RE: My Escatological Vision
January 24, 2011 at 4:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2011 at 4:15 pm by Welsh cake.)
(January 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm)dqualk Wrote: Listen brosef, people use the word atheist to mean materialist atheist all the time. Words can have many meanings, they do not always mean one thing. One can say atheist in the broadest sense, or in a more particular sense when talking to a certain audience. But so I do not offend your sensibilities Ill say materialist athiest, even though its over stating the obvious as its clear by the context that when I say atheist I'm actually referring to atheistic materialism.No they don't, not unless said people want to be caught out generalising, being ignorantly misinformed, and making inductive logical fallacies. Just because some atheists are materialist doesn't mean we are all materialists, that is fallacious, likewise Buddhists don't believe in your god or other gods, and are ferocious critics of materialism. Sorry, but you don't get to conflate the two together and conveniently lump us all together to make your argument sound more credible; now take a hint, you don't get to have your own definition of atheism and expect the rest of us in the public domain not to pick you up on that, no more than I can get away with having my own definition of theism. You'll keep banging your head on this particular brick wall because the words you seek to redefine and their meanings have already long been established.
Quote:Well a child likely doesnt believe in anything because he lacks the intellectual capacity. That is like saying a rock is an atheist.Its one thing that you can't appreciate atheism is the default position and we all start off with non-belief or absence of belief in theistic deity concepts, I'd be happy to continue discussion, but I'm quite surprised you failed to spot the inherent silliness of the brain-fart statement you just made. Seriously you submitted inanimate rocks as an example with a straight face? Look, if we were both at a costume party dqualk and I asked you "Which ones do you think actually believe or don't believe in unicorns?" would you really need me to specify I'm talking about the partiers just to stop you listing the floorboards, carpets and tables? You can't be that dense... at least I hope for your sake you're not.
Quote:I'm afraid you are wrong.I'm afraid you don't understand the philosophy of ontology.
A positive claim is any claim about the existence or properties of anything. Saying "There is no god" is a positive claim. Saying "there is a god" is also a positive claim.
Saying "I don't believe X" is a positive claim about your belief, but not about X. Lacking a belief in X because of the absence of evidence does not constitute a positive claim about X, it merely constitutes the null hypothesis. Any sane person should hold that position about everything for which they have no evidence.
Allow me to simplify it further, making the claim "There is no god", is arguing for something's non-existence which is ontologically negative, whereas conversely asserting "There is a god" and seeking to establish said being's existence epistemologically is a positive ontological claim.
With all due respect if you can't comprehend that then its no wonder you think your burden of proof is placed on your audience and not you.
