I will (again) break my resolution not to respond to Stephen's nonsense any
more. Since he has misrepresented me, I wish to set the record straight.
From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Reflectorites
>
>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:51:15 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>CC>A while back Stephen Jones claimed that atheists had no choice
>>but to believe in evolution. I gave two alternatives, one based on
>>the idea that the universe might be infinite (though, obviously, it
>>would only need to be very large for my argument to work). I did
>>not claim that either of these alternatives was in fact true, though
>>Stephen consistently treated my exposition of them as claims of
>>their truth ...
>
>I am not sure what Chris' point is here. Obviously Chris cannot
>believe two contradictory things are true - or can he? :-). That I try
>to understand and fairly state a position I am critiquing does not
>mean that I think it is true.
>
>In any event Richard confirms my point "that atheists had no choice
>but to believe in evolution":
I did not confirm any such thing. I specifically referred only to "rational,
well-informed" atheists (and theists). In fact, I clearly stated my view
that: "An atheist's beliefs don't *have* to be rational and well-informed,
any more than a theist's do."
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:05:10 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>RW>I would say that any rational, well-informed person, whether atheist
*or*
>>theist, has no choice but to believe in evolution.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
My meaning was that rational, well-informed atheists have no choice but to
believe in evolution because they are rational and well-informed, not
because they are atheists. It seems Stephen was unable to grasp even this
simple logical argument.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 20:16:31 EDT