This question is indeed what this whole discussion comes down to (though I must say Mutcer frames it suggestively here by using the word “humans”, on both sides of the equation).
The so-called “pro-life” people will of course say that newborn babies are human beings as much as grown-ups are, as they hold that a human ovum that is being fertilized is infused not only with a sperm cell but also with a “soul”…
Who said that “humans of »X«” are not humans? “Humans of »X«” are humans - that is logical.
Mutcer and his friends do not have any logical argument because of their false definitions, false premises, and thus false conclusions.
An example from the realm of physics and chemistry:
In the past scientists claasified all metals as being “heavier than water”. So this was the syllogism:
Conclusion: Metals are heavier than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME FALSE) ![/size][/i]
That syllogism had been true for a long time - until the potassium was discovered. Since this discovery of the potassium the following syllogism has been being true:
Conclusion: Some metals are lighter than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.[/size][/i]
You see: The first syllogism (see above) had to be corrected by the second syllogism (see above), because scientist discovered the potassium!
Here follows Mutcer’s false antitheistic example again:
Again: Mutcer and his friends do not have any logical argument because of their false definitions, false premises, and thus false conclusions.
In addition: Mutcer and his friends have committed a blatant straw man fallacy.
This indoctrination is worse than all other indoctrinations, and those who suffer most from it are the children!
And that is why we indoctrinate them into using toilets.
But that is not the point, the point Mutcer made(through his false dichotomy) was that Atheism is the natural state (which evidence suggests it is not).
There is always a worse indoctrination than all other indoctrinations… always.
One of his main errors, yes. The natural state has nothing at all to do with atheism. Nothing at all. Regardless whether atheism lacks theism. Theism is required in order to have atheism. Theism precedes atheism. Without theism there can never be atheism. Theism is also not the natural state, because it is a cultural phenomenon, and theism can lead to antitheism and atheism. If (if!) atheism occurs, then the lack of theism occurs as well, but that does not mean that atheism is the natural state - the reverse is true: if (if!) atheism exists, then as an effect which is caused by theism (perhaps later also by antitheism) but never by itself.
We all know this to be true, even Mutcer knows this to be true.
Let’s say you have a group of humans. Some of those humans hold the belief that a god exists(we’ll call this sub-group 1). The ones who don’t fall into the category of those who hold the belief that a god exists go into sub-group 2. Since all the humans in this group must fall into sub-group 1 or sub-group 2, there is no third option. If you contend there is a third option, then you’re dealing with a different dichotomy and aren’t responding to the argument or dichotomy I’ve presented.
“religious tendencies” doesn’t necessarily equate to believing that a god exists.
Once again Mutcer, if it is TRUTH then there can not be multiple dichotomies (unless they are false dichotomies).
As I said, we all now it is a false dichotomy (including you).
Note: Religious tendencies also does not mean atheism is the neutral/natural state.
What it does mean is that movement towards a belief in God/god is an indoctrinated process and it also means that movement away from religious tendencies (animism) is an indoctrinated process.
Or put another way, movement away from animism (natural tendency) is about belief - if there were no belief then animism would remain.
That is nonsense, Mutcer, because of your false dichotomy you have to deal with a different dichotomy, namely with a dichotomy that is not false.
Or:
Putting aside the word “other” (which could raise the issue of confusion), that is a true dichotomy. But it doesn’t follow that blonde is the natural state.
In my dichotomy of 1) Humans who hold the belief that a god exists; 2) All humans who don’t fall into #1 - the conclusion of newborn humans falling into #2 is because it is understood and known that human infants don’t have the cognitive abilities to believe a god exists. What does it tell us about the newborn baby that he/she is an atheist? Nothing. But it is still true that they don’t hold the belief that a god exists and would therefore be classified as an atheist - albeit an implicit atheist.
If atheism isn’t the natural/neutral state, then show me a reputable source which shows newborn babies do hold the belief that a god exists. Burden of proof is upon you to show newborns do believe a god exists.
Please explain how a newborn human wouldn’t be a human?
It wouldn’t necessarily be a human if two different senses of the word “human” were used: for in that case, a human in the one sense would not necessarily be a human in the other sense. For example: a human in the sense of “a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens” would not necessarily be a human in the sense of “a person”. I contend that a newborn baby human is not a person, even as a fertilized human ovum is not a person (though relatively more).
I’ve linked a couple of times to studies that show that babies have a tendency to develope the belief in God. Newborns do not have beliefs per se. At least not beliefs that are word based. (they do have heuristics such as faces are more important than walls and this is a form of belief or knowledge. And they have an inherent tendency toward animism: much more seems alive to them than to the modern, cut off, ‘rational’ adult)
You seem to want to make atheism as the default state, but that is 1) not the case, given the tendency above and 2) confused, since for someone to be an atheist they would need to at least in some way indicate this. Newborns cannot.
Rocks are not atheists. Nor are trees. Do you see how silly those sentences sound?
The reason it sounds silly to me - a panpsychist - is not because I think there is no consciousness in these things, but that they do not have word based beliefs or beliefs at all in the case of rocks.
For the modern cut off rational, the universe is mostly dead atoms kind of minds, those sentences should sound silly
DESPITE THE FACT THAT ROCKS AND TRESS ARE NOT THEISTS.
And the truth is this whole issue is just a distraction. Every atheist who participates in these discussions has a good solid set of beliefs that are in a batch with their atheism. The atheism is a product of this set of beliefs.
Sure, somewhere, living in a cabin in the woods, there is an atheist whose simply lacks a belief in God.
But he sure as shit is not participating in online philosophy forums.
That this topic comes up again and again is one big disingenuous distraction.
[size=109]UTTER NONSENSE ![/size]
Did anybody say that "newborn humans are no humans? Besides you yourself, Mutcer, and Sauwelios, no one else!
Your nonsensical question also shows that you are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.
Your “statement” that “a newborn human is not a human” is a contradiction, absolute nonsense. Of course. And: Your “statement” that a newborn human is like an adult human" is also a contradiction, absolute nonsense. In addition: These two contradictory “statements” also contradict each other, so that the conclusion of this absolutely contradictory “statements” is: “A human is a human and not a human” - which is a typically contradictory “statement” of nihilistic debutants.
No. The burden of proof is upon you, dear magic Mutcer, to show that “newborns are capable of holding a belief that a god exists”, because in order (a) to believe that a god exists and/or (b) to believe that a god does not exist one has to be capable of holding a belief that a god exists, as I said and showed several times, and newborn humans are not capabe of holding a belief that a god exists, as I also said and showed several times - again and again.
Stop ignoring everything, Mutcer!
In addition:
You are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.
Ignorant. :shrug:
You have actual knowledge that a god exists?