
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On 2 Dec 2003 16:18:41 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Al Evan), Message
ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>386sx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Al Evan writes:
>>
>> > That is my exact point: "No true atheist claims that there is no god."
>> > What's yours?
>>
>> Then this would be the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If you say "there is a
>> God," then an atheist could either say "Nope, there ain't no God," or she
>> could say, "I don't believe you." In the latter case either the onus would
>> be on you to do some smooth talking and trying to prove your claim, or you
>> could just ignore it altogether and pretend to put the onus back on her by
>> telling her she is an atheist (true, because she says she doesn't believe
>> you) and that the "true atheists" make the assertion that there is no god
>> (false, because you want to weasel out of your burden of proof.) An atheist
>> could either say "There is no God," or "I don't believe you," but you would
>> have all atheists saying "There is no God." Hence, the "no true Scotsman"
>> fallacy.
>>
>> That is what these folks are trying to tell you. There are two camps here;
>> one of them is saying "I don't believe you," (i.e. the Llama camp) and the
>> other is saying "there is no God, and I can back that up, but I don't feel
>> like doing that just right now, but please do get it straight what is an
>> atheist," (i.e. the Scamper camp.)
>
>
>386sx,
>Thanks for the in-depth explanation of the two trains of thought. So,
>if I understand your explanation, an Atheist can say either of two
>things to an assertion that God exists: "I don't believe you!",
Note: The only time the 'a' in the word atheist needs to be capitalized
is when it is the first word in a sentence.
>meaning she don't believe the person making the assertion; or, she
>could say, "There is no God!" meaning, she don't believe a God exists.
>However, in considering the first response-"I don't believe you!" It
>has, as I see it, at least, two meanings:
>1. The speaker could be saying, "I don't believe the asserter
>personally"-i.e., the asserter is without credibility-not the
>assertion itself. It says nothing about the assertion.
>2. The unbeliever don't believe the assertion itself: "I don't
>believe God exists.
Umm.... (1) not quite. The asserter's credibility is irrelevant to the
situation. The assertion is what's being addressed.
The asserter could be either a known liar and be telling the truth
and/or mistaken, or known for his/her integrity and be telling a lie, or
simply be mistaken.
>If consideration 1 is true, then, your argument says nothing about
>what an Atheist is or is not, since the statement, "I don't believe
>you!" has nothing to do with believing, or not believing, in God, but
>everything to do with the personality of the asserter.
>If, on the other hand, consideration 2 is true, then, what the atheist
>is saying is, "I don't believe God exists!" But, this is the same
>thing as saying, "There is no God!"
An atheist is merely a person who is not a theist. Nothing more.
There is a class of words with an 'a' prefix which means "without the
following property." Some examples are:
apolitical=without politics
asynchronous=without synchronization
atheist=without theism
asymmetrical=without symmetry.
>Therefore, as far as atheism is concerned, my argument that there is
>no such thing as an atheist who does not say, "I don't believe God
>exists!" still stands. From you arguments I don't see any particular
>reason to change my mind.
You're assuming theism is important to everyone. It isn't. Regardless
of how the not-a-theist states it the end result is the theistic
assertions are not believed.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |