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

What do you consider the personal attack, the fact I stated you are a plagiarist which I have shown or the fact that you insist on telling atheists the cannot lack belief?

Now with regards the article, it is simply wrong and outdated, and you plagiarised it. The problem with that is that you did not check the quotes and sit there blissfully unaware of how inaccurate the article and list are. It would be funny, if it was not so sad.

 

Okay...as it is clear we are dealing with an individual of limited mental function I'll try this: Believing in "Gods Nonexistence" is THE SAME THING as not believing in God! I do not need to prove a thing does not exist, you need evidence to prove IT DOES. You see, that is how things work....if someone says something it is up to them to back it up. If someone says nothing they don't have anything to back up at all.

 

So they dont really 'lack' belief at all, they 'BELIEVE' in Gods nonexistence.


eh not so, positions claiming negatives are equally required to be proven, and are all the time in court frankly

 

I find it hard to believe ANYONE could be as deficient in rational thought, basic comprehension and mental acuity as you project but must accept it as truth. That said, I will no longer waste my time attempting to adjust a damaged mind.

Have A Nice Day

 

Since you like to claim to understand courts, understand this, no court attempts to prove someone is innocent, only that there is not enough evidence that someone is guilty.

It is quite possible for a jury or judge to maintain he lacks the evidence to prove someone is guilty, but take no position on whether the person is innocent.

If you could understand the subtle difference then you would understand why I lack belief in gods existence but have no need to prove he does not exist.

 

No, that is what we have you to provide.

 

Thats because you are being charged with a crime and the state has to prove you are guilty of that crime not innocent, not guilty is the belief someone is innocent.

Insufficient evidence is agnostic, or dismissal, lackers chose their position with complete disregard for the fact they have insufficient evidence to do so.

 

Did not think you would understand it correctly. Not guilty is not the belief someone is innocent, but it is to nuanced for your brain. Cut and paste another plagiarised reply.

 

comprehension is key.
Its you that does not understand the nuances.
If it were set up to prove innocence everyone on the planet would be swinging from a rope. Those problems are associated with living in a microscopic world. I plagiarized nothing, I gave pages of references and never claimed anything that was not my creation to be mine, so once again, as usual your accusations are wrong and false.

btw did you say devotions to your god prince phillip?

 

Again, read what I wrote not what you imagine, here is your statement.

Incorrect. Not guilty is not the belief that someone is innocent, you do not need to prove innocence. You do not need to make any judgement on innocence.

It is clearly to nuanced for you.

You plagiarised line after line after line, when asked for sources you refused. It is all there for people to see.

Now try to copy and paste your way out of another lack of understanding on your part.

 

you have no clue about fair use do you.
I just said that, the state charges you with a crime the jury determines if guilt or innocence. If the jury believes the party is innocent of the crime as charged they vote not guilty.

 

Again your lack of understanding shines through, there are two verdicts in most courts, guilty or not guilty. End of, nothing about innocence. In everything you do you fail to see that nuance.

 

guess you never been on jury duty either. Like I said if the requirement was to prove innocence on the planet everyone would be swinging from a rope, however if the jury believes someone is innocent the choice of verdict is not guilty.

 

There is a reason that some of us have approval ratings that go into double figures rather than barely breaking 1% and it is the obvious quality and veracity of our posts. I honestly believe that there are 'cognitive issues' here and that it needs actual professional help to break the behaviour patterns we are observing rather than trying to argue with an irrational person using reason.

 

Aproval ratings are dependent on how many socks you got LOL
yep that explains the lacker problems quite well.
you and tecoyah answered no to the question do gods exist, hence you took a position that needs to be proven and is not, hence as your video says you have a burden of proof.
your kind of guy! I love the way he simply handwaved away all counter arguments substituting simpson characters for arguments.

so prove no gods exist.

ps: btw wtf is a 'professional' atheist?
does it have a good salary?

Thanks for the laugh!

 

Wow you acted as if you understood the law, turns out even that confuses you.

 

you are the one who is confused, even though I pointed out and explained it to you

So why did you convert to a theist anyway?

 

No koko, no jury in the world ever found someone innocent, only not guilty. Understand that and you may have cracked why you cannot understand lack of belief.

Gods are all just meaningless waffle, I might be a pantheist tomorrow!

 

Actually, there is a permissible verdict of 'Not Proven' in Scottish Law that might be more appropriate to lacking belief. I don't imagine that any intelligent conversation will arise from knowing that around here.

 

It sounds like you understand law about as well as you do science.

 

That discussion ended on my asking who had balls enough to deny gravity is a 'force' that pulls down or sucks everything with mass to the earth. So you want to step up to the plate and deny gravity is a 'force' that pulls everything to the earth, take it to that thread and lets go.

 

As you are consistently wrong about everything and go on the immediate attack when challenged, why would anyone bother. You would, without any evidence at all, just deny whatever displeases you. You truly are not worth the effort, except to make sure that others have exposure to how false your claims are.

 

Not guilty is not the same as innocent, you again made a mistake and simply refuse to except it. As I explained I am no longer a worshipper of Philip but might choose pantheism tomorrow. So worthless and meaningless are any religious gods created by man. Since you claim to be an agnostic of what interest is another god to you, you have no opinion on gods?

Now how about you explain why you said philosophy and courts decide what words mean?
Will now that you have quoted somebody else writing admit that philosophy has many different terms for atheism?

Other issues you constantly avoid.

 

Do you claim that this is your own work? I will remind you of forum rules.
All quotes from other sources must be given appropriate credit, preferably with a link to the original article - long articles should be quoted from and/or summarized, not quoted in their entirety. Content copied from other sources must meet "fair use" guidelines, and violations of copyright will be deleted and subject to infraction.

 

Again it is very easy to show the truth.