Please explain how a human could not fall into category #1 or category #2.
Again:
(1) All humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists
(2) All humans who don’t fall into #1
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.
I have explained it many times. Why do you not read my posts? You are ignoring people’s posts that are not in agreement with your false definitions, false premises (preconditions) and false conclusuions.
Herewith you force all humans into two categories, although it is not possible to force all humans into that two categories when it comes to the “belief that a god exists” or that a god does not exist, and so on, and especially when it comes to theism, atheism, and antitheism - as I already explained many times in many posts and in many threads. According to the definition and thus also to the premises (preconditions) your “case #2” is not allowed to contain such humans who are not capable of the “belief that a god exists” or that a god does not exist, and so on, because they have no chance of belonging to your “case #1”. Equal opportunities are required - in a logical sense, of course. All humans you want to classify must have the same chance, the same possibility - by definition and by premises (preconditions), because they are required.
In other words: Your set must be: “humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists”; then one of your two subsets must be: (A) “humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists”; and the other one of your two subsets must be: (B) “humans who who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A”. That would be correct, because both subsets belong to the same set and have equal opportunities of that belonging. But newborn humans, for example, are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists; so they have nothing to do with the set, thus also nothing to do with both subsets. So you are using the wrong subsets and thus also the wrong set. The following set and its subsets are correct (note the description too, please):
[size=80]or as a symmetric difference:[/size] 
A and B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
A = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists.
B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A.
And logically, Mutcer, you are also not allowed to confuse the conclusion, also then, if it is a false conclusion (e.g. “newborn humans are atheists” => false), with the premise, also then, if it is the false premise (“newborn humans fall into #2” => false), because you are using the conclusion as premise, namely the false conclusion as the false premise (“newborn humans are atheists” => false) and the false premise as the false conclusion (“newborn humans fall into #2” => false).
You are in violation of logic, and ignorance can never help you, because it can never change the rules of logic.
Equally as ignorantly, there might be a “Atheist gene” and in similar hubris you might know that your cousin is NOT gay by the age of two.
To the ignorant, anything is possible.
Umm… my cousin was asking to see mens penises constantly at the age of 2, not womens vaginas… he’s gay. He has an IQ of 180, higher than mine, as a three year old he was giving me lectures on morality.
If we refer to all humans, then the Venn diagram is e.g. the follwong one:
Q = All humans.Q+ and Z = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.[list][list]Q+ = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exist.
Z = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into “Q+”.[list]N = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who fall into both “Q”+ and “Z”.[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]Mutcer’s error is that he confuses “Q” with “Q+ and Z”, or equals them, and ignores that “Q” is not a subset and that “Q+ and Z” are not the set.
In other words: Mutcer’s definitions are false, Mutcer’s pemises (precondions) are false, so that Mutcer’s conclusions are also false.
I’m sorry, Mutcer.
You are obsessed, Mutcer is still correct.
Sorry you went to all that trouble.
We are talking about logic and mathematical set theory in order to get to philosophical statements. We are not talking about antitheistic ideologies (thus: modern religions).
When it come to classify those humans who are capable of holding a belief, then it is not possible to classify all humans.
Ideologies, ignorance, and ad hominems do not change any logical rule.
And when it comes to know the rules of ad hominems, please read the following text: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169044.
All babies have the belief that when they see a females nipple, milk will come out of it if they suck on it. ALL babies. That’s a belief.
That is no belief, that is a stimulus-response mechanism. All mammalian babies - thus not only human babies - are “armed” with this stimulus-response mechanism. No baby is capable of belief in the sense of godbelief, not to mention theism, atheism, antitheism.
So again:
No human baby does belong to the subsets “Q+” and “Z” (see above) but “merely” to the set “Q” (see above).
You can call it one half dozen or the other, but it’s still a belief. Like I said earlier, belief in God may be genetic, which means it’s just as much a part of the baby as growing pubic hair eventually. Or maybe a more apt analogy is facial hair, which some men (native americans) are born without, and other men are born with.
No. It is not a belief in the sense of a gobelief; and in this thread we are talking about the godbelief; so please read this thread or at least most of the posts of this thread, and then you will know it.
A little help:
So according to Mutcer’s false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus also false conclusions the whole universe is “atheistic”.
I’m pretty sure that the intersection N makes no sense. You already defined Z as being exclusive of Q+ so the intersection must be empty.
It’s not that complicated. There is a universal set of all humans which contains 3 mutually exclusive subsets. There is a subset of humans who are capable and also believe in a god and a subset of those who are capable and lack a belief in god. The third subset consists of people incapable of forming beliefs - babies, the severely mentally ill and those unable to think because of physical damage.
I call him Rectum, but that’s besides the point…
Sure a squirrel isn’t an anti-theist… which is one of the definitions of atheist. But you have to understand, the strict definition is “lack of belief in” A squirrel does “lack” belief in God or Not God… a squirrel is by definition an atheist.
The intersection is irrelevant, not senseless. I could not find another picture in the internet. So just ignor the intersection “N”, because it has nothing to with the theme we are talking about. Did you not notice the other set? That is the correct set - as I already said in a former post:
That’s correct.
It can but it does not have to be empty. There are, for example, schizophrenic people who are capable of holding a belief that god exists but do sometimes hold and sometimes not hold the belief that god exists. That was the Intention for “N”.
It is not complicated, of course, and the set, subsets, and their interpretations are absolutely correct.
There are more than two possibilities of sets. If you want to prefer your set, then feel free to do it. Your set is also correct. And if I had found a picture for it, I would have used it too.
Let me make this very clear and end the thread once and for all:
Theist means: God and not God
Because theist is about the possibilities of God
… Now an anti-theist (which contains theist) is against God or the idea of belief in God…
An atheist is neither God nor not God.
So yes, babies are atheists… ONE of the definitions of atheism besides anti-theism (which itself has two definitions) is that it is a “lack of belief in”… not “disbelief in” “Lack of belief in”
So by definition, all babies are atheists.
Are we done?
Mucter,
I know that you are finding my posts unanswerable from your pow,thus ignoring it, though 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. If you are assuming that i will you can cause any irrational response from me by your tricks, you are mistaken. I am not a less patient person than you. i will keep this repeating again and again.
With love,
Sanjay
It is not possible to define, to categorise, or to classify a newborn human as an “atheist”.
If you want to put the two words “atheist” and “newborn” together - in a logical sense (!) -, then you have to define both words and not merely one (as Mutcer does and many other antitheistic ILP members do). If you want to define what a “newborn” really “is” - and if you are capable of doing that (!) -, then you will soon note that a “newborn” can never be a theist, can never be an atheist, can never be an antitheist. It is already known, so there are no linguistic “revolutionaries” necessary. We know this by definition, dictionaries, by lexcica, by logic, by science, by reason, by common sense, by good sense, by good judgement, by experiences, by perception of newborns, and by much more.
That’s not true. the a means “lack of belief in” not disbelief in… by definition children and squirrels lack belief in God, atheism has two definitions… one is anti-theism and the other is “Lack of belief in the God concept”. This means neither for nor against, no formulation, whatsoever. So, yes, by that definition that atheists give… all children are atheists. This is just definitions Arminius… the answer to the op is “yes”… they mean the same thing.
Why do you think that you have greater authority than 21 dictionaries that say otherwise?