Atheism is the neutral term or what we are when we are born. But to call a baby an atheist tells us less about the baby than it does about the word ‘atheist’.
Belief in the nonexistence of a god isn’t the natural state. The natural state is no belief with respect to a god.
Positive: Holds a belief that a god exists
Neutral: Doesn’t hold a belief that a god exists and doesn’t hold a belief that no gods exist
Negative: Holds the belief that no gods exist
Note that “doesn’t hold a belief that a god exists” is neutral. Thus, atheism can be neutral - especially in the case of newborn babies.
False!
No humam was, is, an will be born as an atheist, or an antitheist, or a theist, or a godbeleiver. No human.
False!
Newborn babies and other babies as well as other children are neither “atheists”, “antitheists”, “theists” nor “neutral”.
You can only say that by using a definition of atheism based on ‘lack of belief’ phrasing and ignoring other definitions. And you also ignore the lack of capacity of newborns to have beliefs - as thought that makes no difference to practicality of using the word. :-"
He ignores almost everything.
It is just catastrophic.
Do you wish to retract your claim that atheist is the same as non-theist?
Mucter,
Did you miss this below mentioned post of mine or just avoiding it for not having any answer!
I am putting that again for your convenience.
With love,
Sanjay
I think that you are underestimating him.
He ignores nothing.
I think you have read no single post of this thread. Mutcer’s mistakes, errors, flaws are too obvious. If you had read my and his posts of the last pages, you would have noticed that. Please, read the posts.
Without rules, without preconditions (premises) and definitions logic would not work. Mutcer either (a) ignores preconditions (premises) and definitions, or (b) his used preconditions (premises) and definitions are false. And it is always one of the both (a, b).
If one says that “non-atheists are atheists” by ignoring that preconditions (premises) and definitions are absoluetely necessary for logic, then that statement is false. According to that statement e.g. all stones, all trees, all dogs, all cats, all monkeys, all ancestors of the humans, all humans are “atheists”, and that is false.
Mutcer has been saying the exact same things for years and years. He never learns, never changes … “proselytizing troll”.
He is a committed person with lot of patience. You have to give him that irrespective of what his ideology is.
With love,
Sanjay
I am not saying he is correct, I am saying he ignores nothing and that you underestimate him.
As Sanjay said, he is a committed person with a lot of patience (that is a good quality to have).
He knows what he is doing and there is a clear intention behind what he is doing.
Philosophical debate is not always about logic, just like war is not always fought on the battle field.
He grows stronger in each of his threads whereas others atrophy.
Okay, if you want to call it “stronger”, but to me the right word in this case is “weaker”, because he lacks the acceptance of e.g. philosophical, especially logical rules on a philosophy forum called “I Love Philosophy”.
However. Probably you remember this:
So when talking about the strength of an athlete’s muscle it is important to talk about which athlete and what muscle.
Philosophical debate is not simply about exercising logical strength.
There are many other strengths that need to be exercised too (he is currently stronger on some of them and growing in strength).
What are the qualities (strengths) of a good philosopher?
Maybe this is an idea for another thread.
Strengths are strengths. Weaknesses are weaknesses.
Do you intend to open such a thread?
The human mind does not have a singular property but instead consists of many qualities each of which has its own strength.
A gymnast is far stronger than a power weight lifter in some ways and far weaker in other ways.
I have no intention of starting such a thread, but you are more than welcome to.
This is a good point. An atheist is a being who is capable of holding beliefs, yet who does not hold the belief in at least one god. Now if he(/she/it) has never considered this belief, he is a negative atheist (a.k.a. weak or soft atheist). If he has considered it and has rejected it, he is a positive atheist (a.k.a. strong or hard atheist). And if a positive atheist holds the belief that no gods exist, he is an explicit atheist. All other atheists are implicit atheists.
Beings who are not at the very least negative atheists–let alone theists–are not human. They may, like infants, belong to the species homo sapiens sapiens, but that is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being human. Thus the most appropriate term for humans who don’t hold the belief that at least one god exists is “atheists”.