Posted: Sep 18, 2015 11:18 pm
hackenslash wrote:Well, apart form the fact that you only went and quoted Stanford in true Mick fashion (not a well-regarded source among real thinkers, not least because it gets so much wrong)
Oh I'll bet. Thomas Eshuis said the same thing and could never come up with an example of how SEP is wrong. Funny how these claims work.
hackenslash wrote:I'm not seeing in there where it lists 'not a theist' as a predicate or a property.
All it "lists" in that excerpt is the property of redness. I somehow doubt that was meant to be an exhaustive list of all properties that can be predicated with subjects. And as it so happens "is an atheist" can be predicated with a subject. No?