(October 29, 2010 at 9:43 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Well you would say that, being the guy who came up with the "atheistic theist".You should talk about the context of that really. But you can take it out of context if you like.
Besides, I'd like to know how it negates my point about the importance of understanding positioning of
1) a-,
2) theos, and
3) -ism
How can anyone possibly reach a view about one's preferred definition of atheism without determining which component among these three is primarily allied to which other?
Quote:The rest of the philosophical community have long come to the conclusion that there are two positions on belief in God: theism and atheism.You mean, everyone? Every single person apart from me? Do you have any evidence of that? There are two debates really, one about belief and one about statements of the existence of god. One would need to deal with them as separate issues when reaching any conclusions about the definition of atheism.
Quote:It fits with the classical laws of logic...either you believe the statement "God exists" is true, or you believe it is false. There is no middle ground; only variations of the beliefs themselves, and how strongly one believes them.
By all means talk again about the classical laws of logic or refer us to a previous proof. Merely citing them doesn't constitute proof.
Atheism isn't automatically about belief. One can surely make an a priori statement setting out a position on the existence of God.
