From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Fri Aug 22 2003 - 15:56:44 MDT
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.in
fidels.org%2Flibrary%2Fmodern%2Ftheodore_drange%2Fdefinition.html
was an interesting read. I had not realized that I was a noncognitive.
At last! A philososphy I can claim as my home. Maybe a poll of what
particular class of atheist or agnostic we consider ourselves to be
would be interesting?
Some heavy snippage of the above essay.
<snip>
(1) Does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?
(2) If so, then is that proposition true or false?
<snip>
A noncognitivist is someone who declares that the sentence does not
express any proposition at all.
A theist is someone who allows that the sentence expresses a proposition
and who classifies the proposition as true or probably true.
An atheist is someone who allows that the sentence expresses a
proposition and who classifies the proposition as false or probably
false.
An agnostic is someone who allows that the sentence expresses a
proposition, and who grants that he/she knows what that proposition is,
but who is noncommittal about its truth or falsity on the grounds of
insufficient evidence.
<snip>
Disproof atheists, who claim that there is good objective evidence for
God's nonexistence, and if there is any good objective evidence at all
for God's existence, it is significantly outweighed by the evidence for
God's nonexistence.
Methodological atheists, who claim that there is no good objective
evidence either for God's existence or for God's nonexistence, but there
is a certain methodological principle which places the burden of proof
upon theists, and since they fail to meet that principle, the only
rational position to take is that of atheism. (Some methodological
atheists formulate the principle by saying that the burden of proof is
always on any person making an existence claim, since, from a logical
point of view, existence claims are only capable of proof, not disproof.
No one has ever proven the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or elves, or
unicorns, or anything else, simply because the very logic of an
unrestricted existential proposition prohibits its disproof. It is
impossible to go all over the universe and show that, for example, there
are no elves anywhere. For this reason, rational methodology calls for
us to deny the existence of all those things which have never been shown
to exist. That is why we all regard it rational to deny the existence of
Santa Claus, elves, unicorns, etc. And since God is in that same
category, having never been shown to exist, it follows that rational
methodology calls for us to deny the existence of God.)
Mystical atheists, who claim that there is no rational support for
theism or atheism, but who believe in God's nonexistence on the basis of
a private, subjective, mystical experience.
Faith atheists, who accept atheism, not on the basis of any grounds or
experiences, but simply on the basis of "faith," regarding it to be a
"properly basic belief." They say that one could be rational in
accepting a noetic system that has atheism as its foundational
presupposition, since there is no good objective evidence for God's
existence.
</snip>
Regards
Blunderov
PS Referent - Thanks for the valuable propaganda link
http://www.propagandacritic.com/
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 22 2003 - 16:00:40 MDT