Posted: Dec 18, 2011 6:27 am
It cuts to the very heart of supernaturalism and its claims. Namely, the claims erected by the various species thereof, that magic entities purportedly exist, and are purportedly real. Which has only ever been asserted to be the case. It's precisely because of this, and because of the duplicitous apologetics supernaturalists erect routinely, in order to misrepresent atheism, that I constructed my definition. Which is sound, because the evidence supports it. Namely, atheists don't accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. This is a feature that they have common. Penny dropping here yet?
Plus, if you want to erect the assertion, that supernaturalists have somehow provided something other than blind assertions and apologetic fabrications to prop up their presuppositions, in order to construct yet another apologetic fabrication to the effect that my definition somehow makes them 'atheists', then you'd better deliver on that assertion before erecting the apologetics, because without supporting that assertion with proper evidence, your apologetics are null and void.
Mick wrote:If he did, as it is broadly possible, then he'd could very well be an theist!
Ahem, you appear once again to have missed the point totally. Namely, that if the day ever arrives, when a supernaturalist provides real evidence for his pet magic entities, then the whole game is over. Because once those entities are supported with real evidence, and whoever has provided this has picked up his Nobel Prize, then we won't be dealing with assertions any more, we'll be dealing with something no supernaturalist has ever had before, namely evidentially supported postulates. It's precisely because no supernaturalist has done this, that the definition I erected is sound. If the day ever arrives when a supernaturalist provides real evidence for his magic entities, that definition will become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Though given the track record of supernaturalists to date, I don't think that day is going to arrive any time soon.
Once again, when are you going to learn the elementary lesson, that it's because supernaturalists have only ever had blind assertions for their magic entities, that atheists don't regard said assertions as constituting established fact? If supernaturalists want us to treat their assertions as constituting established fact, the way they've been boring us shitless with for millennia, it's about time they got off their arses and did something other than feed us made up shit. What part of "made up shit does not equal fact" do you not understand here?
Mick wrote:You can't allow this. Whatever atheism and theism mean, they cannot be logically consistent positions.
Well first of all, the definition I erected for the rigorous formulation of atheism doesn't adopt a "position" per se, it merely consists of a refusal to treat blind assertions about magic entities as fact. Which is a logically consistent position regardless of the status of supernaturalist assertions, because it consists of the application of the rules of proper discourse to the assertions in question. Once again, all you've done here is inject more fail bosons into the particle accelerator of discourse.
Mick wrote: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.
On the basis of supporting evidence. See above. Why do supernaturalists always need the fucking baby steps?
Mick wrote: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.
Actually, rigorous definitions have ties to evidence from the real world, or ties to precise axioms of formal systems. I don't care about lay usage in this respect, because lay usage is all too frequently non-rigorous. This is why scientists and mathematicians have precise definitions for the terms that they use. For example, in the world of mathematics, the word 'group' has a precise definition. If you want to tell me that group theory is invalid because mathematicians erected a precise definition for the term 'group', without caring about lay usage, then allow me to point and laugh.
Mick wrote: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?
Ahem, you're asserting that I'm somehow "stubbornly refusing" to change my position, as though my refusal to accept made up shit as fact constitutes some sort of "dogma". Which is a blatant misrepresentation of my position, and nothing more than the usual supernaturalist attempt to smear someone who doesn't treat made up shit as fact.
Now, do you have something other than made up shit to support the assertions of your pet mythology, or not? If not, don't expect me to treat those assertions as purportedly constituting established fact, because this approach is roundly rejected in every rigorous discipline.