Posted: Dec 17, 2011 10:49 pm
Mick wrote:Mr. Jeff Lowder,
I have criticized this poster's definition elsewhere, though he doesn't see the obvious complications of this definition.
When did you present these, again?
Mick wrote:For one, as you may have already noted yourself, there's nothing about not believing or denying that claims such as 'A god exists' is true. Consequently, unless he wishes to add something else to this droll definition, it's logically consistent for theist to be an atheist too.
Bollocks. What part of "no supernaturalist has ever supported his assertions with anything other than apologetic fabrications" do you not understand once more?
Mick wrote:If he wishes to claim a priori that 'a god exists' cannot be uncritically supported
Actually, what I claim is that supernaturalists have never supported this assertion. In case you're wondering, apologetics doesn't equal "support".
Mick wrote:and so no theist could consistently be an atheist on his definition
Oh dear, it's made up shit time once more.
Do I have to lead you through the baby steps again?
[1] Supernaturalists assert that their pet magic entities exist.
[2] Supernaturalists have never provided anything other than more blind assertions and apologetic hot air, as purported "support" for the assertions in [1] above.
[3] Consequently, no one is obliged to treat the assertions in [1] as anything other than unsupported assertions, and treating said assertions as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world is fatuous.
Now, if supernaturalists want their assertions about their pet magic entities to be treated as fact, the onus is on them to deliver the goods with respect to proper evidential support. And please, spare me the bullshit you've been peddling here about evidence, because it's just an excuse to leave the discoursive door open for made up shit.
As for how I regard the status of the question "does Magic Man exist?", I regard it as [1] answerable in principle, [2] not yet definitively answered, but [3] unlikely to be answered 'yes' given the preponderance of available evidence, unless supernaturalists can come up with something substantive in this regard. So please, spare me your pathetic apologetic attempts to try and misrepresent me as a "presupositionalist" of some sort, because it's a blatant caricature.
Mick wrote:then he's built in question begging assumptions within this definition itself.
Bollocks. See above.
Mick wrote:Also: his definition broadens the scope of atheism to all supernatural claims rather than just to claims of deities. Such a scope is unfounded within the conventional and historical understanding of the word.
So what? I don't care about "conventional and historical understanding", I care about ensuring that a precise, rigorous and evidentially supportable definition is in place. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
Mick wrote:Since this user does not seem to wish to adhere to the historical or conventional understandings of the word, I'm unsure why he'd ask you if his definition is wrong (for by what measure could it be wrong?) It seems to be no more than Humpty Dumptyism on his part
Oh look, it's ad hominem time again, laced with lots of the usual supernaturalist penchant for strawman Caricature. Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn.
Mick wrote:and he is remarkably stubborn to change.
No, I just refuse to treat made up shit as act. This isn't being stubborn, this is called "using one's grey cells". I suggest that some supernaturalists would do well to try this sometime.