The meaning of "meaning"

Hi, EMA. It feels like this part of your post was written to preclude any chance for me to respond.Does this mean you don’t want me to respond, that you want the discussion to end here?It would certainly be easier for me if this is what you want, because I really have no idea what else I can write in response.I mean, you say that my inability to see what is so obvious to you doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
It would be pretty stupid of me to disagree with that, wouldn’t it? Obviously, my incredulity has nothing to do with the veracity of anything.Do you think scientists and evolutionists derive their conclusions from incredulity?
I’m pretty sure we don’t.There is a heuristic* that we follow. That heuristic is to disregard the existence of X until the existence of X can be demonstrated.Actually, I argue that most people use this heuristic routinely in their daily lives. But, for whatever reason, the theistic position is that this heuristic is not useful for things outside of daily life (such as philosophical questions), while the non-theistic position is that this heuristic should be applied equally in all situations.I think the consistency of the non-theistic position gives it the edge in this case.
For that reason, I submit that there is no need to demonstrate a negative claim: the negative claim must be assumed until the positive claim can be demonstrated (this is the principle on which the legal system is built: no guilt until guilt can be demonstrated). *A heuristic is a mental guideline that is used to make decisions when empirical evidence can’t differentiate the possibilities.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, EMA.You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this. Please chill out and learn to recognize neutrality when you see it. I’m sorry that I misled you. I used the word evolutionist out of habit, because a lot of non-evolutionists and theists get worked up when I use the word scientist to refer to people on one side of the debate, and not the other; and I certainly wasn’t going to say atheists, because that generally results in my being mistaken for an atheist myself.----- There must be some miscommunication here, because what you just wrote is not contrary to what I just wrote before that.----- You obviously aren’t understanding what the heuristic I referred to is.
The heuristic can only be used to tentatively accept the non-existence of something. It is only used when the existence of something cannot be demonstrated.Tentative rejection of something is not a claim of the absence of that something.It’s true that, if, after a long time, the side with the positive claim still fails to demonstrate their claim, then the side tentatively rejecting the claim may become less and less tentative about their rejection, but why should you expect anything different from that?----- So, you believe that, since you have failed for decades to produce evidence for your claim, that the burden of proof is somehow lifted from you and transferred to your opponents, all because your inability to demonstrate your claim has led to their becoming less and less tentative about rejecting your claim?Does this really make sense to you, EMA? Honestly?I’ll give it another try, but, since this is getting farther from our topic, I will either not pursue it further or attempt to rein it back into the topic with any subsequent responses:A negative claim is actually no claim at all.The sides look like this: Theist: I propose that God is responsible for X. Atheist: I don’t propose that God is responsible for X.That’s what I’ve erroneously referred to as a negative claim: it’s the complete lack of a claim.Science makes all kinds of claims that are meant to explain some particular phenomenon X, but Atheism does not make any claims at all. Atheism is defined by its rejection of a claim, not by any claim that it has actually made itself.So, rejection of a claim that has failed to be demonstrated does not amount to a claim in the opposite direction.It doesn’t make sense to ask somebody to support a claim that they never made.Edited by Bluejay, : "the their" is not acceptable grammar

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Dawn.You'll notice that I was actually responding to EMA.As such, none of what I wrote was actually a commentary on anything you wrote or argued.Thus, I would appreciate it if you would stop treating my comments as if they were personal insults.This is, of course, all moot if you are actually EMA using a different name now (which I’m pretty sure is against forum policy).----- EMA has, since the beginning of this thread, avoided any attempts to demonstrate this, and has simply insisted that his opponents demonstrate the contrary. In fact, as far as I can tell, you haven’t attempted to demonstrate it yet, either.So, I’d say that both of you have failed for at least the duration of this thread to demonstrate the existence of God or of a God-given meaning of life.True, this doesn’t justify my comment about decades of failure (that was me once again inappropriately linking this debate with the Intelligent Design debate), so you can disregard the "decades" part.----- What evidence am I to be demonstrating false? You have not presented any yet.If you’d like, I can make up all kinds of evidence for the existence of God and for the meaning He gives to life, then show how it’s not sound.If you don’t want that to happen, I propose that you present your own evidence.----- You ask me to grow up while flinging childish insults at me?
What did I do that could be construed as such a personal insult to you, Dawn?----- Atheism is defined by what it lacks (i.e. a belief in god/s). As such, it has no grand claims to defend. Let me try to explain this:An argument potentially consists of multiple claims.Let’s say you present a claim (e.g. that life has a purpose), and cite evidence for this claim (e.g. a spiritual confirmation that life has a purpose).Then, let’s say that I reject the evidence by claiming that no such spiritual confirmation occurred.I may then claim that your alleged spiritual confirmation was the result of a mental illness, and not a spiritual confirmation at all.
Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was misinterpreted, and wasn’t actually saying directly that your life had a purpose.
Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was a trick played by the devil.
Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was the result of years of indoctrination.Any of these things would be a legitimate claim, and would require me to present evidence in support of it.But, none of these is a claim that your life has no purpose: they are only claims about the nature of the evidence you use to support your claim.Do you understand the difference there?Since you haven’t presented any evidence yet, and since Atheists’ claims (when they happen) are all about the quality of evidence presented, there is nothing on this thread about which an Atheist has to make a claim.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Dawn Bertot. Thanks for the thought, but I really am thinking for myself here, Dawn. Just because I came to a different conclusion than you doesn't mean I've been brainwashed.And, as a friendly side note, most people view patronization as a insult.----- I don't really care to discuss with you the semantics of the word "Atheist."
I don’t really care to discuss with you any meaning of the word Atheism other than the one I provided you (i.e., "lack of belief in god/s").
I don’t really care to discuss with you the claims of other kinds of Atheists than the kind I defined for you.I restricted the definition thus because this is the way most self-described Atheists use the term Atheist. It makes sense to me to use their own definition when debating about them.These are my terms. If you cannot accept these terms, I kindly request that you stop participating here.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.