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

I have done so many times, even shown where you have quoted them. You ignore, runaway from the forum for a few days, pretend it never happened, leave it for a few more days then repeat the same old falsifications, demanding the same evidence as has been produced over and over. You are a falsifier as numerous people have shown, over and over again.

 

youve done no such thing, its all figments of your unbridled imagination, which is why its impossible for you to quote it, any of it, not so much as one shred.

 

I suppose he, I, and pretty much everyone here share an "Imagination", because he is spot on.

 

Here you go Koko, predicted exactly what you would do, and you did it, you are the longest running joke on the forum.

 

And here! But you will ignore, deny, insult, deflect anything other than except what it shows in the post above!

 

ok. I am an atheist. By definition, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I lack believe a god or gods exist, because there is no evidence supporting the claim that one does.

Simple.

 

And yet again from Stanford but you ignore it!

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

 

Just like a theist would do. Theism and agnosticism have become two sides of the same dishonest coin.

 

Do you ever get tired of making up your own definitions and trying to spin them to your own meanings?

You are and continue to be wrong about atheism just as you are wrong to claims to be an agnostic, which you obviously are not. You are more a fool than anything else.

 

You do realize that philosophy is just a bunch of opinions that have no actual truth to them, just wannbe ideas to try to control mentally weak people.

Of course to you, fiction is the definitive proof of your opinions, since you have no actual facts.

 

It appears that you have intimate knowledge of what is "irrational" since that appears to be the constant state that you live in.

 

Nope didnt see lacker in there anywhere.
I guess you want to lead people up the garden path so they ASSume it is, but then anyone who has seen your track record for accuracy/correctness wouldnt waste their time, well best 1 out of 100 might be great by some peoples standards but not mine.

 

In formal review which is what this thread was intended to be about before a few gomer pyles decided to post in a thread 5magnitudes above the pay grade, atheist is the antithesis of theist, therefore leaves you 2 choices, or a bow out. Simply saying you are an atheist without stating God does not exist does not affirm you are an atheist, at best, being generous may possibly imply you are an atheist. In fact you might be one of those people who label themselves an atheist because its cool but secretly thinks a God 'might' exist. But thats ok I know several atheists who doubt their position and fear claiming no Gods exist. They are wannabe atheists. .

 

You really seem to have an obsession with hind quarters. Hopeful butt boy.

BTW, to see what you call a "lacker" in truth, all you have to d o is look in a mirror.

 

Oh dear, did all those idiotic atheists with no respect for you ruin your thread by constantly proving you wrong, go tell mummy how they hurt you!

Hardly surprising since lacker is a baby word koko and mummy use just for them!

Really even when shown the article that replaces your "stellar" e-mail(stolen by you from an atheist website by the way and yet again not sourced) you simply ignore all the various ways atheism is defined for the very narrow definition that you claim to be correct. Then to claim the a thread started from the ramblings of a creationist website is a philosophical review is to funny, only beaten by your silly idea that it is the job of philosophy to define words.
Who the hell is Gomer Pyle?

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

Lacker
Noun
(plural lackers)

1. One who is lacking
Related to lacker: slacker

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

Are you pretending to be a dictionary now?
Source please.

 

I am a lacker, I lack proof there is a god.....

 

That was a very good article. I was especially taken by the idea of global v. local atheism and how few people have even attempted to prove global atheism true, and how difficult that would be. I wasn't especially impressed by either argument presented in defense of local atheism, though. Neither the "low priors" argument nor the "decisive evidence" argument seemed particularly compelling. They both depend on the lack of evidence equalling evidence of lack theory, which I think is bullshit. (Lackers just depend on the lack of evidence to mean a lack of evidence, which is tautological and proves nothing.) My own proof of the non-existence of the Western version of God would no doubt qualify as a local atheism proof, since it doesn't prove that inferior gods cannot/do not exist. But inferior gods to me would seem to be on the order of powerful alien beings and not gods at all. So while I can't say there aren't any powerful alien beings, I can say there are no gods.

 

already proved this is wrong.

 

Can it get any funnier? Now we have a new answer, to koko's question. Desperate to cover his lack of belief in "inferior" gods smith now states they must be aliens if they exist! If you do not beleive in a god how can it be a superior god to the ones you now say must be aliens, you miss the point, gods do not exist according to you!
Let us see how Koko handles his friends admission that the article I posted does indeed deal with Lack of Belief according to his own best buddy!

 

Really, people just take lack of evidence to mean lack of evidence, what do you think a lack of evidence means other than a lack of evidence. Here is the definition of tautological just to show the madness of your argument.

In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is an argument which repeats an assertion using different phrasing. The proposition, as stated, is thus logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...al&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

As the old saying goes, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It drives right back to the problem on this board where these guys dont even understand how burden of proof is derived 'in practice' in the real world, is it any surprise? Their dogma would condemn countless innocent people if used in court.

My favorite wrench to throw in the works is the god Koalemus.
Rara switched horses and now claims prince phillip is a God, but I'm not so sure.