> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:57:53 +0100, James Whitehead wrote:
>
>>> Correct - your difficulty, as you persist in failing to grasp the very
>>> simple concepts involved.
>>
>> Its not that simple
>
> It is very simple. We have no belief in gods; this means we are atheists.
>
> It is *no more* complicated than that, and all your silly little games do
> not change that fact.
>
>
>> Michael Gray - but what youve done is made a phantasy
>
> Right; it is a fantasy that we have no beliefs in gods. Cute. Completely
> asinine crap, but cute. Next you'll tell us that we also have a fantasy
> that there is actually a moon orbiting the planet.
>
>> Whenever you think you've stumbled on a simple truth in philosophy
>
> We're not discussing philosophy, you twit, we're discussing a complete
> *lack* of belief, view, or philosophy on a particular subject. Maybe if
> you would try to grasp that point, you wouldn't end up making such foolish
> attempts to pretend it is something it's not.
>
> Now, did you perhaps have a point which is actually about what atheism is,
> rather than what you want atheism to be? Or would you prefer to continue
> your pointless mental masturbation?
Your asking a philosophical question, youve fallen into a well known
philosophical error- which through what moght only be blond faith you cant
see...
here again -
Predicate logic. The thread has been interesting and I don't know why I
didn't get round to this before. Proof perhaps that I'm not clever and with
the proviso I could be wrong...
Michael wants to assert that null predicates exist independently - as a
default or ground state. Hence he can assert that atheism is a passive and
not active act (of believing something to be the case) "Atheism is a lack
of theism. Period" was its most concise expression. I'm now going to show
why I think this is not true. It leads to fallacy, which is due to
asserting that null predicates are not determined on anything else. Take
the sentence-
"The King of France is Bald".
According to Michael's and others idea of null predicates being independent
of what is predicated - this sentence is meaningful and true. Its clear I
hope that its not. To go around asserting it to be true would be wrong.
But neither is it false! Its meaningless, and the reason it is, is that we
did not make null predication contingent. Baldness can only be predicated
on an existing King of France. We need not only existence however but
Kingship and the possibility of having hair or not. The reason we make
predication contingent on existence is to supply something which can or
cannot be bald - and is the King of France. The sentence is nonsense - not
true - not false - because of this.
"This tree is an atheist" commits the same fallacy. Not so obviously. Take
then
"The King of France is an atheist"
Here the error is obvious. We need not just existence but a specific one of
the King of France. Likewise the application of atheism needs a subject
which is capable of holding theism. The reason the sentence "This rice
pudding is an atheist" sounds wrong - is that it is wrong, its wrong because
of the idea of null predicates existing beforehand, without contingency.
So "Atheism is a lack of theism. Period." leads to error, it must to avoid
this be re-phrased as something like "Atheism is a lack of theism, in a
subject capable of theism." Of course you are free to maintain "Atheism is
a lack of theism. Period." and in order to be consistent & rational -
which you are again free not to be, you would have to accept "The King of
France is an atheist" as being meaningful and true.
>
> --
> Hell, cars obviously "go against God's design" - he gave us legs. DW
