Mutcer wrote:
Unless we change the definition of atheist, then we can't change
the fact that newborn babies are atheists. **
The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that
a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In
the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this
human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect.
A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of
crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is
a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers
as their moneygivers want.
Arminius wrote:
Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In order
to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know the meaning
of the words »theist«, »theism«, »theology«,
and so on.
Newborns do not know these words.
When it comes to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has
to know what it means to be that. Additionally the legal personal freedom
(which is much restricted anyway) could and would not be guaranteed.
** **
Mutcer wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to
identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible.
(**
**)
** **
Not necessarily true. **
Your statement is not true.
Mutcer wrote:
If the god which is posited is logically impossible, then one
can with 100% confidence say that the existence of such god is impossible.
**
That is not true. Why should god be logically impossible?
Or are you the one who wants to be god? Are you (like the most antitheists)
a godwannabe? You want to be the one who dictates (by using the word "posit")
that god is impossible.
Theists say that god is possible, atheists say that they do not know
whether god is possible or not, and antitheists say that god is impossible
(because theists say that god is possible and because, if the times are
modern times, then being against theists is so hypocritically progressive
and can lead to more appreciation, thus power, and that is the goal).
You argue like an antitheist - not logically but dictatorially.
Mutcer wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight
the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists,
namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists
and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in
history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate
God out of the human brains. It is also impossible to eliminate the
nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether
one says God does not exist or I do not know that
God does not exist. A real atheist does not say the former but
the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the
former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because
it is impossible to know wether God exists.« (**
**)
** **
The former would be a gnostic atheist and the latter an agnostic atheist.
**
No.
Arminius wrote:
The Ancient Greek morpheme »a« means »not«
/ »non«, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme »anti«
means »against« / »contra«. So the atheist is
someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas
the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against)
theists, theism, and their god(s). (**
**)
** **
It does not matter how falsely and rhetorically these words are used
in the English language. Almost everyone knows what is logically meant
by a and anti, regardless how you or anyone else
translate them. What I was saying has to do with both linguistics
and logic, what you are saying has only to do with the use of an everyday
language by an English speaker. Again: An Atheist does not know and says
to not know whether (it is possible that) god exists or not, but an antitheist
(like you) claims to know that god does not exist in order to say the
oppsite of that what a theists says. Anti <=> against,
contra.
Mutcer wrote:
Do you think it is possible to know that god does exist?
**
Do you think that it is not possible to know that god does exist? And
if so: why?
Mutcer wrote:
In most cases, antitheists are atheists. **
No. About 99% of all atheists are antitheists. Atheists are not interested
in These themes we are talking about. Atheist are not interested in the
theme "god", "theism", and so on (that is - by the
way - the reason why atheists are so seldom and merely a few [about 1%]),
but antitheists are interested in that, often more than theists.
Mutcer wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In
order to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know
the meaning of the words »theist«, »theism«,
»theology«, and so on.
Newborns do not know these words. **
**
Correct that newborns don't know those words. But you are incorrect
on two other accounts .... **
No. I am correct in all acounts, and you are incorrect in all
accounts.
If someone does not believe in god, then this one is a non-godbeliever
but not necessarily an atheist or an antitheist. Theism, atheism, and
antitheism require a modern society - amongst others the isms
stand for this requirement -, so non-modern societies have nothing to
do with theism, atheism, and antitheism, regardless whether they believe
in god, or not know whether they should believe in god, or do not believe
in god. They have nothing to do with isms, and they believe
what they believe without any thinking about it.
Additionally: A newborn does not need to be a theist, an atheist, an
antitheist in order to be.
Is a newborn old? According to you: yes, at least with a
high probability; because the probability is high that a newborn will
become an old human.
is a newborn old-fashioned? According to you: yes; because
a newborn has no clothes.
Mutcer wrote:
From http://www.dictionary.com
atheist
[ey-thee-ist]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being
or beings. **
That definition might be valid for English speaking humans, but it
is not valid when it comes to philosophy, to science, especially to
the original meaning of the word, because that is the only valid definition.
You may refer to the false English version, I always refer to the true
original version.
James S. Saint wrote:
Emm ..., since it is an English word, how can it be false English?
**
Mutcer wrote:
Arminius wrote:
»Mutcer wrote:
Unless we change the definition of atheist, then we can't
change the fact that newborn babies are atheists. **
The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist
not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of
humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human
is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect.
A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object
of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this
human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do
what their rulers as their moneygivers want.« **
**
Unless a newborn baby holds a belief that a god exists, then it is
by definition an atheist. **
A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists
or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods
do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even
an antitheist. The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is
the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words "theism", "atheism",
and "antitheism" would have no meaning at all. A newborn is
not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what
"god" and "gods" are.
Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton
pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.
Mutcer wrote:
Whether or not one knows what the word means isn't a requirement
for one to be an atheist. **
It is a requirement, of course.
A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists
or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods
do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even
an antitheist. The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is
the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words "theism", "atheism",
and "antitheism" would have no meaning at all. A newborn is
not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what
"god" and "gods" are.
Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus
on an error because of a false precondition.
Mutcer wrote:
However, if you can find a reputable dictionary definition which
says the person must know what 'atheist' means to be an atheist, then
I'll concede that you're right. **
Do you know another language besides English?
Mutcer wrote:
If a logically impossible god is posited, one can know for sure
that the existence of such god is impossible. **
A shoddy trick! If a logically impossible Mutcer is posited, one
can know for sure that the existence of such Mutcer is impossible.
God is possible. Another universe outside of this is possible. We just
do not know something like that, but we can believe in that, because it
is possible.
Mutcer wrote:
One is free to posit a logically impossible god or a logically
possible god. **
I did not say that one is not free to do that.
Mutcer wrote:
I'll posit one right now. A timeless, spaceless god named Dexter
who periodically manifests himself in reality by appearing as a 19 foot
tall 3 headed monster who breathes green bubbles. That's not a logically
impossible god, as it can't be falsified. But if I were to posit a god
which always loves Aminius and also always doesn't love Aminius, then
such a god would be logically impossible - as one cannot always love
something and also always not love that same something. **
Love does not necessarily mean a typical character of a
god or gods. Your example is ridiculous. Is it possible that you do not
know what god means?
Mutcer wrote:
Some atheists are gnostic in their knowledge - or are gnostic
atheists. **
No. Atheists are atheists.
Mutcer wrote:
Atheism doesn't address the issue of whether or not it is possible
that a god exists. It only addresses the issue of whether or not one
holds the belief that a god exists. So to say to be an atheist, one
must "not know and says to not know whether it is possible that
gods exists or not" is not quite accurate. **
The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in
god or gods. Otherwise the words theism, atheism,
and antitheism would have no meaning at all. A newborn, for
example, is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does
not know what god and gods are.
Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus
on an error because of a false precondition.
Mutcer wrote:
What is the difference between a »non-godbeliever«
and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn't hold the belief
that a god exists? **
I already said this several times.
Mutcer wrote:
Think back to when the first person came up with the idea of
a god. **
Which first person?
Mutcer wrote:
Were all people before this person something other than atheists?
If they weren't atheists, then were they theists? **
Neither atheists nor theists - like I said several times.
James S. Saint wrote:
So what are you saying that the ancient Greek word actually
meant? **
James, we already had this kind of conservation. Okay, like I said several
times (also in this thread): **
**
** **
|