You’re ignoring the fact that I said an atheist is a person (e.g. a human) who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists. Are you aware that you are ignoring this?
What definition did I present that is false and why is it false?
When category #1 is all humans who hold the belief that a god exists and category #2 is all humans who don’t fall into category #2, explain how a human could not fall into either category #1 or #2? What characteristics would such human have to not fall into one of those 2 categories?
If those two categories are presented to you, how would you go about determining which of the two categories each human falls in?
Do these humans you’re talking about hold the belief that a god exists? If not, then they don’t fall into category #1. And since category #2 is “humans who don’t fall into category #1”, the humans who aren’t capable of the belief that a god exists MUST fall into category #2. Does that make sense?
You’re missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy.
The population I’m dividing into a dichotomy is “all humans”, not all humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists.
I am ignoring nothing, but you are ignoringg almost everything. That is fact. Read the posts of all your threads, and you will note that fact.
Why do you always ask the same questions that are alraedy answered many times, in many posts, and in many threads?
Are you not capable of reading, Mutcer? I already siad this very often and also in my last posts. Why do you ignore them? Are you not capable of reading?
Why do I have to explain everything and anything to you again and again?
You do not change anything of the logicial rules by ignoring them!
Mutcer, first of all you have to define the words - before you perhaps put them logically together and before you perhaps categorise or classify them. And your definitions are false; so this is your first mistake; your second mistake is that your first mistake inevitably leads you to your second mistake, because false definitions lead to false premises; and - last but not least - false premises lead to false conclusions, thus your second mistake inevitably leads you to your third mistake: false conclusions.
And you are the dictator who dictates that they fall into that category? No, Mutcer, the logic dictates that categories, and it begins with the definitions, but your definitions are false. You are logically not allowed to put definitions together, if they are false.
If you try to put “newborns” into one of your categories, then it does not make any sense, because newborns do not belong to the same set.
You are the one who says by your false conclusions that the whole universe (except theists and theism), thus also all stones, all trees, and all newborns are atheists. That is more than a blatant straw man fallacy, more than a fallacy of composition, more than a ridiculous fallacy!
You are talking about "newborns and atheists", Mutcer. Every second sentence of yours is like this: “newborns are atheists”; and that is false!
So the problem is not the dichotomy itself you mentioned above but your false definitions, your false premises (preconditions), and your false conclusions which lead you to that said dichotomy in order to put false conclusions as your false definitions and your false premises (preconditions) into that dichotomy, so that it becomes totally obvious what your total “Intention” is.
So, Mutcer, the following is your false syllogism:
Major premise: All humans are capable of holding a belief that a god exists. |! FALSE !
Minor premise: Newborn humans are humans.
Conclusion: Newborn humans are capable of holding a belief that a god exists.| ! FALSE !
If merely one of the premises is false, then the conclusion is also false.
Many humans are not of holding a belief that a god exists (see above: Major premise which is false).
Newborn humans are also not capable of holding a belief that a god exists (see above: Conclusion which is also false).
The syllogism that contradicts, debunks, refutes, disproves your “syllogism” (see above FALSE) is the following correct syllogism:
Major premise: The humans of “X” are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists.
Minor premise: Newborn humans are humans of “X”.
Conclusion: Newborn humans are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists.
By the way: This refers to such a simple knowledge that it seems absolutely ridiculous when someone is sceptical about it.
Again: What definition did I present that is false and why is it false?
Again: When category #1 is all humans who hold the belief that a god exists and category #2 is all humans who don’t fall into category #2, explain how a human could not fall into either category #1 or #2? What characteristics would such human have to not fall into one of those 2 categories?
If I haven’t defined any words, then how could my definitions be false?
And you didn’t answer this: If those two categories are presented to you, how would you go about determining which of the two categories each human falls in?
I see that you didn’t answer this question: Do these humans you’re talking about hold the belief that a god exists? If not, then they don’t fall into category #1.
OK, so it doesn’t make sense. Do you consider newborn baby humans to be humans?
Do you even understand why you’ve committed a straw man?
I’m taking the population of all humans and dividing them into two categories. You’re responding to an argument in which the population is all humans who are capable of believing a god exists. That’s a straw man.
When you are ready to respond to the dichotomy I have presented OR you can show that newborn humans aren’t humans, then we’ll have something to discuss.
Precisely. I didn’t say things like stones & trees are atheists. Now you’re responding as if I have. Once again, that’s a blatant straw man on your part.
You still have not addressed the dichotomy which I presented.
A newborn baby doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists and is therefore an atheist. I’ve just done what you are saying is impossible!
=>#
[/quote]
An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.
A newborn baby human is a person
A newborn baby human doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists
Therefore a newborn baby human is an atheist
Once again Mutcer, look up the definition of false dichotomy. No one is suggesting that you cannot divide humans into two categories (as you obviously are) - but it is a false dichotomy based on the definition of false dichotomy.
Does not matter what you do or say - this remains unchanged. We both know that this is true and obviously you are an intelligent man. So if you believe it is child abuse to teach children religion then just discuss this as I am sure it will become a heated discussion. There is actually a lot of evidence that animism (hence religious tendencies) is the natural state (default position) for children (without being indoctrinated by adults or parents). Hence, the indoctrination is towards atheism and if indoctrination is inherently bad then all forms of indoctrination should be considered inappropriate. Indoctrinating newborns into selective indoctrination is bad and it forms the basis of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc).
This question is indeed what this whole discussion comes down to (though I must say Mutcer frames it suggestively here by using the word “humans”, on both sides of the equation).
The so-called “pro-life” people will of course say that newborn babies are human beings as much as grown-ups are, as they hold that a human ovum that is being fertilized is infused not only with a sperm cell but also with a “soul”…
Who said that “humans of »X«” are not humans? “Humans of »X«” are humans - that is logical.
Mutcer and his friends do not have any logical argument because of their false definitions, false premises, and thus false conclusions.
An example from the realm of physics and chemistry:
In the past scientists claasified all metals as being “heavier than water”. So this was the syllogism:
[i][size=109]Major premise: Gold, silver, …, iron, … and so on are heavier than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME FALSE) !
Minor premise: Metals are are gold, silver, …, iron, … and so on.
Conclusion: Metals are heavier than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME FALSE) ![/size][/i]
That syllogism had been true for a long time - until the potassium was discovered. Since this discovery of the potassium the following syllogism has been being true:
[i][size=109]Major premise: Potassium is lighter than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.
Minor premise: Some metals are potassium.
Conclusion: Some metals are lighter than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.[/size][/i]
You see: The first syllogism (see above) had to be corrected by the second syllogism (see above), because scientist discovered the potassium!
Here follows Mutcer’s false antitheistic example again:
Again: Mutcer and his friends do not have any logical argument because of their false definitions, false premises, and thus false conclusions.
In addition: Mutcer and his friends have committed a blatant straw man fallacy.
And that is why we indoctrinate them into using toilets.
But that is not the point, the point Mutcer made(through his false dichotomy) was that Atheism is the natural state (which evidence suggests it is not).
One of his main errors, yes. The natural state has nothing at all to do with atheism. Nothing at all. Regardless whether atheism lacks theism. Theism is required in order to have atheism. Theism precedes atheism. Without theism there can never be atheism. Theism is also not the natural state, because it is a cultural phenomenon, and theism can lead to antitheism and atheism. If (if!) atheism occurs, then the lack of theism occurs as well, but that does not mean that atheism is the natural state - the reverse is true: if (if!) atheism exists, then as an effect which is caused by theism (perhaps later also by antitheism) but never by itself.
Let’s say you have a group of humans. Some of those humans hold the belief that a god exists(we’ll call this sub-group 1). The ones who don’t fall into the category of those who hold the belief that a god exists go into sub-group 2. Since all the humans in this group must fall into sub-group 1 or sub-group 2, there is no third option. If you contend there is a third option, then you’re dealing with a different dichotomy and aren’t responding to the argument or dichotomy I’ve presented.
“religious tendencies” doesn’t necessarily equate to believing that a god exists.
Once again Mutcer, if it is TRUTH then there can not be multiple dichotomies (unless they are false dichotomies).
There are people with Blonde hair
All other people not in category 1
Therefore, I conclude that aBlonde is the natural state.
As I said, we all now it is a false dichotomy (including you).
Note: Religious tendencies also does not mean atheism is the neutral/natural state.
What it does mean is that movement towards a belief in God/god is an indoctrinated process and it also means that movement away from religious tendencies (animism) is an indoctrinated process.
Or put another way, movement away from animism (natural tendency) is about belief - if there were no belief then animism would remain.
Putting aside the word “other” (which could raise the issue of confusion), that is a true dichotomy. But it doesn’t follow that blonde is the natural state.
In my dichotomy of 1) Humans who hold the belief that a god exists; 2) All humans who don’t fall into #1 - the conclusion of newborn humans falling into #2 is because it is understood and known that human infants don’t have the cognitive abilities to believe a god exists. What does it tell us about the newborn baby that he/she is an atheist? Nothing. But it is still true that they don’t hold the belief that a god exists and would therefore be classified as an atheist - albeit an implicit atheist.
If atheism isn’t the natural/neutral state, then show me a reputable source which shows newborn babies do hold the belief that a god exists. Burden of proof is upon you to show newborns do believe a god exists.
It wouldn’t necessarily be a human if two different senses of the word “human” were used: for in that case, a human in the one sense would not necessarily be a human in the other sense. For example: a human in the sense of “a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens” would not necessarily be a human in the sense of “a person”. I contend that a newborn baby human is not a person, even as a fertilized human ovum is not a person (though relatively more).
I’ve linked a couple of times to studies that show that babies have a tendency to develope the belief in God. Newborns do not have beliefs per se. At least not beliefs that are word based. (they do have heuristics such as faces are more important than walls and this is a form of belief or knowledge. And they have an inherent tendency toward animism: much more seems alive to them than to the modern, cut off, ‘rational’ adult)
You seem to want to make atheism as the default state, but that is 1) not the case, given the tendency above and 2) confused, since for someone to be an atheist they would need to at least in some way indicate this. Newborns cannot.
Rocks are not atheists. Nor are trees. Do you see how silly those sentences sound?
The reason it sounds silly to me - a panpsychist - is not because I think there is no consciousness in these things, but that they do not have word based beliefs or beliefs at all in the case of rocks.
For the modern cut off rational, the universe is mostly dead atoms kind of minds, those sentences should sound silly
DESPITE THE FACT THAT ROCKS AND TRESS ARE NOT THEISTS.
And the truth is this whole issue is just a distraction. Every atheist who participates in these discussions has a good solid set of beliefs that are in a batch with their atheism. The atheism is a product of this set of beliefs.
Sure, somewhere, living in a cabin in the woods, there is an atheist whose simply lacks a belief in God.
But he sure as shit is not participating in online philosophy forums.
That this topic comes up again and again is one big disingenuous distraction.
