home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.univie.ac.at!blekul11!frmop11!dearn!esoc!esrin!mskala
- Organization: European Space Research Institute (ESRIN)
- Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 16:51:36 SET
- From: Mike M. Skala <MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET>
- Message-ID: <92210.165136MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET>
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
- Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
- References: <1992Jul23.194846.12902@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
- <srutt.711951273@beagle> <24JUL199211195153@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
- <1992Jul27.144139.18261@teleride.on.ca>
- <1992Jul28.010159.21288@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <1992Jul28.010159.21288@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
- Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) says:
- >
- >In article <1992Jul27.144139.18261@teleride.on.ca>
- >stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
- >
- >> It's simply an inaccurate definition of atheism. An atheist is not one
- >> who believes that a god does not exist. An atheist is one who does not
- >> believe a god exists. There is an important semantic difference.
- >
- >Indeed it is. But has been pointed out here ad naseum, both
- >definitions are widely used. To say that one is wrong and the other
- >right is misleading. Respectable sources can be found for either. I
- >suggest you follow the advice of the alt.atheism FAQ, and simply
- >indicate which variety of atheism you mean when discussing the term,
- ╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡╡
- >and refrain from attempting to define one of the two definitions as the
- >"correct" one. It's both an error, and counterproductive.
-
- Thou shalt not use Foreign Words, if there are problems defining
- their meaning.
-
- I for example use simply "Unbeliever".
- And you can get me talking for hours, *why* I don't believe in *anything* :)
-
- mike
-
- --
- Mike M. Skala
- mskala@esrin.bitnet
-
- "Seegnatur'? I don't got to show you no stinkin' seegnatur!"
-
-