the meanings of the words “theist”, “theism”, “theistic”, “atheist”, “atheism”, “atheistic”, “antitheist”, “antitheism”, “antitheistic”.
END.
Okay. I would say “ILBS” belongs to ILN, espcially to ILN 2 (“I Love Nonsense”):
Here comes a typical ILN question:
Do you think that Purgatorius (allegedly an “ancestor of the human beings”) was a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist?
It sounds like you’re interested in continuing on this discussion. Thanks for making the effort. I’ll address this post only you after you address each of my points in the first post in which you avoided my points and questions. Here it is again:
It sounds like we are in agreement on whether or not a newborn holds the belief that a god exists. But for some reason, you’re not aware that the term for one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists is ‘atheist’. Therefore, a newborn is an atheist.
That’s like saying the precondition of not believing dragons exist is the belief in dragons. Would you say newborns hold the belief that dragons exist?
What is the false precondition and how do you know it is false?
By that logic, a newborn isn’t a newborn, as a newborn doesn’t know what the word ‘newborn’ means. Otherwise you’re engaging in the fallacious argument of special pleading.
Do you agree with me that atheist means a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?
I gather you don’t have a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what ‘atheist’ means to be an atheist.
And your point?
Agreed. As long as such a god isn’t posited to possess logically incompatible attributes.
If the god I’ve posited is ridiculous, then the Christian god is equally ridiculous. Neither can be verified to exist and unless either is posited to have logically incompatible attributes, then neither can be falsified.
If an atheist is not a gnostic atheist, then by definition, he/she is an agnostic atheist. For more on this, see wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … ._agnostic
If all humans stopped believing in gods, a person who didn’t believe a god exists would still be an atheist.
No you didn’t. Again: What is the difference between a “non-godbeliever” and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?
Please explain how a person who is not a theist is not an atheist. How do you come to the conclusion that atheist = not a theist?
In this world of two categories (theist/atheist)…
If a theist is hit on the head, loses the ability to think and goes into a vegetative state, then he automatically becomes an atheist. :-"
From the book Atheism For Dummies dummies.com/how-to/content/i … heism.html
[b][i]Implicit Versus Explicit Atheism
By Dale McGowan from Atheism For Dummies
Labels can be helpful. There are different labels and types of atheism, among them, implicit atheism and explicit atheism. These labels provide a quick and useful shorthand for understanding what a person does, or who she is, or even what he believes is true about the world.
A quote from an 1861 speech by the pioneering feminist and atheist Ernestine Rose shows how many atheists think of atheism. Rose said, “It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are Atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so.” In other words, people who set religious belief aside are returning to a state that is natural for humans — atheism.
Although technically true, this conception of atheism can be a bit misleading. If you define atheism as simply “the absence of belief in God,” a newborn baby (not to mention a pastrami sandwich) qualifies as an atheist because it lacks belief in God. But many are inclined to see the difference between a person’s atheism at birth and their atheism now as a pretty important one.
These two terms define that difference perfectly:
Implicit atheism: An implicit atheist is one who doesn’t believe in any gods but hasn’t consciously rejected such belief.
Explicit atheism: An explicit atheist is one who has consciously chosen to disbelieve — who has, to put it plainly, an actual opinion on the matter.
Other abstract labels exist — implicit negative, explicit negative, weak versus strong, soft versus hard, and so on — and they range from mildly interesting to redundant to silly. You don’t need to know what they all mean to understand what atheism is.[/i][/b]
So to answer your question, a person who was a believer and then goes into a permanent vegetative state would likely be an atheist. But the problem with the word atheist, is while it covers both implicit atheism and explicit atheism, it is often misinterpreted in one or more ways. To some, it means one or more of the following:
- I hate god
- I worship the devil
- I do hold the belief that no gods exist
- I hate Christians
Et Cetera.
There is also a significant difference between:
- One who holds the belief that no god(s) exist
- One who doesn’t hold the belief that god(s) exist
#1 is limited to explicit atheism
#2 could be implicit or explicit atheism - and would include newborn babies
So an explicit atheist could be one who either:
- holds the belief that no god or gods exist
- doesn’t hold the belief that a god or gods exist
No. Not in that way. Again:
I have answered all your questions several times.
Three categories: (1) theist, (2) atheist, b antitheist[/b]. 
Yes. Another example:
According to Mutcer Purgatorius was an “atheist”. 
What about my language do you not understand?
Since atheist means to not hold the belief that a god exists, the “no” for Child/Atheist is incorrect. If you said “Explicit Atheist” instead of limiting it to “Atheist”, then you would be correct.
Then what word would you use to describe one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?
Then please copy and paste the answer you provided. Or tell me what page your answer is on.
This is a long thread, and it’s a lot more work for me to read through the entire thread while trying to read your intentions to find what you think is the answer to my question than for me to ask the question and for you to answer it again.
A little piece of wisdom. One who avoids a question by saying “I already answered that” is similar to one who responds with “no comment”. It almost always means that they are unwilling to lie, but know that an honest answer would seriously compromise their position. It’s called reading between the lines.
Three categories: (1) theist, (2) atheist, b antitheist[/b].
[/quote]
Those categories can overlap.
One can be both a theist and an antitheist
One can be both an atheist and an antitheist
One cannot be both a theist and an atheist - unless we are saying a theist with respect to one god and an atheist with respect to another god.
I need more information on Purgatorius. Is Purgatorius considered to have been a person? If not, then he wasn’t an atheist.
Where did I say that?
Actually, it is not technically true.
Research since 1861 indicates that young children form ideas about god(s) quite naturally without being brainwashed, manipulated, coerced or indoctrinated. Not too surprising given how common theism is throughout the world.
This seems to endlessly preoccupy atheists. Lord knows why. 
It’s not even an interesting distinction.
Perhaps he’s referring to specific gods and not the idea of some kind of higher power.
That’s subjective. What is interesting for some may not be interesting for others.
What is interesting about it for you?
What difference does it make?
Your “since” lacks the rationale. You are using the false definitions and the false preconditions, and the reason for that has much to do with your language which is split in Mutcerish and English. Both are not suitable enough to explain what the words “theist”, “atheist”, and “antitheist” exactly mean, because in order to accurately define what those words and concepts mean one has to know the original meaning of them, and this original meaning can only be found in their original language which is Ancient Greek.
According to your definitions and preconditions all ancestors of the humans, all daed humans, all prenatal humans, all newborn humans, all childlike humans, all disabled humans, all menatlly ill humans, all humans with Alzheimer’s desease, all demented humans, all unconscious humans, and many other humans are “atheists”. So your definitions and preconditions are completely false.
Again:
Children can never be theists, atheists, antitheists.
Are you really not able to read a whole post?
No. And even this I have already said many times. What is your problem, man?
You are telling nonsense again. Why did you not read my posts? Are you not able to read? What is your problem, Mutcer?
According to your own definitions and preconditions - thus: the false definitions and the the false preconditions - Purgatorius was an atheist.
Purgatorius:
In this thread.
I do not know why you are posting texts, because you seem to have problems with the reading.
… a typically dumb quote … seriously dumb.
It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are ignorant, and were education not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. In other words, people who set education aside are returning to a state that is natural for humans — ignorant/atheism.
Yes, a typically dumb quote. You merely have to read the used “keywords” in order to know what is going on. And b.t.w.: Rose could already speak a bit Mutcerish.
Yes, of course.
James, you know why so many antireligous and antitheistic (and rhetorically called “atheistic”) people are “posting” here (this subforum is called: “Religion and Spirituality” 
). 
Arminius / JSS, please refrain from the ad-hom towards Mutcer… you have been warned!
There haven’t been any ad homs toward Mutcer
… for heaven sake, get a dictionary, woman.