614
edits
Changes
strong and weak
:Order would have been talking about the discussion under [[Talk:Atheism#Uncited Garbage|Uncited Garbage]] and "Garbage" on the Atheism talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Order would have been talking about the discussion under [[Talk:Atheism#Uncited Garbage|Uncited Garbage]] and "Garbage" on the Atheism talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
== strong and weak ==
Ed Poor wrote: ''"You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."
Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?''
: Interesting point. I think that in the opinion of strong atheists, the allegation that theological language contains no meaning is ''positive'' evidence for disbelief. It's stronger than saying, "You are making a meaningful claim but there's no evidence to support it;" it's saying, "You're not even making a meaningful claim at all."
''As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again.''
: I'd greatly appreciate some help in figuring out what is not understandable. I ran it by my girlfriend first, and she helped a lot, but I honestly can't see what's unclear in order to fix it ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:03, 29 August 2007 (EDT)