The irony escapes you! It is a common trait amongst fakers to not be able to distingiush metaphors, analogies, hyperboles, and other figures of speech. That you have to dissect bit by bit and debate each statement in the vacuum of space says a lot about your grasp of philosophical thinking.
In short, you cannot defend your statement. There is nothing metaphorical about this assertion: The concept of demons is inherently tied to religions. To use it and then deny the existence of what gave rise to such a concept just screams incoherence. You haven't provided a good reason why using demons while denying truthfulness of religion is incoherent, I gave you a counter-example where we use a concept (Wednesday) that came from a pagan religion religion (Odin) which we have no problems dismissing as untrue. This counter-example clearly fits in with your assertion:
The only problem was that I definitively give the context behind my assertion that using a concept derived from religions whilst professing that you don't believe in such things is incoherent.
Your own words. Wednesday (day of Odin) is clearly a concept derived from the pagan worship of Odin (religion), following your own logic, it should be incoherent to use Wednesday without also believing in worshiping Odin. It should be easy for everyone to see why this, and therefore your assertion, is wrong.
Negro is a racially offensive word. To argue that it isn't by way of highlighting that African-Americans have used the term themselves is being naive. They do that for rhetorical reasons and the great leaders amongst them do recognise and use the rhetorics effectively to stress a point. Now that handle of speech is something that you incredibly lack. You seem to be trying hard to be logical yet failing miserably to differentiate a rhetoric or a metaphor from the literal. And that's just sad. Anyway, if you really believe that negro is not racially offensive, try calling an African-American a Negro in downtown Boston. Let's see where that will get you.
So many words and you fail to properly address the main point that was made. When Martin Luther King Jr. says things these in his speech:
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
he is literally calling himself a Negro while ranting against racism. It is nearly a perfect example of "if you call yourself 'Negroboy' and then go on a diatribe against people who are racists". Is he being incoherent? Clearly he is not, and if he is not being incoherent then your analogy completely falls flat on its face.
Ditto for anti-American student activists. You simply fail to grasp the subtext behind that. I would guess that you're not from UP, or you haven't been one of them. When they do scream anti-American diatribes, they don't just 'hate' the American gov't...they object to the American presence on Phil soil - they argue against that perceived American influence on our national policies and our day-to-day lives. Hence, your whole shitty exposition about hating just the American gov't is just your own conclusion. It's not what that movement is about. How do I know? Well, I was once with them. And no, I didn't eat at McDonald's those days because I cannot stomach such incoherence between thoughts and actions.
Point to me of any political movement here in the Philippines which is aimed at completely eradicating American culture (including the English language) or deporting/banning all American citizens in the country. Show me an example of a rally where UP activists are explicitly fighting for such a cause. A fan of the empiricist Hume should find my request for actual examples to be perfectly acceptable.
Now, I have to admit that I made an error about name-calling when I meant name-dropping. It's a mistake. Everyone makes them. The thought that follows that made it pretty clear that I was referring to name-dropping and that it was obvious mistake. But for you to swoop in and zoom into that obvious mistake and make an exposition about it justifying your use of dictionary is just so pathetic. It's the forest, not the trees. But that just escapes you. You're the type who'd take things as literal as they can be. You can pass as an INC kapatid. You remind me of those guys who'd take literal meanings of the bible passages as gospel truths
That thought that followed was: "nah, it's called respect". If you really had the concept of name-dropping in mind then that would have been a completely unnecessary addition. It would have made of lot of sense to append that phrase if someone was refuting the charge of name-calling. So no, it was not pretty clear that you meant name-dropping.
There's nothing pathetic about capitalizing on your mistake. It was a pretty good example of why referring to the dictionary is so important during discussions and arguments. So people don't confuse terms and actually understand each other.
I am also interested to hear how I can pass off as an INC kapatid given my very vocal non-belief in a god.
Anyway, I lack the time to expound more on Sartre and Hume, except to say that both definitely rejected the idea that the lack of evidence proves the absence. Both concluded, despite coming from different schools of thought, that the God's existence cannot be reasonably proven, or disproved. But anyway, I'll deal with these in detail when I have time. Suffice to say that nothing's inherently wrong with Oxford's dictionary entry for atheism per se. But that's not to say it's the whole of it and that people could simply use such a one-liner definition to describe the essence of their beliefs (or non-beliefs).
It was a decent discussion of Sartre and Hume. I think the Hume post was better written and easier to understand than the Sartre one. It's also good that are you are now admitting that there is nothing wrong with the dictionary definition.
What your Hume and Sartre discussion doesn't show is why my atheism is intellectually bankrupt. Let me remind that this started with your statement:
Atheism is a life philosophy, which apparently isn't the case for most bandwagon self-confessed atheists. To most, it's just a convenient excuse to do whatever they want without the responsibility of truly extricating themselves from the bounds of religion.
Since you are saying that there's nothing wrong with the dictionary definition then Atheism is not actually a life philosophy, It is simply non-belief in the existence of gods. The dictionary thing only started because of this:
Now, I find you amusing that you call yourself an atheist when all there is to it is doubt. Doubt is agnostic's bread and butter. Atheism requires more conviction. Anyway, in the end I really don't give a rat's ass about your brand of non-belief. Like I said, I'm not saying it's wrong because there's really no right and wrong when it comes to these things. But I say it's pretty lame and devoid of any substance that renders itself to any kind of meaningful discourse. It's an intellectually bankrupt brand of atheism.
You found it amusing I called myself an atheist. But what am I gonna call myself? Can't really call myself Christian because I don't believe in the Christian god or any church doctrine. The only term we have that describes my non-belief is atheism. You are fond of accusing me of misrepresenting you but now I am going to accuse of misrepresenting my position in this statement:
Oh hmm, dictionary...wow. Not intellectually bankrupt yet your reference turned out to be a dictionary?!!! I wonder what would Hume, Sartre, et al would say about your brand of atheism founded on a dictionary entry.
My atheism is not founded on a dictionary entry. That one is a pretty stupid statement. It is founded on a simple unanswered question: Where is the evidence for the existence of a god? In the thousands of years humanity has existed in this world, we haven't been able to find any evidence for the existence of a god. With such an overwhelming absence of evidence, it doesn't make sense for me to believe in one.
There you go Spanner! How's the namedropping accusation now? Err, do you anything philosophically meatier than 'unicorns' to cling to that fallacious argument about 'absence of evidence as evidence for the absence? Maybe ask for some revelation whilst you're having a communion. Who knows? He might whisper a thing or two about how you'd support that assertion other than presenting unicorns and what not.
I suggest you read what's an argument from ignorance. And while at it, read on how, say, in carefully designed experiments can the 'null' result actually proves the absence. I do hope you'd see how the 2 differ. Judge yourself then whether you had committed an informal fallacy or you've just proven with certainty that the absence of evidence for a God does prove the absence of a God instead of sheepishly asking a rhetorical question about the reasonableness of believing in unicorns.
Another misrepresentation. Firstly, I have already agreed that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But as I have already discussed, this actually does not mean anything. We don't have any evidence for the absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we also don't have any problems dismissing this creature as fictitious. Why? Because we don't have any evidence pointing towards the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The same can be said for other mythical creatures such as unicorns and dragons.
If we have no problems dismissing these creatures as fictitious on the basis that there is no evidence then why can't apply the same reasoning in order to dismiss god as a fictitious being? We never had any evidence for the existence of a god, so why should we believe there is one?
I am very careful with my words. Not once have I used the word proof/prove, I've always used evidence. You're the one who's been using the word proof/prove. You know why? Because I completely agree that the lack of evidence now does not definitively show that god does not exist. Tomorrow, it is always possible that an omnipotent being shows itself in front of millions of people and then start performing miraculous feats which defy the laws of Physics. If such an entity does make an appearance then that is very clear evidence for the existence of a god, and we can conclude that both Hume and Sartre had it wrong when it comes to the existence of a god. Atheism, therefore becomes untenable, and reasonable people (like me) should abandon it.
If you insist on claiming I made an argument from ignorance then back it up and show where I made it. If you want an example of what an argument from ignorance can look like, you are actually quite close to making one:
Because we cannot disprove the existence of God, therefore God exists