That definition might be valid for English speaking humans, but it is not valid when it comes to philosophy, to science, especially to the original meaning of the word, because that is the only valid definition.
You may refer to the false English version, I always refer to the true original version.
Emm … since it is an English word, how can it be false English? 
Not the English word itself is false, but the Interpretation of the original word, the Ancient Greek word, is false. I said: “the false English Version”. So the word “version” is the noun, not the word “English” which is the adjective (like “false”), and “version” refers to the interpretation which is false.
A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist. The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words “theism”, “atheism”, and “antitheism” would have no meaning at all. A newborn is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what “god” and “gods” are.
Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.
It is a requirement, of course.
A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist. The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words “theism”, “atheism”, and “antitheism” would have no meaning at all. A newborn is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what “god” and “gods” are.
Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.
Do you know another language besides English?
A shoddy trick! “If a logically impossible Mutcer is posited, one can know for sure that the existence of such Mutcer is impossible.”
God is possible. Another universe outside of this is possible. We just do not know something like that, but we can believe in that, because it is possible.
I did not say that one is not free to do that.
“Love” does not necessarily mean a typical character of a god or gods. Your example is ridiculous. Is it possible that you do not know what “god” means?
No. Atheists are atheists.
The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words “theism”, “atheism”, and “antitheism” would have no meaning at all. A newborn, for example, is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what “god” and “gods” are.
Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.
I already said this several times.
Which “first person”?
Neither atheists nor theists - like I said several times.
So what are you saying that the ancient Greek word actually meant?
The same is true of adult atheists.
James, we already had this kind of conservation. Okay, like I said several times (also in this thread):
Yes we did. And in those conversations, I explained English to you;
The Greek version for someone who had no affiliation would be an “Antheist”.
what is the importance of these differences…
And this was my response:
And one more example: Why are those many ILP members who call themselves “atheists” always posting in this subforum (Religion and Spirituality) and always negatively refering to theism and theists? They are antitheists!
English is no where close to a strictly codified language. Languages change quite often, including German. Is all of German wrong today merely because ancient Germania spoke it and spelled it differently? French is the same way. Their spelling indicates how they are “supposed” to be speaking it. But do they speak it the way they spell it? Not even close. So The French don’t know how to speak French and we must correct them?
When the dictionaries in a land by in large agree on the use of a word, that is the use of the word. It doesn’t matter if it is anatomically correctly codified. They aren’t machine languages. And what some word USED to mean might be relevant, but it is only what USED to be, not what IS.
If I may say, all this appeal to the dictionary is amateurish at best. It is not how we learn the definitions of words. Children don’t learn to talk by their parents reading the dictionary to them before bed every night, and I don’t remember the dictionary being read to me in school as a means of educating me (in fact, I remember getting reprimanded one time for reading the dictionary as my choice book for reading time).
The fact of the matter is, the dictionary takes its instruction from us, we don’t take our instruction from the dictionary. Oh, sure, on the rare occasion, we may look up a word or two in the dictionary to get a precise understanding of its meaning, but this is the exception to the rule. The rule is this: when the authors of the dictionary sit down to write it, they don’t think “Now what crazy definitions are we going to whimsically come up with to define the words in the English language.” Rather, they think “Now how does my community define this word, that word, etc.?” The author takes his instruction from his community, and that’s what goes into the dictionary. Thus, it is we who are the ultimate source of the definition of words, we who are the final authority on their meaning. The dictionary is, at best, a mere reflection of how we, as a community, have decided to define our words.
James, I am not grumbling about English or other languages. My intention is to show how we should philosophically use words, and “death” languages like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit do not change anymore, and because of that fact they are best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy.
For example: The meanings of the Ancient Greek “a” and “anti” are solid, fixed meanings. So we should use them when it comes to be precise. And all Western languages do use them when it comes to be precise (for example in science). Why should ILP members not be precise?
I agree with you in that such is what would be nice for philosophers to do. But the problem is that people at ILP are mostly political drones, not philosophers. And they use language for political affect and manipulation, not accuracy. When it comes to accuracy,
They
Could
NOT
Care
less.
Actual philosophers are smart enough to simply choose a less ambiguous word.
If ILP members should not be precise, then I would stop posting on ILP. In that case all words, all posts, all threads of ILP would be OFF TOPIC, because they would have nothing at all to do with ILP, ILP would not be ILP but ILK (I LOVE Kaffeeklatsch), and that is not what I want ILP to be.
Well, if you want to get together and change it, let me know. Until then, to quote Moses, it is what it is.
That is absolutely right, James.
Yes.
Being precise, we should call ILP “IL”, because the portion of philosophy is merely 1/8 (12,5%):
That is true. I have been said the same before in the other thread too.
I do not know about other languages like French or German, but English is certainly a very unscientific or loose language. It relies on practice far more than rules, which is not a good sign, besides making it difficult for learning.
English is such a language which you cannot learn only by books, especially its speaking part. It is confusing in general, not to say about exceptions.
But, let me mention here that both of Hindi and Sanskrit are governed by strict rules, both in writing and speaking. Means, you have to write exactly how you speak and vice verse. No confusion. I do not know about other Asian languages but my guess is that they will follow the same practice too.
With love,
Sanjay
You left out Aristotle, Kant, and James S Saint. 
Maybe;
“I Love 9% Philosophy” 
They belong to the real ILP (compare: (7)), because they are real philosophers. 
Yah.
If newborns could be classified as “atheists” (and newborns are NOT atheists), then the rulers would misuse this, because they want the children for themselves, for their system of rule, they want no godbelievers, no theists. What they want are antitheists who firstly call themselves “atheists” before they show their true face, that they are against theists, thus that they are antitheists. According to the rulers parents who are theists are enemies. Therefore the rulers use a linguistic trick in order to make out of all parents and especially out of all children (!) antitheists. We know that from history: the rulers of the systems of egalitarianism like communism and other socialisms wanted all people, especially all children (!), to be in conformity with the system. Currently the system is a globalistic system, and it is as antitheistic (rhetorically called: “atheistic”) as the systems of egalitarianism. The difference between the globalism and the egalitarianism is that the globalism conists of both the dictatorship of egalitarianism and the dictatorship of liberalism (a.k.a. capitalism), whereas the egalitarianism consists of the dictatorship of egalitarianism and nothing else, but both globalism and egalitarianism are antitheistic (rhetorically called: “atheistic”).
Rulers, especially the current rulers, want to be like gods; so they want no other gods besides them. If all gods of the past and of the present will be „dead“, thus out of the brains of their subjects, then the rulers will dictate a new theism (with themselves as gods - of course), and then atheism and antitheism will be forbidden. That’s history - its process is not “progressive”, not “linear”, but it is periodic, thus cyclic, exactly: spiral-cyclic.
This thread is interesting but also terrible, because behind all those euphemistic (rhetoric!) words like “atheists”, “atheism”, “atheistic” of those who are against theists, theism, theistic, thus who are antitheists, permanently works the nihilism (the rhetoric “atheism” is one of its euphemistic and dishonest forms, antitheism is its strongest and honest form against theism).
Very unscientific, yes. Since the 18th century English has been becoming a language of mongers, thus a trade language, commercial language.
James referred to my post, so let me quote myself:
This “dead” languages are really best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy. “Living” languages are not as best placed to do this as the “dead” languages, although German has been the science language of the world, incl. the philosophical language of the world, for about two centuries. German is also best placed, but it is a “living” language, thus the meanings of its words change, and that is not the case in “dead” languages, so they are best placed to give us “dead”, thus fixed definitions in order to be even more precise / accurate, especially in the long run.
More practise than rules - that is indeed the problem of the English language, yes. (Compare what I said above: language of mongers, thus a trade language, commercial language).
That’s right too. But for Germans (incl. Austrians and the Swiss), Dutchmen, Flemish Belgians, and Scandinavians English is not difficult to learn, because all their languages and the English language are very closed relatives. They all are Germanic languages. But the fact that English is the Germanic language which relies on practice far more than on rules is also the reason why the modern people (especially the modern young people) of the other Germanic languages like English. Most of the modern people (especially the modern young people) like nihilism, because it is easier and funnier to deconstruct than to construct.
Sanskrit and Hindi are Indogermanic languages. Did you know that, Zinnat? Compare that languages with other Indogermanic languages, for example with those in Europe. That is very interesting.