[lbo-talk] Re: theism, atheism and dont give a fuckism

[J. Tyler]

It isn't a debate about the "true" meaning of words.  It's a debate
about the conventions, which isn't entirely useless, because
establishing conventions is the basis of communication and any rational
discussion of anything, such as, for example, a discussion of why it is
rational to be a positive (or strong) atheist (if one were actually
having that discussion and were so inclined to defend the position).

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Jim Devine
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:28 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: theism, atheism and dont give a fuckism

I'm sorry that I brought up agnosticism. It brought up a useless debate
about the true meaning of words...

Since such meanings are totally a matter of convention, such debates can
go on forever.

On 5/31/05, J. Tyler <jptyler at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Just do the linguistics.
> 
> Consider the proposition: God exists.
> 
> Anybody who accepts the proposition as true is a theist.  Anybody who 
> rejects the truth value of the proposition is an atheist (including 
> those who "don't know," as that is a rejection of the proposition's 
> truth).
> 
> Anybody who is not a theist (i.e., affirmatively accepts the truth of 
> the proposition "God exists") is an atheist (hence the prefix).  
> Within atheism, one can take a couple of different positions.  
> Consider the
> proposition: God does not exist.
-- 
Jim Devine
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk