|
the official god faq (caution, witty) :) | by binabik | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
the official athiest faq (caution, witty) :) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 06:47:46 |
|
Methinks you missed the point of Atheism | by wheresthefish | 2004-09-24 07:33:18 |
|
I thought I hit the target, but who knows :) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 08:19:34 |
|
Plenty of room for that... | by Naruki | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
More definitions :) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 08:44:09 |
|
Am I the only one who sees | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 10:05:29 |
|
I didn't see such an implication | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:07:23 |
|
Consider: There is nothing to deny without | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 11:17:59 |
|
In other words | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:25:20 |
|
If you reversed it, the theists would see it. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:35:42 |
|
I still don't see it | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:47:05 |
|
Do you deny the non-existence of God? | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:13:23 |
|
I think I understand | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:19:48 |
|
Exactly. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:21:49 |
| Next question, then: |
by Matthewdba |
2004-09-24 12:31:03 |
if a definition of "theist" was given as "one who asserts the existence of God", would that also be biased?
To me that's much the same thing. To continue your analogy, it's as if someone were to give an alibi for the bank robbery and the interrogator were to ask, "Are you saying you're innocent?" Again the interrogator is theoretically allowing that possibility, but phrasing in such a manner as to imply subtly that it is not the case.
And if one considers that a biased definition of "theist", what does one say about a source (such as either of my dictionaries) which defines both "theist" and "atheist" in these respective ways? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Not necessarily, but possibly. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 13:43:55 |
|
I think you summed that up nicely. (n/t) | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 13:58:15 |
|
Thanks. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 14:05:20 |
