Re: Evidence of God

"Al Evan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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!",
> 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.
>
> 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!"

Wrong again.

An atheists has no belief in god.
The atheist says that because there is no evidence that ANY gods exist.

An atheist cannot say "I don't believe god exists" because that would be
assuming there is a god, jut that athiests don't believe in them.

The atheist also does not claim god doesn't exist - because that would be
claiming (and forced to defend) a negative.



>
> 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.

What you claim, and reality, are not the same thing.