No, That is no “false dichotomy fallacy”. That is no conclusion, so a fallacy is not possible. In order to be a fallacy there must be a conclusion. And there is no one at all - I merely asked you a question, a question containing a conditional. Why did you not notice that? And I did not ask you this question without any intention: the question refers to your own categories which are based on false definitions and false premises (preconditions). Why did you not notice that? With the three categories and the question in which category you fall into I tried to show that your definitions, your premises (preconditions) and - therefore (!) - all your conclusions are false. Why did you not notice that?
So when you said that my question was “a false dichotomy fallacy”, then you admitted that it is your false dichotomy fallacy. Why did you not notice that?
Is there anything in logic that you do not ignore?
CONGRATULATIONS!!! You get the award for MOST BLATANT STRAW MAN ARGUMENT OF THE YEAR!!!
Here’s why it’s a straw man:
You have taken my item #2 and divided it up into two sub categories such that you are now arguing against a trichotomy which I never made.
My #2 (all humans who don’t fall into category #1) is the set of humans who don’t meet the criteria of #1. IOW, “all humans who DON"T hold the belief that a god exists”.
You’re free to take my category #2 and divide it up into two sub categories which we can use for a separate discussion. But that doesn’t make it any less true that newborn babies fall into category #2 in my dichotomy.
You think you’re sneaky! It is a false dichotomy fallacy. Read about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
A conclusion need not be arrived at for it to be a false dichotomy (in this case trichotomy).
Even though it’s a false trilemma, I do happen to fall into one of those categories, as I actually am a zebra. I roam around on a plain in south central Africa. Now are you happy?
If you asked: (assuming creature can’t be both a lion and an elephant)
1-All living creatures which are lions
2-All living creatures which are elephants
3-All living creatures which aren’t elephants or lions
That would be a true trichotomy.
My dichotomy is true because it is essentially
1- All humans who have attribute X
2- All humans who don’t have attribute X
If there’s a third category I’ve left out, bring it forward!
For your convenience:
[i]Here are two categories:
All humans who hold the belief that a god exists
All humans who don’t fall into category #1
Which of those two categories do newborn babies fall into?[/i]
My example, like Arminus’ is an illustration not an argument (read the above definition and you will see how it is an illustration of a false trilemma). Please carefully consider your replies in the future.
Is this a true dichotomy
People who believe God does not exist
All other people not in category 1
Which of these categories does a newborn fit into?
If so, we have two true dichotomies that somehow do not completely agree with other.
Mutcer, I did not ask you because of that. I asked you in order to show you that your definitions and your premises (preconditions) are false. You are probably no elephant, no lion, no zebra when it come to classify you as a human. So, in that case, it is not possible to classify you. It is also not possible to say that a newborn human is a “theist”, an “atheist”, or an “antitheist”.
For being a theist, or an atheist, or an antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.
So, in other words, my example had to be false, because it should show the falsity of YOUR examples. Why did you not notice that? It is very easy to do.
Let me guess what you will do next: (1) Ignore, (2) ignore, (3) mention false conclusions because of false definitions and false premises (preconditions) - as usual.
This is most probably a category error.
As I understand it, a Deist is a person that accepts that a god made the universe but is no longer with us.
That would mean he was a theist who thinks god is dead.
This does not refute, nor add anything of value to the THREAD question. It does not challenge the idea that “atheist” is not a theist.
As a pig is an animal. An agnostic is an atheist, and a deist is a theist. Apples are fruit though not all fruit are apples.
The sets of {not a theist} and {atheist} are not equivalent sets.
The sets of {not an atheist} and {theist} are not equivalent sets.
You are both; an atheist and not a theist.
A newborn is both; not an atheist and not a theist.
A Christian is both; a theist and not an atheist
“No longer with us”. Not sure what you meant by that…unless you meant a god who doesn’t get involved in our lives. I would agree there albeit who can really know how determined or undetermined the universe remains.
No, a theist doesn’t think god is dead. A theist holds to the concept that a personal god is very much alive and interactive within our lives and the universe. An atheist
But I did answer the question as I felt he was asking it. An atheist is not a-theist (as against or opposed to a theist). A theist holds to a belief in a personal god but an atheist holds no belief or lacks any kind of belief whatsoever in god. I think that to an atheist even the concept of a god is a closed issue…no relevance whatsoever.
That’s the way i see it. Maybe he needs to re-ask the question in a certain way.
Wrong. Yes, a pig is an animal but agnostics are not atheists. I’m an agnostic but withholding judgment of some kind, any kind of belief in god’s existence, is not the same as lacking any kind of belief… so I can’t say that THERE IS NO GOD. And a theist would never say that. You’re convoluting the issue, Lev.
About 90-99% of those who call themselves “athheists” are antitheists. And the antitheistic “Wikipedia” is one of their false gods.
I have given the definitions of “theist”, “atheist”, “antitheist” in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:
Living being ______| yes | yes | yes ____|
Human being _____| yes | yes | yes ____|
Godbeliever _____| yes | no | no ____|
Intellectual ______| yes | yes | yes ____| Child __________| no | no | no ____|
Against theism _| no | no | yes ____|
Against atheism | — | no | — __|
Against antitheism | yes | no | no ____|
[/size]
And also not an antitheists. Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions.