(January 6, 2014 at 8:21 pm)Get me Rex Kramer! Wrote: A simple fact of lack of belief may make us point to someone and say 'atheist', but only because 'atheist' has its meaning grounded in principles such as (and particularly) the scope and validity of the method of doubt.
I haven't read through this thread, so pardon me if I rehash old points.
You're over-complicating the atheist position. The only principle it is grounded in is that the the theist has failed to convincingly substantiate his/her claim, which does not rest upon the "scope and validity of the method of doubt." It rests upon the failed philosophy and fallacious reasoning that has lead others to conclude that a god exists. How doubt is applied has no bearing on the debate when the positive claim has never been satisfactorily evidenced, for I need not invoke doubt to demolish an argument that fails to get off the ground.
So, you may point to someone and say 'atheist,' but only because 'atheist' has its meaning grounded in the failure of the the theistic position.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
