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

Here's a logical argument: You are the idiot if you think we're idiots because you haven't made a single logical statement yet. It's like being berated by a 6 year old for not being grown up enough. Just because you can't answer the charges against atheist claims doesn't mean we're not atheists or agnostics. Swensson's a smart man, go argue with him for a while and see if you can tell which of you is the smart one. (Hint: It isn't you.)

 

Time and again I have shown how you quote mine, falsify and just ignore what you quote. Now you dare to tell me not to call you names after 142 pages of silly smileys, made up baby words, crazy fonts and colours and sneering jibes at every other poster from you! Go find a safe space, fraud.

 

This from a man who claims "London is no longer recognisable as a British city!"

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I once exchanged posts with someone that claimed to be an anti-Evolution researcher. I asked him how that worked since surely the honest thing to do was start with the question, 'why is there diversity of species' and work from there. In the end his approach wasn't about following evidence it was about seeking out evidence that he thought undermined the ToE and ignoring the evidence that overwhelmingly supported it. He wasn't seeking 'an approximation to reality' he was seeking to confirm a dogmatic bias. Having understood that I was dealing with someone like that and that he was essentially just wanting to post what he liked and tactically provoke others into posting infractions I figured that the best response was to focus on one single point. In that case it was ERVs which is a killer piece of evidence for common ancestry.

Hence, when I can no longer take a poster seriously I just reduce it to that single point. It saves making long detailed responses that are never going to sink in anyway. It's just my way.

 

Literally every single individual decrying the "Lies of Evolution" fail to present them and resort to dogmatic and inane arguments while often denying their creationist beliefs. I too generally dismiss them after a couple jabs of humor layed before their smelly feet.

 

So, the logical arguments I have gotten from you are:

Not exactly logical stuff. Your charges against atheism aren't really any sort of charges, only a little bit of semantics. I'm not going to rehash it all because you have never engaged with anything other than the above. I have no idea who swensson is, but if they have something logical to offer, bring him on.

 

I like it. Flew's theory doesn't fly. Lackers lack persuasiveness when it comes to the philosophy pros.

 

and time and time again I have proven there are no material alterations in the point being made. Again please stop blaming your shortcomings and ****ups on everyone else.

Yes we all noticed! People trump your position and you have no defense you spam the the thread ad nauseum, which is why smith has you on iggy. Nothing you have said so far held water and as you can see stanford agrees.

If you read the thread you would know who swensson is. It helps to read the thread, that way you arent rehashing what has already been gone over in triplicate.

Notice the guy made all the same arguments these guys make here.

 

lol, 142 pages and atheism still means...................lack of belief in a god or gods

 

While the term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our
entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature.

Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism' means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the philosophical literature.

All the best,
Yours,
Uri

-------------------------------------------------------
Uri Nodelman Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Senior Editor
CSLI/Cordura Hall editors@plato.stanford.edu
Stanford University ph. 650-723-0488
Stanford, CA 94305-4115 fx. 650-725-2166
-------------------------------------------------------

Seems you are wrong, 142 times.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

yes, still means this after 142 pages. Lol

 

No you falsify, as has been shown by many posters on numerous occasions. You require one simple definition of atheism that suits your political opinions, you ignore any and all other opinions from encyclopedias, philosophers, common usage and dictionaries, you make up childish words to bait those who disagree with you. This thread is an epic fail in its attempt by you to tell others what they believe. Smileys, strange texts, deflection, claims of aggrandisement and claims of victory only go to show your lack of understanding of the subject, philosophical principles and even formal logic.

I am an Atheist, I lack belief.

 

Please refrain from blaming your errors and inability to comprehend whats posted on me.

Philosophy and the courts are the authority for definitions, not a dictionary quoting layman usage by tea toddlers who never cracked a book.

 

So you have now changed your position to accept that the term atheism is used in a variety of ways in general discourse. At last!

 

Thank you for confirming your sneering little insults!

 

Again, please take note; the title says 'review', and a 'review' is not general discourse. sorry.

 

lol, are you ****ing kidding me?

 

Its the job of philosophy and the courts to sort out all the bullshit idiots on the street come up with. sorry the chips didnt fall your way, neither at stanford nor in this thread.

 

So you now accept that the term Atheism is used in a variety of ways in general discourse?

 

No the job of philosophy is to offer up ideas to be discussed, it is not and never has been to make definitions, definitions are merely a common language used in philosophy so that others can understand exactly what is being discussed. Definitions are a tool within philosophy not the outcome.

Courts are normally restricted to countries, only the international courts are universal.

But again thank you for showing you use of petty insults for anyone you think intellectually inferior to you and again claims of victory!

 

That would be using your displayed methods which you constantly attempt accuse others of doing.

If you ever lived in reality you should attempt to return.

 

No, again you have attempted to deflect, do you accept now that in general discourse there are a variety of usages for the term atheism as stated in your own quotes?

 

Where do you come up with this made up crap? You continue to discard any statement that displease or proves you wrong to post made up garbage you think supports you. You are a hazard to intelligent discourse, which you never participate in.