If you can show where I asserted that vegetation, germs, insects and wild animals are people, then what you’re saying accurately reflects my position.
You continually claim that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God, and thus infants qualify. Being human hasn’t been mentioned, nor seems relevant. But then even human skin, hair, and body cells must be atheists in either case.
Is human skin considered a person? Is human hair considered a person? Are body cells considered a person?
You said “human”, before you didn’t qualify, now you say “person”.
It seems, just as the many dictionaries would indicate, that you are merely making it up as you go along for sake of what you want to preach.
I still fail to see the usefulness of dividing everything into two categories. In this case, the only reason seems to be to claim that atheism is ‘natural’ for humans. And that in turn will be used for what?
No. Most of the human ancestors were no theists, no atheists, no atheist, no godbelievers, and probably even no believers, because in nature believe does not count much.
The dividing into categories does not only depend on logic but also on definitions and preconditions. So it is not the logic allone that decides what can how be divded into categories.
Yes, that is the actual intention of the OP. This is I said earlier on this thread —
Basically OP was indirectly suggesting that humans are born with the default sense of not believing in theism but unfortunately they were somehow forced to believe otherwise. Means, having strong disbelief in the theism is some sort of natural or default position for humans and diverting from it unnatural, hence humans should discard theism and go back to their natural state, which is having belief in the nonexistence of the god.
That is the only reason why OP tried to include agnostics into atheists through playing semantics in order to present theists as opposite to rest of all.
With love,
Sanjay
Yes. And even all definitions and preconditions are false, regardles whether they refer to children, especially newborn humans, or to the most of the human ancestors.
See also here (it is not the only example - there are a great many examples).
Look up atheist at www.dictionary.com. It says it is a person who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god.
And look up person. It says a human being.
Atheism is the neutral term or what we are when we are born. But to call a baby an atheist tells us less about the baby than it does about the word ‘atheist’.
Belief in the nonexistence of a god isn’t the natural state. The natural state is no belief with respect to a god.
Positive: Holds a belief that a god exists
Neutral: Doesn’t hold a belief that a god exists and doesn’t hold a belief that no gods exist
Negative: Holds the belief that no gods exist
Note that “doesn’t hold a belief that a god exists” is neutral. Thus, atheism can be neutral - especially in the case of newborn babies.
False!
No humam was, is, an will be born as an atheist, or an antitheist, or a theist, or a godbeleiver. No human.
False!
Newborn babies and other babies as well as other children are neither “atheists”, “antitheists”, “theists” nor “neutral”.
You can only say that by using a definition of atheism based on ‘lack of belief’ phrasing and ignoring other definitions. And you also ignore the lack of capacity of newborns to have beliefs - as thought that makes no difference to practicality of using the word. :-"
He ignores almost everything.
It is just catastrophic.
Do you wish to retract your claim that atheist is the same as non-theist?
Mucter,
Did you miss this below mentioned post of mine or just avoiding it for not having any answer!
I am putting that again for your convenience.
With love,
Sanjay
I think that you are underestimating him.
He ignores nothing.
I think you have read no single post of this thread. Mutcer’s mistakes, errors, flaws are too obvious. If you had read my and his posts of the last pages, you would have noticed that. Please, read the posts.
Without rules, without preconditions (premises) and definitions logic would not work. Mutcer either (a) ignores preconditions (premises) and definitions, or (b) his used preconditions (premises) and definitions are false. And it is always one of the both (a, b).
If one says that “non-atheists are atheists” by ignoring that preconditions (premises) and definitions are absoluetely necessary for logic, then that statement is false. According to that statement e.g. all stones, all trees, all dogs, all cats, all monkeys, all ancestors of the humans, all humans are “atheists”, and that is false.
Mutcer has been saying the exact same things for years and years. He never learns, never changes … “proselytizing troll”.