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.
Of course that is a controversial meaning of atheism. Definitions are always interpreted, and people have been plying the word atheism in particular pretty hard in recent years.
I would never use the label atheist for a baby since I think atheism entails having a position.
Only if you already think it applies to babies…
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?
With respect to believing a god exists, would you label a baby as believing a god exists?
What I think has absolutely no bearing on whether a certain correct usage of the word atheism sheds any light on what it means.
You did not read my posts.
You did not read my posts. Otherwise you would know the answer.
I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.
No. Your statement is nonsense. Are you sure that you know what logic is?
I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.
That is your answer to my question? Please read my question again.
I did not say that god but that your example is ridiculous. Please read my post again.
Or an antignostic atheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme “anti”?
Or an antitheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme “anti”?
The situation that humans stopped believing in god or gods will never be reached. When it comes to religious, metaphysical, philosophical, spriritual aspects humans are transcendence beings.
Precisely spoken an atheist is not “one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists”. Again: I said this several times. Why do you not read my posts?
I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.
It’s obvious I did a tremendous GOTCHA! on you.
What is a “gotcha”. An ad hominem?
Excuse me, English is not my first language.
You have asked the same questions again and again. So why should I answer again and again? It is not fair of you to demand that I repeat my answers again and again.
It means you acknowledge that I have a good point. But for reasons that aren’t important, you don’t want to admit it.
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.