What is the appropriate term?

Okay, but exactly I defined “atheist” in this way: “An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.”

The term “who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but …” should not be put in brackets, because it could be misinterpreted as an “option”, although it is no option, or in the direction of “not that relevant”, but it is most relevant. This term is the premise of that whole definition and of other premises and conclusions.

Then you have no idea of the English adverb “implicitly” and no idea of logic. I know that the English language is not suitable for logic, science (including philosophy). That is no surprise. Can you speak other languages? Maybe we will find a solution in another language. Mutcer, all your posts contain the implicit statement that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and that statement is false.

I “seem” to think that? Are you not able to read, not capable of reading? In each of my posts of this thread I wrote that a newborn human is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists and therefore not capable of being a theist, or an antitheist, or an atheist.

That is again utter nonsense.

You are implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause.

No one of the humans was an atheist before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! And no one of the humans have any single ancestor who was an atheists before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! In order to be an atheist one has to know what the prefix “a” in the substantive “atheist”, the suffix “ist” in the substantive “atheist” and the suffix “ism” in the substantive “atheism” mean. By definition: as an atheist one has to know what one “is not”, what one “lacks of”, and one has to know that this requires an intellectual processing in a modern / nihilistic sense. One can know this then (and only then), if one is at least capable of holding the belief that a god exists.

An atheist is an atheist - the exact definition: An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.

You want to “create” an animal or a stone-age human animist out of an atheist. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. You want to turn the time back to the Stone Age because of your “dream”: you want your „atheistic baby“. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. Rethink it, please!

Which part of the following do you disagree with and why?

An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.
A newborn baby human is a person
A newborn baby human doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists
Therefore a newborn baby human is an atheist

Obviously the first. I mean, he does think it’s true that an atheist is such a person, but he disagrees that that completely defines an atheist; according to him, an atheist must also be capable of holding the belief that a god exists.

A car is a vehicle that has wheels.
A bike is a vehicle.
A bike has wheels.
Therefore a bike is a car.

Interesting that it plays out like that. Perhaps this would be better:

A person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists is an atheist
A newborn baby human is a person
A newborn baby human doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists
Therefore a newborn baby human is an atheist

If I’m not mistaken, the first statement would not be true according to Arminius. And according to me, the first is true but the second is false. This is because I think a person is by definition capable of holding the belief that a god exists, whereas Arminius doesn’t.

I have answered all your questions many times. I do not have to answer your questions again and again.

An atheist must also be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. Of course!

Mutcer:
“An elephant is an mammalian animal with four legs.”
“A mouse is an mammalian animal with four legs.”
“Therefore a mouse is an elephant.” *** - ??? - Did you get it?

Please let change your false program.

You are mistaken. Please guess how many of them are false:

1. 1 statement.
2. 2 statements.
3. 3 statements.
4. 4 statements, thus: all statements.

Well, if I’m not mistaken, 2) 2 statements, according to you. For the fourth statement is a conclusion from the first three statements. So if the first statement is false according to you, then so is the last. Note that I didn’t say that only the first statement would be false according to you!

Well …

At least: you’re on the right track.

And according to logic - so: you’re still on the right track.

According to logic that is true - so: you’re still on the right track.

Yes, but there are seven possibilities:
a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last;
b) if the second statement is false, then so is the last;
c) if the third statement is false, then so is the last;
d) if the first and the second statement are false, then so is the last;
e) if the first and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
f) if the second and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
g) if the first, the second, and the third statement are false, then so is the last.

Hmmh …

Can you do it?

Logic has nothing to do with the truth value of statements–except indirectly, if the statements in question are implied by other statements.

I think this is a case of a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last. According to you, that is.

But, Sauwelios, if you have to find out what is true and what is not true, you have no other chance than referring to logic and to science.

Yes, but please do not forget that we are still referring to this:

How many?

And do not forget the seven possibilities:

Good luck!

Good luck!

And don’t forget that according to Mutcer’s false syllogisms “a bike is a car”, “a mouse is an elephant”, … and so on …:

Other examples for Mutcer’s false syllogisms: “blonde hair is the natural state”, or “odd ILP members are the natural state”, … and so on.

Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don’t believe, it doesn’t change the fact that they don’t hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists.

There is only fact in your posts that you are defining atheists wrongly. That is all. And, you know that too.

With love,
Sanjay

The fact is that newborn babies are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists. If one is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then this one has nothing to do with your „statements“. Your “statements” are completely based on your false definitions, your false premises (preconditions), and your false conclusions.

Are you sure that he knows that?

B.t.w.: Not only his definition of “atheist” is wrong / false - many other definition are also wrong / false. He ignores reality and logical rules. His “world” is a “world of antiscientists, antilogicians, antirealists, antitheists (not to forget!), …”, just an “antiworld”.

So what shall we do? For example: Stop posting here? Do you have any suggestion, Zinnat?

I said it already… atheist has two definitions, one is anti-theist or non-theist, and the other is “lack of belief in…” This means that they don’t believe God exists or doesn’t exist, and by this definition… all rocks trees and babies are atheists. Sorry, that’s how the definitions work. That’s how the atheistic community uses the definitions… just because 90% of people believe in God and write the dictionaries, doesn’t mean the other 10% are wrong. All babies are atheists.

The latter is not an established fact. Both Arminius and myself dispute it. And though he and I define the term “person” differently, we both dispute your claim for the same reason. Let’s forget the concept “person” for a moment. Then Arminius and I both subscribe to the following definition of “atheist”, which is at odds with yours:

“An atheist is an entity that 1) is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and 2) does not hold the belief that a god exists.”

Do you, Mutcer, assert that newborn human babies are capable of holding the belief that a god exists?

I suggest you read the dictionary definitions of atheist and disbelieve at www.websters.com

No I don’t. Newborn babies are not explicit atheists. They are implicit atheists.

Go to www.dictionary.com and read the definitions of atheist and disbelieve.

Let’s say I’ve got a large bag of marbles. Would you hold the belief that the number of marbles in the bag is even? If not, why? If so, why?