Quote: No, he's not wrong. If he'd said that pantheism was ALWAYS another term for atheism, he would have been wrong. But he didn't say that. He said 'often', and that's correct in the view of many atheists and religious commentators.
“Dog” is often just another word for "canine”. And yet, a dog is always a canine.
"Pantheism" is often just another word for "atheism”. And yet, ‘often’ must mean that they’re sometimes different? By your reasoning, dogs are not always canines.
Quote: So I'll tell you where your view differs from Coyne's.
He said it's 'often' the same as atheism,
Not this again…
Quote: and that is a tacit admission the reverse is true, and 'often' pantheism is not the same as atheism.
Your logic:
“Dog is often just another word for canine”
Equals:
“Dog is sometimes not a canine”
Got it.
Quote: Is it your position that often pantheism is different from atheism?
If your answer is 'no', then your position is clearly not the same as Coyne's.
Is your position that often dog is different from canine?
Forget it, let’s just end this. Here:
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/jerry-coyne-incompatibility-religion-science/
Coyne: “If people had a form of religion that did not make statements about reality…and there are some religions like that: that worship nature, pantheism, or maybe Confucianism or some forms of Buddhism. You can call them religions, BUT THERE’S NO GOD, there’s no belief in heaven or hell — though some Buddhists believe in rebirth which is not right. Religions that are non-religious I don’t mind so much.”
The end. I’m right. Bye bye.
|
|
|
