Do 'atheist' and 'not a theist' mean the same thing?

Do ‘atheist’ and ‘not a theist’ mean the same thing?

Do ‘atheist’ and ‘not a theist’ mean the same thing?

Like I said several times (for example in your other thread):

So unless a newborn baby is a theist, then it is an atheist. Right?

This is a no brainer.
“A-” is a negation. There is little more to be said.

The confusion comes from thinking that a descriptor can exhaust the complexity of a person.
An atheist can be much more besides.

For example a pedestrian is a person walking on the pavement. A driver is a person in control of a vehicle.
I am a driver and a pedestrian. I am also a father, a son, a husband a grandson ad infinitem.

Attributing a range of qualities to atheists might be perfectly accurate. The usual stuff is cynicism, skepticism, interest in science, rejection of the “spiritual”, naturalism… and many other things. But they are not “atheists” because of those things. Nor is it possible to use those things to caricature or define what an atheist is.
In fact there is very little to establish a systematic set of defining qualities without establishing that there is a single coherent thing called God that the Atheist is supposed to disagree with. And in any event that could not include the atheists that are not aware of this particular god or gods.
If you happen to be a specific type of theist, then you might be tempted to insist that an Atheist is a person that thought you were crackers. But you’d only be partly right.

For my own part “atheism” is not a system of belief, nor a creed nor anything in particular. It’s no more than a label made necessary by other people’s ridiculous belief systems which I would like to distance myself from.
When there are no more theists, then there will be no more need for me to use that label.

Not only will I not be an atheist, there shall be no more atheists.

We’ll all be a-atheists. (this is a poor joke).

[size=150]NO. Again and again: Newborns have nothing to do with that. [/size]

Look also here.

If A and B are the same and C is equal to A, then C is also equal to B.

Likewise, if non-theist and atheist are the same and a newborn baby is a non-theist, then a newborn baby is also an atheist.

You are confusing logic with definition.

If “1 + 1 = 2”, then that does not prove that the word “two” means the number “2”.

A newborn human is NOT a not-theist, or atheist, or antitheist, or theist, because a newborn human has nothing to do wit that. The definitions and preconditions exclude children (thus also newborns); thus a newborn human is neither a godbeliever nor a theist, atheist, antitheist.

=>#

You have to accept the definitions and preconditions. Otherwise you can define all beings of the world as “atheists”. For example: * Stones are not theists, thus they are atheists. That statement is false. * Monkeys are not theists, thus they are atheists. That statement is false. * The early ancestors of the human beings were not theists, thus they were atheists. That statement is false. * The newborn humans are not theists, thus they are atheists. That statement is false.

The definitions and preconditions forbid your false intentions.

If a newborn baby is X and X is the same as Y, then a newborn baby is also Y.
Likewise, if a newborn baby is a non-theist and non-theist is the same as atheist, then a newborn baby is an atheist.

So if you contend a newborn baby is not an atheist, then you’ll have to retract one of the following assertions you made:

1. Non-theist and atheist aren’t the same
2. A newborn baby isn’t a non-theist

Without a clear retraction of one of those two assertions, then you implicitly hold the belief that a newborn baby is an atheist.

When the conclusion (newborn babies aren’t atheists) doesn’t follow the premises (1 Non-theist and atheist are the same; 2 A newborn baby isn’t a non-theist), then it’s my understanding that the premises take precedent and the conclusion is nullified.

Your understanding is false, Mutcer. Like I said nearly thousand times. Your preconditions and definitions are false. Each syllogism depends on preconditions and definitions. If you want to say that if X and X are the same as Y, then Y is X, you have to know whether this is true in any case; X and X are not necessarily the same as Y, and a newborn is not Y but a newborn.

An antitheist is also not a theist. According to you a newborn must also be an antitheist, because according to you it is not a theist, but you did not say that literally, because if you said such a nonsense even literally, it would be too obvious what your intention is. In both of your threads you are talking nonsense, Mutcer. It has merely to do with your wishful thinking and nothing else; so it also has nothing to do with reality, and it also has nothing to do with logic, because you do not accept preconditions and definitions. although they are absolutely necessary for logic.

You do not accept preconditions and definitions. Preconditions and definitions can and do influence logical statements.

So I am clear on your position:

1. Are ‘non-theist’ and ‘atheist’ the same in their meaning?
2. Does a newborn baby hold the belief that a god exists?
3. Is one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists a ‘non-theist’?

A newborn baby? Hold the belief? Hold? Belief? A newborn baby?

What is your problem, Mutcer?

As follows the whole last quotation:

Sounds like you’re saying no. Given that you’ve said no and that one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists is a non-theist and that you’ve said a non-theist is an atheist, then it follows that you would claim a newborn baby is an atheist.

I’m having a problem getting you to answer my questions:

So I am clear on your position:

1. Are ‘non-theist’ and ‘atheist’ the same in their meaning?
2. Does a newborn baby hold the belief that a god exists?
3. Is one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists a ‘non-theist’?

The only thing I don’t accept is the inconsistencies and contradictions in your claims.

Such a nonsense!

Mutcer, it is useless. You do not read my posts, otherwise you would know what I am saying. Your preconditions (premises) and definitions are false. Thus your conclusions are also false.

So why should I continue this “conservation”?

This should answer your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

A newborn baby is an implicit atheist.

Polytheists aren’t theists or atheists.

I’ve been trying for some time to check to make sure I understand you clearly. That is why I ask these questions:

1. Are ‘non-theist’ and ‘atheist’ the same in their meaning?
2. Does a newborn baby hold the belief that a god exists?
3. Is one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists a ‘non-theist’?

What premises have I made which are false?

Agreed.

A polytheist is a theist.

As some people consider as wiki the word of the god, here is a quote from the theism page of wiki —

“Put simply, theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with rational claims to asserting knowledge.[6]”

This is the best way of classification.

With love,
Sanjay

Wiki is their false god, Zinnat (Sanjay). Most of those people who have no traditional god anymore “tinker” a new god, at least a false god. Wiki is one of the current thousand false gods.