Posted: Dec 18, 2011 12:00 am
Calilasseia wrote:Bollocks. What part of "no supernaturalist has ever supported his assertions with anything other than apologetic fabrications" do you not understand once more?
Even if that were true, so what? If he did, as it is broadly possible, then he'd could very well be an theist! You can't allow this. Whatever atheism and theism mean, they cannot be logically consistent positions.
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?
You don't care? Heh. Well, without that basis for word meaning, I'm unsure how you determine with it is accurate. Word meaning doesn't drop out of the sky, you know. It at least some essential ties to the conventions of whatever language we're using. You need to consider this.
Oh look, it's ad hominem time again, laced with lots of the usual supernaturalist penchant for strawman Caricature. Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn.
That's not an ad hom attack. I didn't attack you as a person. do you know what humpty dumpytism is?