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.
Does the fact a human baby doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists make it any more of a “human that doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists” than a dog or a cat?
So I can get a better understanding of where you’re coming from, please answer the following with yes or no:
Is a human being who holds the belief that a god exists a theist?
Is a human being who doesn’t hold the belief a god exists not a theist?
Does non-theist mean the same as “not a theist”
Does a newborn human baby hold the belief that a god exists?
Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?
That is not a fact. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are false - as I said several times in several post, in several threads, again and again.
I am as much no antitheist as you are an antitheist.
First of all one has to know which human is meant.
First of all one has to know which human is meant.
Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it?
A human newborn is not able to do that - as I said to you several times in plenty of posts and in two threads, over and over again.
Again the widened table:
True.
Also true.
Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it, Mutcer?
B.t.w.: Shall I copy this post and put in this and your other thread, so that you don’t have to write anymore? (Because it is always the same!)
People who do not fall into category 1
in my case my attribute X is not-God (making theism a neutral position)
in your case your attribute X is God (making atheism a neutral position).
These are both true dichotomies (according to your definition of true dichotomy), so which category does a newborn fit into?
This can only be answered by rendering both scenarios as false dichotomies (as per the true definition of false dichotomy).
A newborn human is an atheist. So your assertion that it is not possible to say that a newborn human is an atheist has been shown to be false.
What attributes would you say are required for one to be an atheist?
What word would you use to describe a human who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?
Please indicate which definition or premise is false and why it is false.
It sounds like you’re saying some types of humans who hold the belief that a god exists are theists and others are not theists. Please explain how a human could hold the belief that a god exists and not be a theist.
Likewise, it sounds like you’re saying some types of humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists are not theists and others don’t fall into the category of “not theist”. Please explain how a human could not hold the belief that a god exists and not be “not a theist”.
Please answer the question.
Does non-theist mean the same as “not a theist”?
So you would agree that a newborn baby doesn’t fall into the category of those who hold the belief that a god exists. What term do you think appropriately describes those humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists?
Line 1 - Not necessarily. A zebra is a being and it can’t be a theist, atheist or antitheist.
Line 2 - Again, I agree with you
Line 3 - A godbeliever can be a Antitheist
Line 4 - What do you mean by ‘Intellectual’?
Line 5 - A child can be a theist, atheist or antitheist. All 3 of your choices are wrong
Line 6 - One who is against theism can be an atheist
Line 7 - What do the hyphens mean? BTW, one who is against atheism can be an atheist
Line 8 - One who is against antitheism can be an atheist. I know many of them.
A newborn baby by definition is an atheist. Please provide your source which says a newborn baby isn’t an atheist.
Please answer the question.
Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?
Do I have to remind you again and again to answer my posts?
If you are finding those unanswerable from your pow, you can say it openly to me and I will leave. No issue at all.
But, unless that happens, I will keep reminding you.
Below is my unanswered post, which you ignored—
I hope that either you will address it or accept your incompetence.
And you are the one who dictates who and what an atheist is. Oh, no. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are absolutely false.
Read my posts. I have answered your questions over and over again.
What word would you use to describe a robot that does not hold the belief that oil does not exist?
Mutcer, I have said that again and again. Please read my post and do not say the same again and again!
It does not “sound”, because you are not able to hear my writing.
Why should I? Is it because you hear my writing on a keyboard?
It does not “sound”, because you are not able to hear my writing.
May I hope that you can learn?
Why should I? Is it because you hear my writing on a keyboard?
Please explain how which human can hold a belief.
I have answered your question and many other questions again and again, but you are ignoring everything. Please answer my question why you are ignoring everything.
Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it, or do you even ignore it before you have read it?
No, and I said you this many times. A human newborn is not able to do that - as I said to you several times in plenty of posts and in two threads, over and over again.
Read my posts - without ignoring.
It does not matter.
It is defined. Read my posts - without ignoring.
No one of them is wrong. Like I said over and over again: [size=109]A newborn or other children are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists.[/size]
Not by definition, and here we are talking about definitions. Like I said again and again: It is the prefix “a” that tells us why an atheist is not against theism and not against antitheism. And it is the prefix “a” too that tells us why so many antitheists call themselves “atheists” - either they do not know better, or they lie.
Guess what they can mean! It distracts you from your usual doings (e.g. ignoring and repeating).
Should that be the summit of nihilism? An Atheist can never be against atheism - by definition.
Then they tell you lies. It is the prefix “a” that tells us that an atheist can never be against anything which has to do with theism (including antitheism) - by definition! You are an antitheist, and those you know are probably against you, against your atheistic character, or they are telling lies, or both. There are merely a few humans in the world who are really atheists. Most of them who call themselves “atheists” are either antitheists or theists.
A newborn human is not an atheist, can never be an atheist, and will never be an atheist. A newborn human has nothing to do with that. Again and again: The answer you get, if you ask whether newborns can be atheists is always: NOT DEFINED.
Newborn humans have nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism - as I told you over and over again.
[size=104]The sources are all results of science (all their disciplines that have to do with it), the common sense, the perception / awareness / cognition, all experiences with newborn humans.[/size]
AGain, it depends on how the term is defined and this varies. For some people saying they are an athiest means that they believe there is no God. They do not simply lack a belief, they have a belief. YOu can see this reflected in dictionary definitions which vary. Some labeling it a lack, some labeling it a belief there is no God, some mentioning both. Some atheists clearly mean they have decided there is no God. Some do not mean this. WE do not have enough information to decide from the simple bald statement.
In practical terms, in an online discussion in a philosophical forum, someone saying they are an atheist means a whole bunch of stuff about the person in question, but that’s another issue.
I agree with this. There is much more to a human mind and heart than simply using words - as you say, lack of, belief, disbelief. Very often I have said that there can really be no such thing as an atheist because people become who they are through personal experience, personal psychology, and much of what we say and feel anyway resides far below the surface of the iceberg.
You said it too, since this is a philosophy forum there is a whole lot of stuff that needs to be out in the open. Words like atheist et cetera are not that self-defined simply by using words from a dictionary. That doesn’t get at the truth - it’s like a puzzle, without all of the pieces or most of them anyway, and who knows how many most of them are, philosophically speaking - we can only what we think we already know. lol
In any true dichotomy of humans, newborns could fall into either one or both of the categories.
Take the dichotomy of (1) males and (2) non-males. Newborns could be either #1 or #2
Take the dichotomy of (1) over 14 years of age and (2) not over 14 years of age. Newborns could only lie in #2
Your dichotomy is (1) People who hold the belief that no god exists and (2) All humans who don’t fall into #1.
It’s a true dichotomy. Since newborn babies don’t hold beliefs about gods, they would fall into #2.
My dichotomy is (1) People who hold the belief that a god exists and (2) All humans who don’t fall into #1.
Since newborn babies don’t hold beliefs about gods, they would fall into #2.
But let’s say we created a dichotomy as follows:
(1) All humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists
(2) All humans who don’t fall into #1
In this case, newborn babies would fall into #1 - for precisely the same reason they fall into #2 in the 1st and 2nd dichotomies above.
That is rhetoric and nothing else. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality and absolutely nothing to do with logic. You are [size=120]ignoring[/size] - as usual - all humans who do neither fall into your “case #1” nor fall into your “case #2”, because it is not possible to classify all humans in that way you want to classify them.
Let’s say we created an ILP member …
Let’s say we created a “new human” (it has been trying many times for so long - again and again …, and unseccessfully) …
Newborn babies might not believe god exists but they may be genetically wired to believe it… would you say homosexuals are the same? We all knew in my family that my cousin was gay by the time he was 2 years old… there may simply be a God gene, that hasn’t expressed itself yet, like pubic hair.
I agree. I think some people are genetically more inclined to believe things without sufficient evidence (IOW, be gullible) - especially when a belief is held by a large number of people.
