What is the appropriate term?

zinnat · May 29, 2015, 3:38pm

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

Arminius · May 29, 2015, 3:54pm

zinnat13:

phyllo:

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?

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).

Mutcer · May 29, 2015, 7:19pm

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.

Mutcer · May 29, 2015, 7:21pm

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’.

Mutcer · May 29, 2015, 7:28pm

zinnat13:

phyllo:

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?

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

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.

Arminius · May 29, 2015, 8:08pm

False!

No humam was, is, an will be born as an atheist, or an antitheist, or a theist, or a godbeleiver. No human.

Arminius · May 29, 2015, 8:23pm

False!

Newborn babies and other babies as well as other children are neither “atheists”, “antitheists”, “theists” nor “neutral”.

phyllo · May 29, 2015, 8:34pm

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. :-"

Arminius · May 30, 2015, 12:43am

He ignores almost everything.

It is just catastrophic.

Mutcer · May 30, 2015, 12:58am

Do you wish to retract your claim that atheist is the same as non-theist?

zinnat · May 30, 2015, 6:09am

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.

zinnat13:

Mucter - Correct. In the case of all negative numbers vs. all numbers which don’t fall into the category of negative numbers, zero falls into the latter. Substitute negative with positive and it still falls into the latter. Why? Because zero doesn’t fall into the category of negative numbers or the category of positive numbers.

Sanjay - If you admit that zero does not fall into either category, why you are playing tricks and presenting it as only apositive?

Mucter -As that’s a position of belief, not a position of non-belief, it would be analogous to either a positive or negative number, not zero (which is neutral)

Sanjay - What kind of argument is this? Where I said that agnostics are analogous to either negative or positive?

Mucter, do not try to play innocent and pretend as you misunderstood me. I know you got it clearly but as you do not have an answer thus pretending otherwise.

Again, for your clarification, I am comparing agnostics with zero here.

Mucter - I didn’t know there was a rule that one must be arguing for something in this message board. What’s wrong with having a philosophical discussion and exchanging ideas and thoughts?

Sanjay - Playing innocent again. I did not object your argument but you not following it up.

You said that Agnosticism isn’t the middle ground between atheism and theism. It’s on a different plane. Right. But, if that is true, how on the earth you are presenting agnosticism as a subset of atheism and both against theism?

Mucter -Atheists are on one side and theists are on the other side. This doesn’t mean the midpoint is neutral. Atheism is neutral and theism is the non-neutral position. The non-neutral position on the opposite side would be anti-theism.

Sanjay - Would you mind to explain what reasoning you have to conclude that atheism is a neutral position?

Some scientists believe that that the universe came into existence from big bang.
Some scientists believe that universe did not come into existence from big bang.

Now, tell me which position is neutral?

Something exists for sure is a belief but the same thing does not exist for sure is also s belief. One is positive belief while other one is negative but still both are beliefs. Neither position is void of beliefs.

So, tell me om which grounds you considered having belief in the non existence a neutral position?

Mucter -As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren’t mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:
Atheist

Agnostic atheist
does not believe any god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that no god exists

Gnostic atheist
believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Theist
3. Agnostic theist
believes a god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic theist
believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Does that make sense?

Sanjay - All that does not make neither any sense nor pertinent here. I also can put as many definitions as you want to see. That would not serve any purpose to you.

The only issue which we are discussing here that how you presented agnosticm as a subset of atheism and atheism as a neutral position. That is all.

Mucter - Actually, you don’t know what my objective is. Or are you omniscient?

Sanjay - As I said before, one needs not to be omniscient to realise what your actual intention is. Only some common sense is enough, and I have that much for sure.

With love,
Sanjay

Jr_Wells · May 30, 2015, 6:43am

I think that you are underestimating him.
He ignores nothing.

Arminius · May 30, 2015, 1:44pm

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.

James_S_Saint · May 30, 2015, 2:15pm

Mutcer has been saying the exact same things for years and years. He never learns, never changes … “proselytizing troll”.

zinnat · May 30, 2015, 2:24pm

He is a committed person with lot of patience. You have to give him that irrespective of what his ideology is.

With love,
Sanjay

Arminius · May 30, 2015, 3:13pm

Arminius:

Many ILP members misuse philosophy and thus also ILP. Why is the misuse of philosophy not the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum named “I Love Philosophy”? The ILP subforum “Religion and Spirituality” is especially misused by those ILP members. The other subforums are less misused but also not free from misuse. Many ILP members circumvernt the valid rules (for example those that refer to ad hominems) by using false or partly false definitions, preconditions (premises) in order to troll, to derail threads, and to enforce ideologies or other political orders that have nothing to do with philosophy. Thus they are always off-topic and in violation of ILP rules but not or seldom of the main ILP rule: “ad hominems are not allowed”.

Philosophy is not liberalism.

The misuse of philosophy should be the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum, especiall then, if it is named “I Love Philosophy”.

=>#

Jr_Wells · May 30, 2015, 8:36pm

Arminius:

Jr Wells:

Arminius:

He ignores almost everything.

It is just catastrophic.

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.

I am not saying he is correct, I am saying he ignores nothing and that you underestimate him.
As Sanjay said, he is a committed person with a lot of patience (that is a good quality to have).
He knows what he is doing and there is a clear intention behind what he is doing.
Philosophical debate is not always about logic, just like war is not always fought on the battle field.

He grows stronger in each of his threads whereas others atrophy.

Arminius · May 30, 2015, 9:11pm

Jr Wells:

Arminius:

Jr Wells:

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.

I am not saying he is correct, I am saying he ignores nothing and that you underestimate him.
As Sanjay said, he is a committed person with a lot of patience (that is a good quality to have).
He knows what he is doing and there is a clear intention behind what he is doing.
Philosophical debate is not always about logic, just like war is not always fought on the battle field.

He grows stronger in each of his threads whereas others atrophy.

Okay, if you want to call it “stronger”, but to me the right word in this case is “weaker”, because he lacks the acceptance of e.g. philosophical, especially logical rules on a philosophy forum called “I Love Philosophy”.

However. Probably you remember this:

Jr_Wells · May 30, 2015, 11:39pm

So when talking about the strength of an athlete’s muscle it is important to talk about which athlete and what muscle.

Philosophical debate is not simply about exercising logical strength.
There are many other strengths that need to be exercised too (he is currently stronger on some of them and growing in strength).

What are the qualities (strengths) of a good philosopher?

Maybe this is an idea for another thread.

Arminius · May 30, 2015, 11:56pm

Strengths are strengths. Weaknesses are weaknesses.

Do you intend to open such a thread?