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.