Just give me the quick yes/no. Then I’ll address each specific comment you have.
Do you think “not a theist” and “atheist” mean the same thing or mean different things?
Oh, lord, I went through that with Mutcer. I debunked his erroneous arguments and answered his questions in doing so. His response: he hit me with them all again as if we had just begun.
To set the record straight, Peripheral did not debunk any of my arguments. If anyone thinks he did, please point it out at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=185125
I’m sorry, Mutcer. Your conclusions are false, because your definitions and preconditions are false.
And concerning to the thread you mentioned, I have to say again that your conclusions are false because your definitions and preconditions are false. It is our logic itself that tells us that God can be beyond of logic - as well as issues of love, ethics, aestetics, emotions, etc. can be beyond of logic. The spiritual engagement with that what can be is one of the main aspects of metaphysics and - in the case of God - of theology. If you want to critisise or even deny God, theology, theism, and theists, you have to know what you want to critisise or even deny, thus you have to know what “God”, “theology”, “theism”, and “theist” mean. And the statement “God is not fully explainable by logic” does not mean “God does not exist”. Your “arguments” in that said thread are as full of repetitions, especially repeated questions as in this thread, and I could not find anything like that what you and two other ILP members had allegedly “shown”.
We - the human beings - are not “merely” luxury beings but also beings of transcendence. If we were not such transcendence beings, then it would not be possible to think about any transcendental phenomenon.
Then unless a newborn baby is a theist (or believes a god exists), then a newborn baby is an atheist.
However, if as you said before, they are not a theist, then they would be an atheist.
Does it require intellectual processing for a newborn baby to not be a theist? If so, then given what you said earlier, it also doesn’t require intellectual processing for a newborn baby to be an atheist.
The precondition of knowing what a god is isn’t required to not be a theist. And if not a theist is the same as atheist - as you said, then being an atheist doesn’t require one to know what a god is.
Babies lack a belief in everything.
Should we have a word for that?
Why?
NO. Newborns have nothing to do with that because of the definition(s) and the precondition(s). According to your false definitions (if you have any definition at all!) and your false preconditions everyone could be an atheist because of the lack of being a theist. So I was correct when I said:
Purgatorius (allegedly an “ancestor of the human beings”):
NO. It does NOT “require intellectual processing for a newborn baby to not be a theist”, because a newborn and other children have nothing to do with the definitions and preconditions you want to have for your “classification”.
That is - again - nonsense, Mutcer, because “godbeliever” and “theist” do not mean the same - the reason for that are - again - the definitions. In order to believe in God you do not have to intellctually process as much information about God as you need in the case of theism. If you believe in God you do not have to challenge God, but if you are a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist that is already one of the preconditions.
Do you know what that means?
No. We do not need it. And that is one of the reasons why babies can and should never be defined as “atheists”, not even as “godbelievers”, perhaps also not even as “believers”.
Earlier, you stated that non-theist and atheist are the same thing. You also agreed that if one isn’t a theist, then they are a non-theist. And you agreed that newborn babies aren’t theists. Therefore, you would have to contend that newborn babies are atheists.
I’ll make this simpler for you:
- Atheist and non-theist are the same thing (from your claim)
- One who is not a theist is a non-theist (from your claim - and also by definition)
- Newborn babies aren’t theists (from your claim)
- Newborn babies are non-theists (from #2 and #3)
- Newborn babies are atheists (from #1 and #4)
Mucter - Correct. In the case of all negative numbers vs. all numbers which don’t fall into the category of negative numbers, zero falls into the latter. Substitute negative with positive and it still falls into the latter. Why? Because zero doesn’t fall into the category of negative numbers or the category of positive numbers.
Sanjay - If you admit that zero does not fall into either category, why you are playing tricks and presenting it as only apositive?
Mucter -As that’s a position of belief, not a position of non-belief, it would be analogous to either a positive or negative number, not zero (which is neutral)
Sanjay - What kind of argument is this? Where I said that agnostics are analogous to either negative or positive?
Mucter, do not try to play innocent and pretend as you misunderstood me. I know you got it clearly but as you do not have an answer thus pretending otherwise.
Again, for your clarification, I am comparing agnostics with zero here.
Mucter - I didn’t know there was a rule that one must be arguing for something in this message board. What’s wrong with having a philosophical discussion and exchanging ideas and thoughts?
Sanjay - Playing innocent again. I did not object your argument but you not following it up.
You said that Agnosticism isn’t the middle ground between atheism and theism. It’s on a different plane. Right. But, if that is true, how on the earth you are presenting agnosticism as a subset of atheism and both against theism?
Mucter -Atheists are on one side and theists are on the other side. This doesn’t mean the midpoint is neutral. Atheism is neutral and theism is the non-neutral position. The non-neutral position on the opposite side would be anti-theism.
Sanjay - Would you mind to explain what reasoning you have to conclude that atheism is a neutral position?
Some scientists believe that that the universe came into existence from big bang.
Some scientists believe that universe did not come into existence from big bang.
Now, tell me which position is neutral?
Something exists for sure is a belief but the same thing does not exist for sure is also s belief. One is positive belief while other one is negative but still both are beliefs. Neither position is void of beliefs.
So, tell me om which grounds you considered having belief in the non existence a neutral position?
Mucter -As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren’t mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:
Atheist
- Agnostic atheist
does not believe any god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that no god exists - Gnostic atheist
believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Theist
3. Agnostic theist
believes a god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic theist
believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Does that make sense?
Sanjay - All that does not make neither any sense nor pertinent here. I also can put as many definitions as you want to see. That would not serve any purpose to you.
The only issue which we are discussing here that how you presented agnosticm as a subset of atheism and atheism as a neutral position. That is all.
Mucter - Actually, you don’t know what my objective is. Or are you omniscient?
Sanjay - As I said before, one needs not to be omniscient to realise what your actual intention is. Only some common sense is enough, and I have that much for sure.
With love,
Sanjay
Mutcer:
“All vegetation, germs, insects, and wild animals are atheists.”
If you can show where I asserted that vegetation, germs, insects and wild animals are people, then what you’re saying accurately reflects my position.
You continually claim that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God, and thus infants qualify. Being human hasn’t been mentioned, nor seems relevant. But then even human skin, hair, and body cells must be atheists in either case.
Is human skin considered a person? Is human hair considered a person? Are body cells considered a person?
You said “human”, before you didn’t qualify, now you say “person”.
It seems, just as the many dictionaries would indicate, that you are merely making it up as you go along for sake of what you want to preach.
I still fail to see the usefulness of dividing everything into two categories. In this case, the only reason seems to be to claim that atheism is ‘natural’ for humans. And that in turn will be used for what?
No. Most of the human ancestors were no theists, no atheists, no atheist, no godbelievers, and probably even no believers, because in nature believe does not count much.
The dividing into categories does not only depend on logic but also on definitions and preconditions. So it is not the logic allone that decides what can how be divded into categories.
Yes, that is the actual intention of the OP. This is I said earlier on this thread —
Basically OP was indirectly suggesting that humans are born with the default sense of not believing in theism but unfortunately they were somehow forced to believe otherwise. Means, having strong disbelief in the theism is some sort of natural or default position for humans and diverting from it unnatural, hence humans should discard theism and go back to their natural state, which is having belief in the nonexistence of the god.
That is the only reason why OP tried to include agnostics into atheists through playing semantics in order to present theists as opposite to rest of all.
With love,
Sanjay
Yes. And even all definitions and preconditions are false, regardles whether they refer to children, especially newborn humans, or to the most of the human ancestors.
See also here (it is not the only example - there are a great many examples).
Look up atheist at www.dictionary.com. It says it is a person who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god.
And look up person. It says a human being.