731) Arminius, 03.06.2015, 14:09, 14:50, 15:31, 15:58, 16:13, 17:39, 18:35, 23:02 (3109-3116)

Socratus wrote:

„Gravity-time and Gravity-space.
===…
We speak the word »time« without concrete scientific definition.“ **

Because there is no concrete scientific definition.

Socratus wrote:

„Therefore our knowledge about »time« is foggy.
But if we say »gravity-time« then the fog is disappeared because
for us there isn't another »time« expect the »gravity-time«.“ **

No. And I would not call it „gravity-time“, because it is not the gravity or at least not the gravity alone which „dictates“ the time. Let us call this time just „physical time“ or „cosmological time“.

Socratus wrote:

„We don't use light- travel- time
(so- called 1 Astronomical Unit) in our daily life.“ **

In our daily life we also do not use the „gravity-time“. In our daily life we use the „geocentric time“ (b.t.w: this „geocentric time“ would still be the „cosmological time“, if the science did not prescribe another „cosmological time“, namely the „gravity-time“).

Socratus wrote:

„The same »fog« is with the word »space«.
For us there isn't another »space«expect the »gravity- space«.“ **

No. And I would not call it „gravity-space“, because it is not the gravity or at least not the gravity alone which „dictates“ the space. Let us call this space just „physical space“ or „cosmological space“.

Socratus wrote:

„We don't use another spaces in our daily life.“ **

In our daily life we use the „geocentric space“ (b.t.w: this „geocentric space“ would still be the „cosmological space“, if the science did not prescribe another „cosmological space“, namely the „gravity-space“).

Socratus wrote:

„The conceptions »time« and »space« are property of Gravity.“ **

No.

Socratus wrote:

„Without gravity there isn't »time«, there isn't »space«.“ **

That is not true.

Socratus wrote:

„The discussion about »time« and »space« without Gravity is tautology.“ **

No.

Mutcer wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If there are the following three categories: elephants, lions, and zebras; in which category do you fall into?« ** **

That's a false dichotomy fallacy.“ **

No, That is no „false dichotomy fallacy“. That is no conclusion, so a fallacy is not possible. In order to be a fallacy there must be a conclusion. And there is no one at all - I merely asked you a question, a questin containing a conditional. Why did you not notice that? And I did not ask you this question without any intention: the question refers to your own categories which are based on false definitions and false premises (preconditions). Why did you not notice that? With the three categories and the question in which category you fall into I tried to show that your definitions, your premises (preconditions) and - therefore (!) - all your conclusions are false. Why did you not notice that?

So when you said that my question was „a false dichotomy fallacy“, then you admitted that it is your false dichotomy fallacy. Why did you not notice that?

Is there anything in logic that you do not ignore?

Jr Wells wrote:

„So, Arminius' example is a false trichotomy whereas yours is a false dichotomy.“ **

My example was merely a reflection of his own example.

Copied post.

Jr Wells wrote:

„Your argument is a logical fallacy by definition of a false dichotomy ....“ **

But unfortunately he will ignore it - again and again.

Mutcer's definitions and premises (preconditions are false, and therefore Mutcer's conclusions are also false.

I have been saying it to him for so long - over and over again. The following example is merely one of many examples:

Copied post.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

No. You are no troll. Once a troll haunted you, and recently a troll called you a „troll“, although you are not a troll.

Thus: NO.

Mutcer, I did not ask you because of that. I asked you in order to show you that your definitions and your premises (preconditions) are false. You are probably no elephant, no lion, no zebra when it come to classify you as a human. So, in that case, it is not possible to classify you. It is also not possible to say that a newborn human is a „theist“, an „atheist“, or an „antitheist“.

For being a theist, or an atheist, or an antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.

So, in other words, my example had to be false, because it should show the falsity of YOUR examples.

Let me guess what you will do next: (1) Ignore, (2) ignore, (3) mention false conclusions because of false definitions and false premises (preconditions) - as usual.

About 90-99% of those who call themselves „atheists“ are antitheists. And the antitheistic „Wikipedia“ is one of their false gods.

I have given the definitions of „theist“, „atheist“, „antitheist“ in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:

Jr Wells wrote:

„A newborn is both; not an atheist and not a theist.“ **

And also not an antitheists. Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions.

732) Arminius, 04.06.2015, 00:00, 15:14, 15:15, 15:36, 15:37, 16:20, 16:21, 16:56, 17:24, 23:18 (3117-3126)

Mutcer wrote:

„Does the fact a human baby doesn't hold the belief that a god exists make it any more of a »human that doesn't hold the belief that a god exists« than a dog or a cat?“ **

That is not a fact. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are false - as I said several times in several post, in several threads, again and again.

Mutcer wrote:

„So I can get a better understanding of where you're coming from ....“ **

I am as much no antitheist as you are an antitheist.

Mutcer wrote:

„Is a human being who holds the belief that a god exists a theist?“ **

First of all one has to know which human is meant.

Mutcer wrote:

„Is a human being who doesn't hold the belief a god exists not a theist?“ **

First of all one has to know which human is meant.

Mutcer wrote:

„Does non-theist mean the same as »not a theist«“ **

Do you ignore anything just after you have »read« it?

Mutcer wrote:

„Does a newborn human baby hold the belief that a god exists?“ **

A human newborn is not able to do that - as I said to you several times in plenty of posts and in two threads, over and over again.

Again the widened table:

Arminius wrote:

„I have given the definitions of »theist«, »atheist«, »antitheist« in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:

Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions.“ ** **

True.

Jr Wells wrote:

„99% of people agree with you Arminius (it is sound logic).“ **

Also true.

Mutcer wrote:

„Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?“ **

Do you ignore anything just after you have »read« it, Mutcer?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B.t.w.: Shall I copy this post and put in this and your other thread, so that you don't have to write anymore? (Because it is always the same!)

And you (**) are the one who dictates who and what an atheist is. Oh, no. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are absolutely false.

Mutcer wrote:

„What attributes would you say are required for one to be an atheist?“ **

Read my posts. I have answered your questions over and over again.

Mutcer wrote:

„What word would you use to describe a human who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists?“ **

What word would you use to describe a robot that does not hold the belief that oil does not exist?

Mutcer wrote:

„Please indicate which definition or premise is false and why it is false.“ **

Mutcer, I have said that again and again. Please read my post and do not say the same again and again!

Mutcer wrote:

„It sounds like you're saying some types of humans who hold the belief that a god exists are theists and others are not theists.“ **

It does not „sound“, because you are not able to hear my writing.

Mutcer wrote:

„Please explain how a human could hold the belief that a god exists and not be a theist.“ **

Why should I? Is it because you hear my writing on a keyboard?

Mutcer wrote:

„Likewise, it sounds like you're saying some types of humans who don't hold the belief that a god exists are not theists and others don't fall into the category of »not theist«.“ **

It does not „sound“, because you are not able to hear my writing.

May I hope that you can learn?

Mutcer wrote:

„Please explain how a human could not hold the belief that a god exists and not be »not a theist«.“ **

Why should I? Why you hear my writing on a keyboard?

Please explain how which human can hold a belief.

Mutcer wrote:

„Please answer the question.“ **

I have answered your question and many other questions again and again, but you are ignoring everything. Please answer my question why you are ignoring everything.

Do you ignore anything just after you have „read“ it, or do you even ignore it before you have read it?

Does non-theist mean the same as „not a theist“?

Mutcer wrote:

„Line 1 - Not necessarily. A zebra is a being and it can't be a theist, atheist or antitheist.“ **

It does not matter.

Mutcer wrote:

„Line 2 - Again, I agree with you
Line 3 - A godbeliever can be a Antitheist
Line 4 - What do you mean by »Intellectual«?“ **

It is defined. Read my posts - without ignoring.

Mutcer wrote:

„Line 5 - A child can be a theist, atheist or antitheist. All 3 of your choices are wrong.“ **

No one of them is wrong. Like I said over and over again: A newborn or other children are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists.

Mutcer wrote:

„Line 6 - One who is against theism can be an atheist.“ **

Not by definition, and here we are talking about definitions. Like I said again and again: It is the prefix „a“ that tells us why an atheist is not against theism and not against antitheism. And it is the prefix „a“ too that tells us why so many antitheists call themselves „atheists“ - either they do not know better, or they lie.

Mutcer wrote:

„Line 7 - What do the hyphens mean?“ **

Guess what they can mean! It distracts you from your usual doings (e.g. ignoring and repeating).

Mutcer wrote:

„BTW, one who is against atheism can be an atheist.“ **

Should that be the summit of nihilism? An Atheist can never be against atheism - by definition.

Mutcer wrote:

„Line 8 - One who is against antitheism can be an atheist. I know many of them.“ **

Then they tell you lies. It is the prefix „a“ that tells us that an atheist can never be against anything which has to do with theism (including antitheism) - by definition! You are an antitheist, and those you know are probably against you, against your atheistic character, or they are telling lies, or both. There are merely a few humans in the world who are really atheists. Most of them who call themselves „atheists“ are either antitheists or theists.

Mutcer wrote:

„A newborn baby by definition is an atheist.“ **

A newborn human is not an atheist, can never be an atheist, and will never be an atheist. A newborn human has nothing to do with that. Again and again: The answer you get, if you ask whether newborns can be atheists is always: NOT DEFINED.

Arminius wrote:

„Mutcer, you have to consider definitions and preconditions (premises) - as I told you several times. It is not allowed to connect newborns with »theists«, »atheists«, »antitheists«, because they can't be classified as such, the answer to the question of such a classification is always: NOT DEFINED!“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„

“ ** **

Newborn humans have nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism - as I told you over and over again.

Mutcer wrote:

„Please provide your source which says a newborn human isn't an atheist.“ **

The sources are all results of science (all their disciplines that have to do with it), the common sense, the perception / awareness / cognition, all experiences with newborn humans.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Mutcer wrote:

›Please provide your source which says a newborn human isn't an atheist.‹ **

The sources are all results of science (all their disciplines that have to do with it), the common sense, the perception / awareness / cognition, all experiences with newborn humans.« ** **

Not to mention the 21 dictionaries that stated the requirement for disbelief that embryos and infants cannot have.“ **

Yes, of course.

Copied post in another thread.

Moreno wrote:

„Babies are pretheists if anything.“ **

Babies are are also no pretheists; they have absoluetly nothing to do with theism, atheism, anititheism.

According to Mutcer's false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus false conclusions everything and anything is an „atheist“.

I hope that you know what it consequently means when someone „deals“ with such false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus false conclusions and insists on them as strongly as Mutcer does.

Mutcer wrote:

„But let's say we created a dichotomy as follows:
(1) All humans who don't hold the belief that a god exists
(2) All humans who don't fall into #1
In this case, newborn babies would fall into #1 ....“ **

That is rhetoric and nothing else. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality and absolutely nothing to do with logic. You are ignoring - as usual - all humans who do neither fall into your „case #1“ nor fall into your „case #2“, because it is not possible to classify all humans in that way you want to classify them.

------------------------------------------------

Let's say we created an ILP member ....

Let's say we created a „new human“ (it has been trying many times for so long - again and again ..., and unseccessfully) ....

....

There ist too much „freedom“ in the US empire. Think of Rome in the 2nd or even the 1st century B.C.. The Romans „pacified“ their enemies (both inside and outside of Rome) by defeating them. This defeating had many „faces“.

How many people are currently imprisoned / arrested in the US?

Is there any connection with the „liberal“ gun laws of the US? In other words: Is the police in the US frightened, because the people may have guns?

733) Arminius, 05.06.2015, 00:27, 00:57, 15:43, 19:30, 23:40, 23:58 (3127-3132)

Mutcer wrote:

„Please explain how a human could not fall into category #1 or category #2.“ **

I have explained it many times. Why do you not read my posts? You are ignoring people's posts that are not in agreement with your false definitions, false premises (preconditions) and false conclusuions.

Mutcer wrote:

„Again:

(1) All humans who don't hold the belief that a god exists,
(2) All humans who don't fall into #1.“ **

Herewith you force all humans into two categories, although it is not possible to force all humans into that two categories when it comes to the „belief that a god exists“ or that a god does not exist, and so on, and especially when it comes to theism, atheism, and antitheism - as I already explained many times in many posts and in many threads. According to the definition and thus also to the premises (preconditions) your „case #2“ is not allowed to contain such humans who are not capable of the „belief that a god exists“ or that a god does not exist, and so on, because they have no chance of belonging to your „case #1“. Equal opportunities are required - in a logical sense, of course. All humans you want to classify must have the same chance, the same possibility - by definition and by premises (preconditions), because they are required.

In other words: Your set must be: „humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists“; then one of your two subsets must be: (A) „humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists“; and the other one of your two subsets must be: (B) „humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A“. That would be correct, because both subsets belong to the same set. But newborn humans, for example, are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists; so they have nothing to do with the set, thus also nothing to do with both subsets. So you are using the wrong subsets and thus also the wrong set. The following set and its subsets are correct (note the description too, please):

or as a symmetric difference:
A and B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
A = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists.
B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A.

And logically, Mutcer, you are also not allowed to confuse the conclusion, also then, if it is a false conclusion (e.g. „newborn humans are atheists“ => false), with the premise, also then, if it is the false premise (e.g. „newborn humans fall into #2“ => false), because you are using the conclusion as premnise, namely the false conclusion as the false premise („newborn humans are atheists“ => false) and the false premise as the false conclusion („newborn humans fall into #2“ => false).

You are in violation of logic, and ignorance can never help you, because it can never change the rules of logic.

So will the gun laws be changed (in the near future)? It is just a question - not more.

That's right (**), and we know it, especially from history and from the US people's attitude towards guns. But nevertheless the US government will have to do more than „something“, if this development of violence will go on, perhaps in the direction of a civil war, unless the US government wants this development and wants it to escalate.

But the term „allowing ... to usurp the power of the courts“ (**) implies that there is an instance that is allowed to allow, and this instance is the government, not the people who are allowed to make a cross on a piece of paper. The ballot paper fakes that there is democracy - that is a „lovely“ fairy tale, but the reality is that there is a dictatorship of a corrupt system.

If we refer to all humans, then the Venn diagram is e.g. the follwong one:

N = All humans.
N and S = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
S = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exist.
K = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into „S“.
P = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who fall into both „S“ and „K“.

Mutcer's error is that he confuses „Q“ with „Q+ and Z“, or equals them, and ignores that „Q“ is not a subset and that „Q and Z“ are not the set.

In other words: Mutcer's definitions are false, Mutcer's pemises (precondions) are false, so that Mutcer's conclusions are also false.

I'm sorry, Mutcer.

„Nanorobot race.

In the same ways that technology development had the space race and nuclear arms race, a race for nanorobots is occurring. There is plenty of ground allowing nanorobots to be included among the emerging technologies. Some of the reasons are that large corporations, such as General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Synopsys, Northrop Grumman and Siemens have been recently working in the development and research of nanorobots; surgeons are getting involved and starting to propose ways to apply nanorobots for common medical procedures; universities and research institutes were granted funds by government agencies exceeding $2 billion towards research developing nanodevices for medicine; bankers are also strategically investing with the intent to acquire beforehand rights and royalties on future nanorobots commercialization. Some aspects of nanorobot litigation and related issues linked to monopoly have already arisen. A large number of patents has been granted recently on nanorobots, done mostly for patent agents, companies specialized solely on building patent portfolio, and lawyers. After a long series of patents and eventually litigations, see for example the Invention of Radio or about the War of Currents, emerging fields of technology tend to become a monopoly, which normally is dominated by large corporations.“ **

What do you think about that?

734) Arminius, 06.06.2015, 00:37, 01:00, 02:01, 02:08, 02:38, 04:38, 16:06, 19:14, 22:13, 23:35, 23:59 (3133-3143)

We are talking about logic and mathematical set theory in order to get to philosophical statements. We are not talking about antitheistic ideologies (thus: modern religions).

When it come to classify those humans who are capable of holding a belief, then it is not possible to classify all humans.

Ideologies, ignorance, and ad hominems do not change any logical rule.

And when it comes to know the rules of ad hominems, please read the following text: **

Ecmandu wrote:

„All babies have the belief that when they see a females nipple, milk will come out of it if they suck on it. ALL babies. That's a belief.“ **

That is no belief, that is a stimulus-response mechanism. All mammalian babies - thus not only human babies - are „armed“ with this stimulus-response mechanism. No baby is capable of belief in the sense of godbelief, not to mention theism, atheism, antitheism.

So again: Copied post.

No human baby does belong to the subsets „Q+“ and „Z“ (see above **) but „merely“ to the set „Q“ (see above **).

Copied post.
Copied post.

So according to Mutcer's false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus also false conclusions the whole universe is „atheistic“.

Copied post in another thread.

No. It is not a belief in the sense of a godbelief; and in this thread we are talking about the godbelief; so please read this thread or at least most of the posts of this thread, and then you will know it.

A little help: Copied post in another thread; copied post in another thread.

So according to Mutcer's false definitions, false premises (preconditions), and thus also false conclusions the whole universe is „atheistic“.

Phyllo wrote::

„I'm pretty sure that the intersection N makes no sense.“ **

The intersection is irrelevant, not senseless. I could not find another picture in the internet. So just ignor the intersection „N“, because it has nothing to with the theme we are talking about. Did you not notice the other set? That is the correct set - as I already said in a former post: Copied post.

Phyllo wrote:

„You already defined Z as being exclusive of Q+.“ **

That's correct.

Phyllo wrote:

„... so the intersection must be empty.“ **

It can but it does not have to be empty. There are, for example, schizophrenic people who are capable of holding a belief that god exists but do sometimes hold and sometimes not hold the belief that god exists. That was the Intention for „N“.

Phyllo wrote:

„It's not that complicated.“ **

It is not complicated, of course, and the set, subsets, and their interpretations are absolutely correct.

Phyllo wrote:

„There is a universal set of all humans which contains 3 mutually exclusive subsets. There is a subset of humans who are capable and also believe in a god and a subset of those who are capable and lack a belief in god. The third subset consists of people incapable of forming beliefs - babies, the severely mentally ill and those unable to think because of physical damage.“ **

There are more than two possibilities of sets. If you want to prefer your set, then feel free to do it. Your set is also correct. And if I had found a picture for it, I would have used it too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Which religions were smart enough to include a lexicon as part of their holy scriptures? None of them. The Hebrews came closest during their effort to create the perfectly ordered holy language, but they didn't really know how to do that. Think about how extremely different world history would be if the religions inherently felt the need to include a dictionary as a part of any holy book.“ **

Which religions do you know best?

Zinnat wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Which religions were smart enough to include a lexicon as part of their holy scriptures? None of them. The Hebrews came closest during their effort to create the perfectly ordered holy language, but they didn't really know how to do that. Think about how extremely different world history would be if the religions inherently felt the need to include a dictionary as a part of any holy book.«

Your objection is right but let me tell you that many religions tried to make up that deficiency by creating a certain wise and intelligent class, who can interpret scriptures for the folks. That is precisely what sages, gurus, sheikhs and molvies were supposed to do. That system also worked long enough, though now has been failed because that chosen class also intruded by vested interests.“ **

Ancient Indian history and languages, especially Sanskrit as the language of the Vedas, should be known by Europeans too, but they are not much known by Europeans - unfortunately. Since 2000 years Europe has been estranging by foreign religions, especially by Christianity that emerged in one of the deserts of the Arabic peninsular. The Europeans could learn much from those religions that are more akin to the European ancient religions.This is meant culturally and strongly relating to the topic of this thread.

It is not possible to define, to categorise, or to classify a newborn human as an „atheist“.

If you want to put the two words „atheist“ and „newborn“ together - in a logical sense (!) -, then you have to define both words and not merely one (like Mutcer does and many other antitheistic ILP members do). If you want to define what a „newborn“ really „is“ - and if you are capable of doing that (!) -, then you will soon note that a „newborn“ can never be a theist, can never be an atheist, can never be an antitheist. It is already known, so there are no linguistic „revolutionaries“ necessary. We know this by definition, by dictionaries, by lexcica, by logic, by science, by reason, by common sense, by good sense, by good judgement, by experiences, by perception of newborns, and by much more.

Mutcer wrote:

„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?“ **

I am ignoring nothing, but you are ignoring almost everything. That is fact. Read the posts of all your threads, and you will note that fact.

Mutcer wrote:

„What definition did I present that is false and why is it false?“ **

Why do you always ask the same questions that are already answered many times, in many posts, and in many threads?

Mutcer wrote:

„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?“ **

Are you not capable of reading, Mutcer? I already said 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 wrote:

„If those two categories are presented to you, how would you go about determining which of the two categories each human falls in?“ **

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.

Mutcer wrote:

„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 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, and „false“ means „provably false“.

Mutcer wrote:

„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?“ **

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.

So again:

Arminius wrote:

„Your set must be: »humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists«; then one of your two subsets must be: (A) »humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists«; and the other one of your two subsets must be: (B) »humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A«. That would be correct, because both subsets belong to the same set. But newborn humans, for example, are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists; so they have nothing to do with the set, thus also nothing to do with both subsets. So you are using the wrong subsets and thus also the wrong set. The following set and its subsets are correct (note the description too, please):

or as a symmetric difference:
A and B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
A = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists.
B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A.

And logically, Mutcer, you are also not allowed to confuse the conclusion, also then, if it is a false conclusion (e.g. »newborn humans are atheists« => false), with the premise, also then, if it is the false premise (e.g. »newborn humans fall into #2« => false), because you are using the conclusion as premnise, namely the false conclusion as the false premise (»newborn humans are atheists« => false) and the false premise as the false conclusion (»newborn humans fall into #2« => false).

You are in violation of logic, and ignorance can never help you, because it can never change the rules of logic.“ ** **

Mutcer wrote:

„You're missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy.“ **

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 than a ridiculous fallacy!

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

You are talking about „newborns and atheists“, Mutcer. Eevery 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.

Copied post in another thread.

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.

We can use the mathematical set theory or the logical syllogism in order to make it clearer.

Copied post in another thread.

„Give me the control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.“

735) Arminius, 07.06.2015, 01:08, 01:27, 03:17, 03:35, 04:07, 13:39, 23:59 (3144-3150)

What most people do not understand is the economy, especially the economy of money. So they often confuse economical causes with pure sociological or pure psychological causes, thus with something that has nothing to do with the reality.This misunderstanding is exploited; so those humans who control the other humans have an interest in that misunderstanding and strive to keep the controlled humans in ignorance.

James S. Saint wrote:

„There are two realms of existence (count them - »two«). There is the physical realm (the one you can't seem to think beyond). And there is the »Conceptual Realm« historically called the »Realm of the Divine“, the realm of »things« like angels, gods, principles, ideas, strategies, and ... »laws of physics«.“ **

Do this two realms of existence interact with each other in such a way that somtehing of the first realm can become something of the second realm and something of the second realm can become something of the first realm? For example: Is it possible that an atom can become a word or an idea an electron?

What do you think about the „unmoved mover“?

Most of those who call themselves „atheists“ are antitheists. I have never met a real atheist. But I have met many so-called „atheists“, thus antitheists.

And now in this thread and just because I am defending the logic against those antitheists who know not much or even nothing about logic, those antitheists think, although they do not know me: „He is a theist“. They do not know that defending logic does not imply being a theist.

In addition: The definition of „theists“ does not necessarily imply „religious“. Atheists and antitheists can be more religious than theists; and because of the fact that I know many antitheists and many theists I can say that antitheists are often more religious than theists.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And the »unmoved mover« is also a concept of no changing and thus, by definition, not a part of the physical universe.“ **

Yes, but my question was: What do you think about the „unmoved mover“? I guess that, according to RM:AO, it is a concept, thus a part of the conceptual realm. But is there any connection between the two realms - in the sense of my former question?

Ecmandu wrote:

„That's not true.“ **

That is true. Of course.

Ecmandu wrote

„The »a« means »lack of belief in« not disbelief in ....“ **

The prefix „a“ of the word „atheism“ means „lack of theism“. That is what I am also saying, but you probaly did not notice it. Please read my posts, and then you will know it.

Ecmandu wrote:

„... by definition children and squirrels lack belief in God, atheism has two definitions... one is anti-theism and the other is „Lack of belief in the God concept«.“

That is not true. If one logic statement (for example: as a part of a syllogism) contradicts another, then one has to check it again and to eliminate the false one.

By definition, by dictionaries, by lexcica, by logic, by science, by reason, by common sense, by good sense, by good judgement, by experiences, by perception of newborns, and by much more.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Ecmandu wrote:

»That's not true. The a means ›lack of belief in‹ not disbelief in ..., by definition children and squirrels lack belief in God, atheism has two definitions ..., one is anti-theism and the other is ›lack of belief in the god concept‹. This means neither for nor against, no formulation, whatsoever. So, yes, by that definition that atheists give... all children are atheists. This is just definitions, Arminius ..., the answer to the op is ›yes‹ ... they mean the same thing.« **

Why do you think that you have greater authority than 21 dictionaries that say otherwise?“ **

Yes, and also lexcica, science, reason, common sense, good sense, good judgement, experiences, perception of newborns, and by much more.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Ecmandu wrote:

»They can be that way because they are an oppressed culture, just like oppressed cultures wear ›bling‹ ... or oppressed people. It's an ornament mostly, but some anti-theists (implying that the there theity to be anti towards... so the theists still win) are not about the ornateness.... they come from a place of ›What the fuck is this shit!? And honestly ..., you think there's a benevolent being behind all of this?! That's fucking psychotic! You smug fuckers!! Seriously!!. Atheists are treated like shit in the military ..., beat up constantly, because of these God fuckers ..., so yeah atheists are an oppressed minority.« **

Bullshit.“ **

Yes. Of course.

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:

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) !

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:

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.

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: Copied post.

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.

736) Arminius, 08.06.2015, 00:14, 00:54, 01:18, 01:37, 02:59, 04:19, 14:39, 15:55, 16:36, 16:57 (3151-3160)

Jr Wells wrote:

„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.
....
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 indoctrination is worse than all other indoctrinations, and those who suffer most from it are the children!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yes, in RM:AO, the Unmoved Mover is a concept and thus eternal. And it also represents the one point where the two realms come together. The Unmoved Mover is Impossibility itself, never changing yet responsible for all changing/physicality - never moved, yet responsible for all movement - ever present, all powerful, never fooled.“ **

Interesting thread ( except some „special posts“ ).

Well done (except continuous clearing of the throat), Primal Rage (Erik).

As you know I also like Peter Sloterdijk's philosophy. So that was the second reason for me to say: Well done, Primal Rage (Erik), and thanks.

Jr Wells wrote:

„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.

Primal rage (Erik) wrote:

„Yeah, I remember you contributed well in the Sloterdijk thread I made. Rage and Time shall be next.“ **

Yeah, that is a good book.

Copied post in another thread.

My video contribution to your thread is the following video: **

Is it true that one out of five children of the US go to bed hungry?

Is DARPA really „independent from other military research and development and reports“ (**)?

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

That is nonsense, Mutcer, because of your false dichotomy you have to deal with a different dichotomy, namely with a dichotomy that is not false.

Jr Wells wrote:

„Mutcer wrote:

»›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).
1) There are people with blonde hair.
2) All other people not in category 1.
Therefore, I conclude that a blonde is the natural state.“ **

Or:

1) There are humans who are odd ILP members.
2) There are humans who do not fall into category 1.
=> Therfore the (false) conclusion that odd ILP members are the natural state.

„RM:AO is actually for DARPA“ (**)?

Is or was ARPANET (the precursor of the INTERNET) the net of ARPA, later known as DARPA?

737) Arminius, 09.06.2015, 01:05, 01:05, 01:06, 01:26, 16:48, 16:53, 17:47 (3161-3167)

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

UTTER NONSENSE !

Mutcer wrote:

„Do you consider newborn baby humans to be humans?“ **

Did anybody say that „newborn humans are no humans“? Besides you yourself, Mutcer, and Sauwelios, no one else!

Your nonsensical question also shows that you are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.

Mutcer wrote:

„Sauwelios wrote:

»Mutcer wrote:

»Do you consider newborn baby humans to be humans?« **

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‹ ....« **

Please explain how a newborn human wouldn't be a human?“ **

Your „statement“ that „a newborn human is not a human“ is a contradiction, absolute nonsense. Of course. And: Your „statement“ that a newborn human is like an adult human“ is also a contradiction, absolute nonsense. In addition: These two contradictory „statements“ also contradict each other, so that the conclusion of this absolutely contradictory „statements“ is: „A human is a human and not a human“ - which is a typically contradictory „statement“ of nihilistic debutants.

Mutcer wrote:

»Jr Wells wrote:

›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.« **

Burden of proof is upon you to show newborns do believe a god exists.“ **

No. The burden of proof is upon you, dear magic Mutcer, to show that „newborns are capable of holding a belief that a god exists“, because in order (a) to believe that a god exists and/or (b) to believe that a god does not exist one has to be capable of holding a belief that a god exists, as I said and showed several times, and newborn humans are not capabe of holding a belief that a god exists, as I also said and showed several times - again and again.

Stop ignoring everything, Mutcer!

In addition:

You are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»During the late 1960s, with the transfer of these mature programs to the Services, ARPA redefined its role and concentrated on a diverse set of relatively small, essentially exploratory research programs. The agency was renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1972, and during the early 1970s, it emphasized direct energy programs, information processing, and tactical technologies.

Concerning information processing, DARPA made great progress, initially through its support of the development of time-sharing (all modern operating systems rely on concepts invented for the Multics system, developed by a cooperation among Bell Labs, General Electric and MIT, which DARPA supported by funding Project MAC at MIT with an initial two-million-dollar grant).

DARPA supported the evolution of the ARPANET (the first wide-area packet switching network), Packet Radio Network, Packet Satellite Network and ultimately, the Internet and research in the artificial intelligence fields of speech recognition and signal processing, including parts of Shakey the robot. DARPA also funded the development of the Douglas Engelbart's NLS computer system and The Mother of All Demos; and the Aspen Movie Map, which was probably the first hypermedia system and an important precursor of virtual reality.«

The individual inventor actually has zero chance of the old idea of getting rich by inventing ..., well ..., anything. When you hear that some women has recently invented ..., whatever ..., it is merely more PR for feminisation (same ole, same ole -- »Propaganda«).“ **

I know. Unfortunately I forgot that you had already mentioned DARPA several times - although I was quite sure that it had something to do with ARPA and ARPANET, the precursor of the INTERNET, but then I thought: „Why am I not asking James S. Saint, the one who wants to be asked?“ At that time I had already read the following text:

„The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.

....

The first successful message on the ARPANET was sent by UCLA student programmer Charley Kline, at 10:30 pm on 29 October 1969, from Boelter Hall 3420. Kline transmitted from the university's SDS Sigma 7 Host computer to the Stanford Research Institute's SDS 940 Host computer. The message text was the word login; on an earlier attempt the l and the o letters were transmitted, but the system then crashed. Hence, the literal first message over the ARPANET was lo. About an hour later, after the programmers repaired the code that caused the crash, the SDS Sigma 7 computer effected a full login. The first permanent ARPANET link was established on 21 November 1969, between the IMP at UCLA and the IMP at the Stanford Research Institute. By 5 December 1969, the entire four-node network was established.“ **

The ARPANET was officially shut down 28 February 1990.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Once upon a time, if you wanted money to build humanoid robots, you basically had to get it from the military — specifically, the high-risk, high-reward technology lab known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.

›Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage.‹

That changed late last year when Google’s own high-risk, high-reward technology lab — Google X — bought a string of companies that make robot legs, arms, eyes, wheels, and brains, with the apparent goal of building something like an android. It’s a win for roboticists, who now have a nonmilitary patron with deep pockets. But two of Google’s new rock star robotics companies, Boston Dynamics and Schaft, still have obligations to DARPA — meaning Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage, forced to share parental duties for at least a year.

Google and DARPA have a lot in common — they both try to anticipate the future and make big bets on emerging technologies. Google even has a history of snapping up DARPA-funded technology — the self-driving car came from a DARPA-sponsored competition — and poaching its employees.

That doesn’t mean the two innovation houses want to work together, however. Google isn’t interested in taking money from DARPA because its ambitions are in the more lucrative consumer market, and any association with DARPA leads to headlines like, ›What the heck will Google do with these scary military robots?‹ DARPA doesn’t want to give Google money because it wants to use its $2.7 billion budget to fund startups with scarce resources, not Goliath tech companies, and its investments are supposed to seed technology that can one day be purchased by the Pentagon for national defense, which Google is unlikely to play along with.

The tension came to a head over the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC), a $2 million competition for robot rescue workers that requires the machines to perform athletic feats like opening a door and going up and down a ladder. Google never signed up for the DRC, but it’s now intimately involved. Five of the eight teams that qualified through the DRC Trials in December are using Atlas, a humanoid made by Boston Dynamics. Boston Dynamics has a $10.8 million contract to provide Atlas robots and tech support for the DRC.

›Google never signed up for the DARPA Robotics Challenge, but it’s now intimately involved.‹

Google also happens to own the team that is most likely to win the DRC. Schaft, a Japanese robotics startup that was founded explicitly to compete in the competition, got 27 out of 32 possible points at the qualifying round in December, beating the runner-up by seven. Schaft received $2.6 million from DARPA to compete.

It now looks like Google and DARPA are trying to extricate themselves from each other a little early, however. DARPA is considering adding more teams to a track in the competition where teams build their own robot without DARPA funding, and any newcomers will use a different platform such as NASA Johnson Space Center’s Valkyrie robot instead of Atlas, in order to prevent further entanglement with Boston Dynamics. Google will also move Schaft to the unfunded track and forfeit future DARPA money, which will be reallocated to non-Google-owned teams.« **

Google actually gives DARPA a bit of a challenge in the field of human interface technology and information mining (the larger portion of AI). But DARPA is allowed to spy on Google and even covertly intervene. So in the long run, Google can never do anything that DARPA hasn't already permitted to happen.“ **

There was a campaign aginst Google some months ago. It seems that DARPA is able to knock out Google if it wants to. But DARPA itself is also not absolutely independent.

3165

James S. Saint wrote:

„DARPA took over the NASA projects and the issues between Google and DARPA are like the old issues between NASA and individuals attempting space flight. In the end, the governance controls all things (bunch of Godwannabes).“ **

I guess you do not mean the US government but the world government as the world rulers. The US government depends on the world rulers. Think of, for example, the money that the members of the US government need for their elections and re-elections.

3166

Wealth inequality will never be corrected, and it is not possible to correct it. The main reason is the fact that there are rulers and those who are ruled, another reason is the fact that there are different cultures, different mentalaities, different interests, and so on (don't forget the multiple possibilities of the rulers to display or sidestep all that). So egalitarianism leads to even more inequality, especially in the long run. But there is one possibility I have not mentioned yet: If the number of a society is small enough, then there is a chance to correct inequality, at least in a bearable sense. So the larger the inhabitant number of a social unit the higher the inequality degree within it. But this is true only if those tiny units are left alone and not „eaten“ by the big units, especially the biggest unit (e.g.: the current „world society“); and the big „societies“ and especially the biggest „society“ are always hungry.

---------

Again:
Is it true that one out of five children of the US go to bed hungry?

3167

All your posts imply the false premise that „newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists“. This utter nonsense is what you are implicitly saying, again and again, by ignoring anything else. In order to be an atheist one has to be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. This is what I said to you again and again. If one is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then (and only then!) this one is capable of becoming a theist, an antitheist, or even an atheist.

I said this again and again, Mutcer, so please stop ignoring it.

738) Arminius, 10.06.2015, 04:41, 14:13, 18:13, 20:01, 23:59 (3168-3172)

Sauwelios wrote:

„Arminius and Mutcer, do you agree with the following definition, which is based on the definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno, but edited to incorporate what Arminius has been saying? »An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.«“ **

„An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists“- this is already my defintion! So there is nothing to „edit“ or to „incorporate“. In addition: Mutcer's „definitions“ are false.

A „definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno“? That can only be a false definition.

Which one do you mean?

Suggestions:

Mutcer wrote:

„Atheism is the lack of belief that a god exists.“ **

This „definition“ is false. „Atheism“ is the „lack of theism“ („a-theism“ = „non-theism“, „lack of theism“), not „the lack of belief“. The „lack of a belief“ is an „a-belief“ (= „non-belief“, „lack of belief“), so „lack of the belief that a god exists“ is merely „a-belief-that-a-god-exists“ (= „non-belief-that-a-god-exists“, „lack lack of a belief that a god exists“). The word „theism“ does not mean „belief“ but „god + ism“. Theism and its successors (not ancestors, Mutcer!) antitheism and atheism imply the belief in god, but these words do not mean „belief“ or „religion“ but „god and ism“ (and not more, Mutcer!). Addionally this one of Mutcer's false definitions also lacks the capability of holding the belief that a god exist.

Mutcer wrote:

„An atheist is a person who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.“ **

This „definition“ is false, because it lacks the capability of holding the belief that a god exists.

Mutcer wrote:

„A newborn baby is an implicit atheist.“ **

This „statement“ is false. A „newborn baby“ can be any mammalian newborn baby. But the main point is that any newborn baby has nothing to do with atheism. So the the definition of „atheist“ is not possible without mentioning the capability of holding the belief that a god exists. Theists, antitheists, and atheist must be capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and all newborns are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists.

If you were a „newborn baby“ and an „implicit atheist“ (???), what would you „intellctually say“ (???) about god or even about theism? Theism is a precondition of antitheism and atheism. Both antitheism and atheism are impossible without godbelief and especially theism. If you want to be an atheist you have to know what „godbelief“ and „theism“ exactly mean before you can overcome them and become an antitheists or an atheist.

What Mutcer and his friends do is also comparable with what the egalitarian(ist)s have been doing since the so-called „french revolution“: confusing the future with the past and saying „back to nature (!), because the real humans are those who live in natural state (!), have no power (!), and do not believe in god (!) but in those humans who know what is good for them“ (???). Who is really meant by the word „them“? What „is good for »them«“? What? For whom?

Sauwelios wrote:

„Exactly, so I edited it:

»An atheist is a person [who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but] who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.«“ **

Okay, but exactly I defined „atheist“ in this way: „An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.“

The term „who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but ...“ should not be in brackets, because it could be misinterpreted as an „option“, although it is no option, or in the direction of „not that relevant“, but it is most relevant. This term is the premise of that whole definition and of other premises and conclusions.

Mutcer wrote:

„Not a single post I have made suggests or implies that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists.“ **

Then you have no idea of the English adverb „implicitly“ and no idea of logic. I know that the English language is not suitable for logic, science (including philosophy). That is no surprise. Can you speak other languages? Maybe we will find a solution in another language. Mutcer, all your posts contain the implicit statement that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and that statement is false.

Mutcer wrote:

„You seem to think that a newborn baby isn't an atheist and isn't capable of NOT holding the belief that a god exists.“ **

I „seem“ to think that? Are you not able to read, not capable of reading? In each of my posts of this thread I wrote that a newborn human is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists and therefore not capable of being a theist, or an antitheist, or an atheist.

Mutcer wrote:

„An atheist is a person who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists. Whether or not they are capable of holding the belief is immaterial with respect to whether or not they are an atheist. Please learn the difference between implicit atheist and explicit atheist.“ **

That is again utter nonsense.

You are implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause.

No one of the humans was an atheist before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! And no one of the humans have any single ancestor who was an atheists before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! In order to be an atheist one has to know what the prefix „a“ in the substantive „atheist“, the suffix „ist“ in the substantive „atheist“ and the suffix „ism“ in the substantive „atheism“ mean. By definition: as an atheist one has to know what one „is not“, what one „lacks of“, and one has to know that this requires an intellectual processing in a modern / nihilistic sense. One can know this then (and only then), if one is at least capable of holding the belief that a god exists.

An atheist is an atheist - the exact definition: An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.

You want to „create“ an animal or a stone-age human animist out of an atheist. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. You want to turn the time back to the Stone Age because of your „dream“: you want your „atheistic baby“. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. Rethink it, please!

I have answered all your questions many times. I do not have to answer your questions again and again.

....

An atheist must also be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. Of course!

Mutcer:
„An elephant is an mammalian animal with four legs.“
„A mouse is an mammalian animal with four legs.“
„Therefore a mouse is an elephant.“ *** - ??? - Did you get it?

Please let change your false program.

....

You are mistaken (**). Please guess how many of them (**) are false:

1) 1 statement.
2) 2 statements.
3) 3 statements.
4) 4 statements, thus: all statements.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Well, if I'm not mistaken, 2) 2 statements ....“ **

Well ....

At least: you're on the right track.

Sauwelios wrote:

„According to you.“ **

And according to logic - so: you're still on the right track.

Sauwelios wrote:

„The fourth statement is a conclusion from the first three statements.“ **

According to logic that is true - so: you're still on the right track.

Sauwelios wrote:

„So if the first statement is false ..., then so is the last.“ **

Yes, but there are seven possibilities:
a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last;
b) if the second statement is false, then so is the last;
c) if the third statement is false, then so is the last;
d) if the first and the second statement are false, then so is the last;
e) if the first and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
f) if the second and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
g) if the first, the second, and the third statement are false, then so is the last.

Hmmh ....

Can you do it?

Sauwelios wrote:

„Logic has nothing to do with the truth value of statements--except indirectly, if the statements in question are implied by other statements.“ **

But, Sauwelios, if you have to find out what is true and what is not true, you have no other chance than referring to logic and to science.

Sauwelios wrote:

„I think this is a case of a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last. According to you, that is.“ **

Yes, but please do not forget that we are still referring to this:

„Please guess how many of them are false:

1) 1 statement.
2) 2 statements.
3) 3 statements.
4) 4 statements, thus: all statements.“ ** **

How many?

And do not forget the seven possibilities:

„Yes, ... there are seven possibilities:
a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last;
b) if the second statement is false, then so is the last;
c) if the third statement is false, then so is the last;
d) if the first and the second statement are false, then so is the last;
e) if the first and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
f) if the second and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
g) if the first, the second, and the third statement are false, then so is the last.“ ** **

Good luck!

739) Arminius, 11.06.2015, 00:01, 01:24, 02:23, 18:20, 18:38 (3173-3177)

Good luck!

And don't forget that according to Mutcer's false syllogisms „a bike is a car“ (**), „a mouse is an elephant“ (**|**), ... and so on ....

Other examples for Mutcer's false syllogisms: „blonde hair is the natural state“ (**), or „odd ILP members are the natural state“ (**|**), ... and so on.

„Wo immer das Interesse an Enterbung und Neubeginn aufflammt, stehen wir auf dem Boden der authentischen Moderne.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014.
Translation:
„Wherever the interest in disinheritance and a new start flares, we stand on the floor of the authentic modernity.“

A very good idea.

Mutcer wrote:

„Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don't believe, it doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists.“ **

The fact is that newborn babies are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists. If one is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then this one has nothing to do with your „statements“. Your „statements“ are completely based on your false definitions, your false premises (preconditions), and your false conclusions.

Zinnat wrote:

„Mutcer wrote:

»Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don't believe, it doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists.« **

There is only fact in your posts that you are defining atheists wrongly. That is all. And, you know that too.“ **

Are you sure that he knows that?

B.t.w.: Not only his definition of „atheist“ is wrong / false, Many other definitions are also wrong / false. In addition: He ignores reality and logical rules. His „world“ is a „world of antiscientists, antilogicians, antirealists, antitheists (not to forget!), ...“, just an „antiworld“.

So what shall we do? For example: Stop posting here? Do you have any suggestion?

740) Herr Schütze, 12.06.2015, 11:01, 23:04 (3178-3179)

Vier Antworten zu vier Fragen, die Peter Sloterdijk auch umtreiben:

1) Was treibt die Menschheit voran?

Das Leben und die jeweilige Kultur.

2) Entwickelt die Menschheit sich von Niederem zu Höherem?

Sie entwickelt sich mittels verschiedener Kulturen und in verschiedenen Kulturgruppen in Zyklen, genauer gesagt: in Spiralzyklen. Die Entwicklung verläuft also sowohl zu Höherem als auch zu Niederem. Das ist besonders gut an der Geschichte zu erkennen, aber auch an der Evolution. Die Evolution wird diesbezüglich häufig falsch gedeutet, weil die einzelnen Entwicklungsschritte länger dauern als in der Geschichte.

3) Orientiert sich Fortschritt an Lehren aus der Geschichte?

Genau genommen gibt es den „Fortschritt“ so nicht, und auch dann, wenn es ihn so gäbe und er sich an den Lehren aus der Geschichte zu orientieren vorhätte, würde es ihm zumindest langfristig nicht gelingen, weil er immer wieder von stärkeren Bewegungen zermalmt würde.

4) Ist Geschichte als Progression der und in der Freiheit zu begreifen?

Nein.

„Genie-Dichte ...im antiken Griechenland? Als fast jedes Dorf, jede Stadt ein Genie hervorbrachte?“ - Ingo Bading. **

Das ist absolut übertrieben. Es gab eine „Dichte“ in dem Ausmaß dort nie.

„Wäre dies nicht das einzig Notwendige, wäre womöglich nicht genau das jene »Mindestproduktion innovativen Wandels« ...?“ **

Ja und nein.

Ja, weil wir es tatsächlich brauchen könnten.

Nein, weil wir es nicht mehr brauchen können.

Der Unterschied liegt eben in der Möglichkeitsform und in der Wirklichkeitsform.

„Ist nicht jede Tier- oder Pflanzenart für sich und jedes echte Kulturwerk, jede echte Kulturtat eine Genialität auf seine Weise?“ **

Ja.

„Dementsprechend auch ähnlich gefährdet wie alles Geniale in dieser Welt?“ **

Es ist ja nicht jede Tier- oder Pflanzenart gefährdet, sondern „nur“ viele, aber eben nicht jede. Diejenigen Arten, die am besten in Form, also am fittesten sind, werden dieses Desaster überleben.

„Und kann dementsprechend nicht jeder Mensch ebenso genial werden als der einzigartige, nie wiederkehrende Mensch, der er ist?“ **

Nein, nicht jeder Mensch, denn das können nur wenige Menschen, und gegenwärtig sieht es so aus, als könnten es - trotz oder eher wegen der Tatsache, daß die Bevölkerungszahl weltweit enorm steigt - fast keine Menschen mehr.

„Sloterdijk geht nämlich realistischerweise davon aus, daß es in der Menschheit immer nur eine Minderheit von Menschen sind, die den Aufruf »Du mußt dein Leben ändern« ernst nehmen. Sie aber sind die eigentlichen Träger allen kulturellen Wandels und aller kulturellen Weiterentwicklung.“ **

Ja, und genau die fehlen oder/und werden von anderen Interessen unterdrückt.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Sloterdijk hätte vielleicht Ähnliches geschrieben wie Mathilde Ludendorff, wenn er es in etwa zur selben Zeit geschrieben hätte wie sie.

==>