Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

my sense of reality?

Here allow me to help,
BAKERS bake and are proud of it,
BELIEVERS believe and are proud of it,
LACKERS lack and are insulted.

Brilliant!

 

I see the problem,you think your invented insults and words are real! Got it!

 

I still lack belief, I am still an atheist.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

Perhaps. It is not specified in the definition the reason he does not have a Lexus, it could be that he never knew one existed, he might have seen one but never owned one, he might have been given one but not accepted it, or he might have accepted it and then got rid of it. It doesn't matter, as long as he doesn't have one right then.

 

Oh yeh thats it!

Thats what I'm talkin bout!

groveling desperation!

lacker

See also: läcker

English Etymology 1
lack +‎ -er

Noun
lacker (plural lackers)

1) One who is lacking, or in want.

and here is the source!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lacker

lackers do be lackin!
Cant you post anything out here, not one damn thing that is NOT top shelf bullshit?

 

then he would be an agnostic, "he doesnt know"
if he denied acceptance then he HAS belief not lacks it LOL
Yeh it does matter, its non sequitur.

batter up!

why do you insist on using an analogy that does not apply on any level to this matter?

 

thats simply not true, denial -(negation)- works just dandy to be an atheist, a real one no less not the internet (lacker) atheists we have here.

 

You dont seriously mean to tell me that they can give themselves the atheist label without concluding they are an atheist do you? seriously?

frankie says ignorance is bliss!

 

I think it does apply, the ideas of having and lacking apply as well to objects as they do to beliefs.

If someone offers me a Lexus and I do not accept it, then I do not have a Lexus, so I lack it. Yes, you might then conclude that you don't have a Lexus, and that would be a belief, but it is not the belief in the existence of god, so it does not correspond to a Lexus, but some other car. It still doesn't mean you have a Lexus.

 

I don't really care whether they have the self-insight to identify themselves as atheist, I care only whether they _are_ atheists. That being said, I would assume that most of the time, they would be pretty good at identifying their own beliefs, but that's not a logical necessity in order to be an atheist.

 

Of course it does, even under my definition. I'm just saying it's not the only version that works.

 

Its not a negation no matter how you try relentlessly to spin it.
if it were we would not have theists, we would have alackers.

again for the thousanth time, rocks, and cats and dogs and newborn babies would all be atheists if your definition were accepted.

no to the contrary most are illiterate. literacy is a logical necessity however.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

So, 107 pages in and the big take away from this thread is that if you are an atheist, you lack belief.

 

Certainly, all the pages that have shown how you falsify, do not understand logic, do not understand the dictionary, don't source your quotes, and all the other things that make you so much fun to play with. Any sensible debate is over, Swenson proved your logic wrong, we have all proved your other arguments wrong and you and smith sit there barking at the moon.

Now one last time,

I am an atheist, I lack belief!

 

The mods here wont allow me to properly label someone who knowingly misrepresents another by posting false claims about them a liar but I am sure that readers who are not bent and cranked out of shape with the lacker political agenda can plainly see the truth in whats going on here.

I called you out and CITED YOUR FALSE CLAIMS and there it is AGAIN in black and white font ink proving I do no such thing, and proving lacker is a word that I did not invent with the source, PROVING YOU SIMPLY BREWED UP ANOTHER BATCH OF FALSE CLAIMS, and you failed to produce any formal logic or syllogisms anywhere in the thread and are not qualified to comment on something you cant even do. SSDD

I am waiting for swensson to show how 'alacker' should properly replace 'theist' as its negation to prove his personal definition.

All I see from your posts is paramount to nothing more than political hacking saying anything to look good to cover the desert of the real proven by reading the full posts you respond to discover your responses are completely made up political hacked BS as the one cited above. You have contributed nothing worth consideration or of any value throughout the whole thread, nothing more than personal attacks and misrepresentations.

Its crystal clear your gas tank is empty and thats all you have left.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

You could not call anyone out, this is the internet, keyboard warriors like you are ten a penny. I have no idea what conspiracy you think have proven this time with the latest show of proof of paranoia. You simply ignore or dismiss anybody who puts a counter argument to you, then pretend they never even produced an argument.You constantly do not source your quotes, starting with the very first post in this thread.It is all there for people to read, I have shown over and over where you falsify what others have said, quote mine and create new meaning based on thin air. When faced with a definition from the OUP you simply say they are wrong, same with Websters definition of atheism. Swenson has destroyed your formal logic argument, but rather than show any kind of respect you bait, taunt and belittle.

You have a political motive in trying to prove atheism is a religion, despite numerous posters pointing out the author of the Atheist Bible does not represent all atheists you continued to use that to back up your bogus theory being just one example of the way you debate. I could go on but I would just be repeating myself, and all people have to do is read the thread and judge for themselves.

I am an Atheist,I lack belief in gods.

 

And you can't even see how your definition of "atheist" fails even the rationality test if it includes babies. Babies cannot be atheist, theist, or even agnostic because they cannot even think about the question. ALL the above positions require being able to think about the question.

 

Sure, nothing is keeping you from constructing such a concept, although it has nothing to do with any of the argument we have made.

Yeah, and I don't see a problem with that. Well, in order to be an atheist, you'd have to be a person, which would still exclude dogs and cats, but yeah, babies are not a problem.

I don't think you know what a logical necessity is. Illiteracy exist, so literacy cannot be a logical necessity.

 

Why would that be a rationality test? Why couldn't babies be atheist? Why would you have to think of the question? The requirement is explicitly stated, "atheist, a person who does not believe in god's existence", not "a person who has thought about it and ended up believing the opposite". This is not the first time you and Kokomojojo have brought up the baby angle, but you have yet to explain why that is an argument against that definition of an atheist.

Babies do not accept "there is a god" as true (I guess some believe the idea of god is imprinted on our minds from our birth, but that's another discussion altogether), so they are atheists. I see no problem there.

In fact, many modern atheists model their atheism after that of a newborn child. They figure children are easy to fool, and so, they construct their position as what a hypothetical person who had the same default position as a newborn child would, but who was not convinced by the potentially misleading ideas which turned their real selves to religion.