From: pjm@spe.com
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:59:26 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199809202202.RAA14798@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <6442-Tue22Sep1998222346+0200-pjm@spe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



attila writes:
 >     agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_. 

     I'll try one last time and then let this grossly off-topic thread
continue without me.

     The weak atheist position is a _lack_ of belief.  No knowledge
claim is made.  This position can come from a number of perspectives,
one common one being that the concept denoted by the word "god" is
incoherent.  If a concept is without meaning then it doesn't make
sense to claim to believe that it doesn't exist; such a claim would
itself be incoherent.

     The strong atheist position that god(s) do not exist does
constitute a knowledge claim.  It implies that the holder of the
position associates a particular, meaningful concept with the word
"god".  It doesn't, however, indicate anything about the other beliefs
of the atheist in question.

     There must be some 'net law regarding the effort required to make
a point being inversely proportional to the complexity and importance
of that point....

Regards,

pjm