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”.
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?
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”.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. One can believe gods exist and still be an agnostic: if one knows that one does not know whether those gods exist.
An atheist is a being who is capable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god, …
If a being has never considered beliefs in regards to God/god then they are incapable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god.
If a being is incapable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god (positive, negative or neutral) then discussing issues of God/god in relation to them is utter nonsense.
It becomes nonsensical wordplay… gibberish.
The intent is to have a discussion regarding what the appropriate and proper religious label is for newborn babies. The conclusion is that while newborn babies are atheists, by calling them an atheist it doesn’t provide any useful information about the baby. But calling them atheist does tell us quite a bit about the word atheist.
Having a belief in the nonexistence of god isn’t the neutral or natural state. The proper way to word it is “not having a belief in a god”. That would be the default or natural state.
Agnostic and atheist aren’t the same thing. One could be an agnostic theist. Once again:
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
If you are correct, then you should be able to point out what is flawed with the below logic.
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)
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)
Whether we ignore or don’t ignore the lack of capacity of a newborn to have a belief, it doesn’t change the fact that they don’t hold the belief that a god exists.
This thread isn’t about whether or not newborns have the capacity to believe a god exists, but about the appropriate term for their position with respect to belief in a god. I don’t disagree with you that newborns lack the capacity to believe that a god exists. But this isn’t sufficient to keep them from being atheists.
I don’t see how. If I have not considered a belief, I do not hold it (unless I’ve been indoctrinated with it, I suppose). So a negative atheist is a being who is capable of holding the belief in at least one god, but who has not considered that belief and does not hold it.
It would be like asking an isolated Amazonian who has had no prior contact with any other civilization the following: Has smart phone technology changed social interaction in Western Civilisation?
That person cannot hold beliefs about the question until they have considered smart phones, phones prior to smart phones, western civilization of past/present, social interaction of past/present.
It is a foolish question to ask an isolated Amazonian.
Set: Human Being:
Set A: Incapable of forming an opinion about God/god
Set B: Capable of forming an opinion about God/god
[list]Set X: theist
Set Y: atheist
Set Z: agnostic (a possible set depending on definitions)
