My Escatological Vision

[Welsh cake]

You attempt to stop me from talking about a particular kind of atheism by saying that all atheism is defined by the way you define atheism, this is a way to avoid talking about the issue by making up a false problem, a cop out.

It's not a cop out you colossal cretin, you meant to say a "red herring", and no its not! I am not trying to evade the subject matter when I am addressing it directly i.e your inability to grasp what atheism is and is not. Don't quote idiomatic expressions when you haven't taken the time to learn their meanings or what they are referring to.

I'll tell you what, I'll began calling it atheistic materialism. Just for you.

What part of "you don't get to have your own definition of atheism when a current working definition of the word already exists in the English Language" did you not understand? One can be a theist and a materialist as well you know, but that does not give you any entitlement to address theism broadly as "theistic materialism".

The fact is many people use atheist as a short for athesitic materialism, as one has not need to use the term atheist which only means a lack of God. People use the term Theism to mean various things as well. If you've read a book in your life you would know that.

Please take your erroneous assertions and kindly shove them back your up arse from whence they came.

You probably have not read a book, becasue you cannot read.

I've read one book you haven't, a dictionary, learn to spell.

As I have never once used the belief of masses as conclusive evidence to prove something. I do use it as a way to strengthen my arguement.

Gosh that's uncanny because I never once said you did base your case for god upon just one fallacy alone, but since your argument is in need of more holes to lose water faster here's the rest for your consideration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

lol prove it.

Prove what? That atheism is logically as old as theism? Simple, were you born with the belief in god or gods?

However about those who make the positive claim that God does not exist?

That's arguing for a negative. Do you understand the difference between ontologically positive claims and negative claims? If I say the giant frog in the sun isn't real, is that a positive or a negative claim?

You are shifting the burden of proof on to theists, so I'll say shifting the burden of proof gets us nowhere.

If you make any ontological claim, not just one where there's a god, who does the burden fall onto in an epistemic dispute? Its certainty not on me, you'd very much like that to be so I know, but you can't have your cake and eat it, unlike you I've made no claims about reality, I've responded to yours and I still remain unconvinced because you've done a piss-poor job of presenting your god hypothesis.