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?
People have been defining atheism as “lack of belief in… x” since, well, a long time… and you know as well as I do what that means. I remember people defining atheism this way back when there was only USENET James.
So you think that all of those dictionaries are just making it up … a conspiracy?
They might be fundamentalist Christians… who knows, the only thing I know, is that if there’s not a definition of atheism as a “lack of belief in…” the dictionaries are behind common usage. I’ve been on the net a long time James, I know how atheists define their terms.
Only that which can be a theist can be an atheist. That much should be obvious. Atheism is a response to theism. Without theism, there is no atheism, there is only ignorance about the existence of the concept of God, which doesn’t equal to atheism. Atheism is a position about the existence of God which necessitates awareness and knowledge of it, just like theism.
I think it’s obvious that atheists arguing otherwise (and it appears that only atheists are arguing otherwise) have an underlying agenda. What is the relevant difference that babies being atheist would make, if you somehow managed to butcher language enough to successfully argue for it?
The only thing that you know is how a class of rejects use the word in their attempt to promote political gain. Online debaters (usually merely drones) are FAR from being “common people”.
And the thought that so many dictionaries would be wrong as opposed to you being wrong, requires either a great deal or hubris or a great deal of evidence to justify such confidence. I am seeing the former, not the later.
This coming from the same man who thinks physics is wrong. James, just accept that atheists define as ONE definition… “lack of belief in…” As we know there are multiple and confusing definitions for words in this ever growing language game. The dictionaries, if they don’t use that definition, haven’t caught up to modern usage.
Very true, but unlike you, I give the exact reasons and leave them open for rational debate … not merely me declaring that I am a genius and thus implying everyone else is a moron.
And who is to say that the rebellious horde of non-thinking atheists are the future of dictionary authority?
Perhaps you have yet to realize just how absolutely ridiculously moronic so very many online atheists really are?
For years, I have known perfectly legitimate complaints that atheists could rightfully and rationally promote for their cause. Yet in all those years, I have yet to run across a single atheist who has awoken to the legitimacy of his situation. Instead, they whine and try really stupid word games (such as the one currently being discussed) in an effort to gain clout. In general, I have found online atheists to be idiots, presumptuously and completely blinded from what they are talking about - merely squirrels in a cage that they cannot perceive.
Very true, but unlike you, I give the exact reasons and leave them open for rational debate … not merely me declaring that I am a genius and thus implying everyone else is a moron.
And who is to say that the rebellious horde of non-thinking atheists are the future of dictionary authority?
Perhaps you have yet to realize just how absolutely ridiculously moronic so very many online atheists really are?
For years, I have known perfectly legitimate complaints that atheists could rightfully and rationally promote for their cause. Yet in all those years, I have yet to run across a single atheist who has awoken to the legitimacy of his situation. Instead, they whine and try really stupid word games (such as the one currently being discussed) in an effort to gain clout. In general, I have found online atheists to be idiots, presumptuously and completely blinded from what they are talking about - merely squirrels in a cage that they cannot perceive.
[/quote]
You don’t think I give EXACT reasons for ethical formulations?