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

Do you claim you wrote this,

The revisionist “lack of belief” definition of atheism is overtly ambiguous.

After all, there would suddenly be two ways to be an “atheist,” by either…
(a) …affirming the proposition <God does not exist>, or…
(b) …withholding belief about it (traditionally called “agnosticism”).1This is relevant because the imprecise usage would in turn needlesslyrequire interlocutors to spend extra time discerning which of those two remaining options apply, rather than the individual being straightforward about his position from the get-go. It also can lead to equivocating over so-called strong and weak atheism in discussions, which can be used in misleading ways2 Right now, things are efficient: One simply says whether they are a theist, atheist, or agnostic. Simple.3

To argue for a words meaning based on its etymology commits the so-called “root fallacy”. One need only spend a little time on dictionary.com to see how far off a words meaning can be from whatever is suggested by its etymology. For example, “goodbye” is a contraction of “God be with ye,” so any atheist proponent of this argument who knows the roots of this word and nevertheless uses it, by his own reasoning, is regularly affirming God's existence. But this is absurd.

• D.A. Carson: “…the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.” [Exegetical Fallacies 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 1996), 28.]
• James Barr (Semitic Languages and Literature professor at Oxford): “…the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history.” [The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), 109.]

https://beliefmap.org/encyclopedia/atheism/lack-of-belief/#dictionaries

If you did not write it, why have you not provided the source?

 

Of course I dont claim to have written it, the sources are included in the pics, and you chose one of 3, to pretend no references were given, they were.

 

Sure, if someone is not innocent they are guilty. DUH

goes right back to the same crazy distinctions without a difference lackers try to make with their lack of belief bs, being different from belief no god exists.

 

You really need to try to understand the nuance, as William says in Scotland it is possible to be Not Proven, perhaps if you looked into that you might gain some understanding.

 

Where?

 

dont remember, it was posted about 1000 posts ago in text, need to find it and start clicking.

its not me that has a problem with nuances its you and willie!
'Not proven' is agnostic, not atheist.

 

If you cannot understand the difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, then clearly you have the problem.

 

I told you the difference but you pretend I did not.

 

No, you gave your OPINION as to the difference which does lead to fact. As usual, you equivocate and try to spin the truth, a truth that you clearly do not understand.

 

fine you told me your opinion so cite it.

 

Sure, Just because you’re found “not guilty” doesn’t mean that you’re “innocent.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/justice-for-casey-anthony

 

Thank you for yet again proving you cannot understand nuance. It is so funny watching you shoot yourself in the foot every time.

 

I always do. I also like going and finding text with a Google search anyway, especially when I think that someone has posted something that looks like a cut and paste job that they are trying to pass off as their own.

 

Here we go again. You are the one claiming there is a nuance between the use of innocence and not guilty you are the one who needs to convince the world your definition is better than the accepted one given. Innocence is used as the negation of guilty in the same sentence yet you think there is some hidden nuance that the rest of the world does not see. This looks like more of the same lackerism we have seen throughout this thread, making distinctions with no difference.
Arjay51 is on ignore

 

And as usual you simply do not understand the argument and quote something that is nothing to do with the difference between not guilty and innocent. Having thus armed yourself with the wrong definition you then claim.

Ty Doyle, Partner at litigation boutique, J.D. Stanford 2005
Answered Aug 13, 2016 · Upvoted by Cliff Gilley, JD cum laude, Seattle University Class of 2000 · Author has 1.8k answers and 5.5m answer views

First of all, no one is found innocent at trial, at least not in the US: in the criminal system, the outcome is either guilty or not guilty, and in the civil system, the outcome is either liable or not liable. Not guilty means only that the state did not prove guilt, not that the accused didn't do anything wrong.

The reason why there can be different results in criminal versus civil cases is because the burdens of proof are different. The state must prove an accused criminal guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that a jury must have a high degree of certainty as to guilt, not the absence of any doubt, but the absence of any reasonable doubt. In the civil context, a plaintiff need only prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning bare majority. If a jury thinks it is quite possible the defendant's version of events is true, but finds the plaintiff slightly more convincing, the plaintiff should win.

Is this fair? I'd say so: civil suits involve money or other legal remedies, while criminal cases involve one's life and liberty. It should be harder to put someone in jail than it is to recover for, say, breach of contract.

First, no one has EVER been found “innicent” in criminal court. “Innocent” is for preachers and philosophy majors, not lawyers. If you are found “not guilty”’that means ONLY that the prosecution failed to prove every element of the offense charged “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the highest legal standard in our system. Civil cases, by contrast, are judged on the lowest standard, “preponderance of the evidence” (essentially, who puts on the best case). Civil cases determine who is RESPONSIBLE, not who is guilty or not guilty. Criminal cases also have much higher standards for the admission of evidence.

Hope this clears it up for you
https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-pos...civil-court-Isnt-that-unfair-on-the-defendant

The Law DictionaryFeaturing Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?
a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.
https://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INNOCENT AND NOT GUILTY?
On behalf of MacDonald Law Office LLC posted in Criminal Defense on Thursday, May 26, 2016.

When you are going through a criminal case, you might be just as excited to think about a not guilty verdict as you are to think of proving your innocence. It is very important that you take a step back so you can take a look at the differences between innocent and not guilty.

What is innocent?

Being deemed innocent means that you have been cleared of all speculation that you committed a crime. Innocence isn't really something that can be proven at a trial.

What is not guilty?

When it comes to a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." That last clause "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred. Being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence wasn't strong enough for a guilty verdict.

What's the big deal with innocent versus not guilty?

In order to be found not guilty, you have to go through the expense and stress of a trial. In some cases, even being found not guilty won't get your good name back. Being found innocent is something that can be done before trial in various ways. Asserting your innocence and then having charges dropped would be a way that you could truly note that you were innocent.

https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/...ference-between-innocent-and-not-guilty.shtml

The difference between innocent and not guilty.
There is innocent and then there is not guilty. Innocent is, I wasn’t there. It wasn’t me, I was in Aruba when this happened. Or you have the wrong guy, it was Tom Jones, who looks like me but is not me.

Not guilty is the state hasn’t proved either that I knowingly did the crime or that a certain drug guy was possessed with the certain drugs they say it was.

Any one of the elements of a crime, if the state cannot prove each one of those elements- think of them as a recipe- if the state cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to each and every element-Each and every ingredient of the case- even one of those, then a jury would find you not guilty versus innocent.

http://www.hhlawcenter.com/the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-guilty/

There is a video on the above site if you still cannot understand the nuance of the argument. So we have lawyers, law firms and a legal dictionary all explaining the difference, you have a quote about the presumtion of innocence, since you appear to not even understand what the debate is about.

There was a famous case in the US where some chap called OJ Simpson was successfully sued in a civil court despite being found not guilty in the criminal courts.

In 1994, Simpson was arrested and charged with the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. He was acquitted by a jury after a lengthy and internationally publicized trial. The families of the victims subsequently filed a civil suit against him, and in 1997 a civil court awarded a $33.5 million judgment against Simpson for the victims' wrongful deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

He called himself a christian but you would call him an american footballist (i presume) by your definition of religion.

So again Kokomojo we can see you are actually a lacker, a person who lacks the understanding of the nuance of the Not Guilty V Innocence distinction. Now you may still argue that it is a distinction without a difference but 33.5 million dollars would count as a difference for most people!

If you can understand the nuance of this distinction it may help your understanding of Lack of belief.

Good luck.

 

You have not shown anything different than what I already said previously and have given us nothing to demonstrate the nuance you think exists.
The state has to prove its case, if it does not then they are innocent [innocent until proven guilty] since they have not been proven guilty.
The criminal trial was for murder and the civil trial wrongful death, completely different charge/complaint. So while he was innocent of 'murder', he was not innocent of 'wrongful death'.
In your above quote, being in aruba has to be proven in court in which not guilty is the verdict proving you are innocent. Just because something is accepted pretrial does not mean someone is innocent as your blogger said. It just means they settled out of court.
Its not me who doesnt understand law.

 

If you accidently kill someone you are innocent of Murder but guilty of manslaughter. You are not guilty of murder but not innocent of killing someone. It can be said you killed someone but nuanced to show you at not a murderer.

 

thats not a nuance, at least not in the context he is using it, its an entirely different charge.

the state/ in court you wont see shifting the goal posts all over the map like you see here on a forum, they get one shot to prove their charges and if they strike out too bad.

 

What part of this do you not understand,

https://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/

I understand very little about US law, but apparently still more than you.

 

I happen to have a copy of that very dictionary in my library



Seems someone sold you another wooden nickel.

and there is nothing in there referring to your claimed nuance under guilty, not guilty, verdict, and any variant thereof.

Not that it matters since they do have the definition for innocent and it states straight up 'no guilt', which is not guilty.

Arjay51 is on ignore

 

So you do not understand any of it, thanks.

 

innocent is free from guilt, not guilty is free from guilt but you claim free from guilt is not innocent. Pretty twisted logic considering I gave you the actual definition from the same dictionary you cited.

The only way your premise could be true if someone was brought up on charges for painting a wall purple when in fact he painted it green, hence innocent of painting it purple but not innocent of painting it green.

 

I am an atheist, i lack belief.