That’s just a misunderstanding of the word “capable”. “Capable” does not mean the same as “able”. When I’m lying in bed, I’m not able to jump, but I’m still capable of jumping.
A negative atheist is by definition an atheist. After all, it’s someone who does not hold the belief that at least one god exists.
So a newborn baby would be a negative atheist.
No, because a newborn baby is not someone.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that a newborn baby isn’t someone?
Do you consider a newborn baby to be a person? A human being?
Agreed!
As I have said several times: Your conclusions are false, because your premises (preconditions) are false.
No. It covers and clouds that word, so that its meaning becomes a “new” meaning (comparable with the words in Orwells “newspeek”).
No. That would not be the “natural state” and also not the “neutral” state, if it is based on newborn humans, because they have nothing to do with beliefs in god, they are not able to believe in god and - above all - not able to think about belief in god.
That is utter nonsense, a nonsensical wordplay, used in order to make out of all humans atheists.
B.t.w.: What is a “negative acriminal”? A newborn hyena?
No. Absolutely no. Mutcer, you have to consider definitions and preconditions (premises) - as I told you several times. It is not allowed to connect newborns with “theists”, “atheists”, “antitheists”, because they can’t be classified as such, the answer to the question of such a classification is always: NOT DEFINED!
Your #4 and #5 are false. Human newborns are NOT theists, are NOT non-theists are NOT atheists, are NOT antitheists. The question whether newborns are theists, atheists (non-theists), antitheists can only be answered with NO or with NOT DEFINED!
A newborn is not able to hold the belief that a god exists. Therfore a newborn has nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism. Each logic (syllogisms and so on) fails when it comes to connect newborns with theists, atheists, and antitheists. It is not possible by definition, and all premises (preconditions) that connect them are false.
It is sufficient. Of course. Each logic (syllogisms and so on) fails when it comes to connect newborns with theists, atheists, and antitheists. It is not possible by definition, and all premises (preconditions) that connect them are false.
Mutcer, you are completely ignoring the meanings/definitions of the words/concepts of “newborn”, “baby”, “child”, and “theist”, “atheist”, “antitheist”.
Your next ignoring step is that all your premises (preconditions) are also false.
So all your conclusions can be nothing else than false.
Nope–as I’ve said several times on the last couple of pages. How do I arrive at that conclusion? Well, for one thing, precisely because I think a human being is capable of holding beliefs with regard to gods. But that’s only part of it. My definition of “human” means that, say, certain dolphins and aliens may be human while certain members of the species homo sapiens sapiens may not be. As I wrote in my “Politics of Soulfulness” post:
[size=95]"One may distinguish between four basic levels of self-valuing.
- Most of existence consists of self-valuings who, however, have no knowledge whatsoever of themselves. That is, they value all things in their grasp in terms of themselves, but that is all they do. They have no notion of themselves.
- Some of existence consists of self-valuings who do have a notion of themselves. These are what may be called animate beings or the ‘souled’.
- Among the latter, there are those who, at least in theory, can know themselves and thereby the whole of which they are parts. These are usually called human beings. (Note that a human being in this sense need in theory not be a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.)
- Among the latter, there are those who actually knows themselves (or at least can know themselves in practice). These are the ones who know that all beings are self-valuings."[/size]
While lying in bed, you are incapable of jumping. If you don’t believe me then try it.
Definition of Incapable: not having the necessary ability, qualification, or strength to perform some specified act or function
There is no misunderstanding.
There is no misunderstanding.
From your link:
The treatments are incapable of curing the disease.
(there is no possibility of curing the disease with the treatments)
This does not mean it is impossible to treat disease but impossible to treat that disease with those treatments.
Hence, there is no possibility of jumping while lying in bed (even though a person is capable of jumping while not lying in bed).
There is a big difference between “jumping” and “jumping while lying in bed” (conditional verbs).
http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/grammar/verbs/27/conditional-verbs/
While asleep, a person is incapable of jumping.
While swimming, a person is incapable of jumping.
While in free-fall, a person is incapable of jumping.
While standing up, a person is capable of jumping.
Jack is capable of jumping — this infers that Jack has the possibility of jumping in the future.
While lying in bed, Jack is incapable of jumping —this infers that, in the near or distant future, there is no possibility of Jack jumping while lying in bed.
Do you think there is a future possibility of Jack jumping while lying in bed?
If so, I cannot wait to see Jack do it.
Hence, my original statement stands (the conditional nature renders the action as being “incapable of”).
The words “able” and “capable” are synonyms. Both are used to refer at times to immediate potential or alternatively to future potential. If it is necessarily to explicitly not refer to the immediate ability under the current circumstances, different words have to be used; “possesses the talent”, “capable/able given the chance”, “has the potential”,…
Yes, but a person will never possess the talent to jump while lying in bed (I hope we all agree on this topic).
He will never possess the talent {to jump while lying in bed}. However, he may well possess {the talent to jump} while lying in bed. As I said, “for what it’s worth”. James is mistaken, and so are you. Still not sure whether you’re trolling, thick, obstinate, or something else, though.
Joe is able to swim (the pools open), but not capable of swimming in it (he can’t swim).
Joe is capable of jumping but not able while lying in bed.
In the first case the pool being open is what makes Joe’s being able to swim, a possibility, while it does not determine whether or not Joe is capable of swimming (maybe Joe can swim).
Same with the second case. The bed only determines whether or not a capable jumper is able to jump while lying in it.
Can these conditions be reversed. Probably. Saully, give us the entire history of the etymological evolution of the two words ‘able’ and ‘capable’, please.
Once again, conditional verbs (please refer to the link I provided).
While lying in bed, Jack is incapable of jumping.
The verb in this case is not “jumping” it is the conditional verb “jump while lying in bed”.
BUT (it depends on a persons intent behind the words)
It is possible for the verb to be jumping also.
While lying in bed, Jack is unable to X (where X = jump) - is a true statement.
Jack is incapable of Y (where Y = jump while lying in bed) - is a true statement.
The problem is that people think English is a precise inflexible language independent of context and then go around correcting people and referring to them as trolls.
You are the one who started this topic not me. I am simply responding to your poor understanding of English. Do you consider a troll to be a grammar nazi (you) who is not sticking to the intent behind the OP?
Once again… I do not misunderstand the word or how to use it (and you know the intent behind how I used the words).
With your grammar nazi approach, we are incapable of moving on. 
In this case the verb penetrating has been made conditional and as a result incapable is an appropriate word to use.
Another example:
We are incapable of developing an informed opinion about Pierre’s ability to talk (without knowing the specific context behind his situation).
There are countless other examples.
It reminds me of this image; you are arguing that it is a duck whereas I am arguing that it is duck or a rabbit (depending on which perspective a person takes). But I cannot blame you for not seeing the rabbit.
James I asked Sauwelios because his skills as a philologist are unmatched at philosophy fora. Saully knows languages you haven’t ever even heard of. Elvish Latin proto-Sumerian endo-Germanic Hindi, for example. Did you know this family of languages existed? I didn’t think so.
Okay, now you’re obviously trolling and are therefore put on ignore.
Serious readers will be able to see how this subdiscussion started near the bottom of page 8 of this thread (with this post, to be exact: http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2542683#p2542683). With my remark on the difference between “capable” and “able”–which any non-retard with sufficient knowledge of English will be able to understand–, I blew the argument of Wells’ first post on page 9 out of the water. I was the one who first used the word “capable” in this subdiscussion, by the way, so even if the word could have been used interchangeably with “able” in the context I used it in, my explication–with example–should have ended any confusion. But apparently Wells has such a vested interest in his position that he had to be obstinate to the point of trolling. So be it, then. Or maybe he really thinks that Evgeny Kissin, for example, ceases to be a very capable piano player whenever he’s unable to play piano–while lying in bed, for example…
With Wells’ counterargument blown out of the water, my definition stands untouched: