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

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 asked you what of the above you did not understand? A simple question, rather than answer it you went off on a tangent of your own trying to prove the definition of the word innocent, concentrate Kokomojo. What of the above do you not understand?

 

Do you understand this,

What is the Verdict of Not guilty?

It is not asking for a definition of innocence, not asking anything about presumption of innocence, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

 

what does it take?
you are the one who does not get it.
you want to claim there is a difference, then you have to show where you got it from.
your online blacks says the same thing my offline blacks says.
I already posted innocent

VERDICT NOT GUILTY

the verdict that declares a defendant not guilty of the crime he was charged with. See not guilty.

NOT GUILTY

A plea of the general issue In the actious of trespass and case and in criminal prosecutious. The form of the verdict In criminal cases, where the jury acquit the prisoner. 4 Bl. Comm. 301.

Nowhere does it say what you claim.
so if you think it says it cough it up.
you posted someones opinion, not an actual definition.

 

I'm not the one who fails to understand 'nuances' around here.

By definition, when the Government fails to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered legally innocent. see Dowling v. United States, 493 US 342 - Supreme Court 1990




Have a nice day.

 

Try again, but do not get distracted by memes, do you understand the above?

 

Try again, this time click on the link, that I provided with the source. Keep concentrating, you might get there.

 

The supreme court interprets and says what the law means not blacks, not some dimwit rubber stamp attorney selling his services.

I'm not the one who fails to understand 'nuances' around here.

By definition, when the Government fails to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered legally innocent. see Dowling v. United States, 493 US 342 - Supreme Court 1990




Have a super nice day.

 

You keep getting distracted, I am only trying to help you understand nuances you struggle with, this is not even a contentious issue, for most people, but I understand you struggle with subtlety. Try really hard one more time.

If we can at least get it so you understand what it is we are talking about, then that would be a start.

 

Its perfectly clear you dont understand what you are talking about.
If the supreme court cant help you then I surely cant.

The supreme court interprets and says what the law means not blacks, not some dimwit rubber stamp attorney selling his services.

I'm not the one who fails to understand 'nuances' around here.

By definition, when the Government fails to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered legally innocent. see Dowling v. United States, 493 US 342 - Supreme Court 1990




Have a super duper nice day.

 

You do not understand nuance, I am trying to help you then you might understand other subtleties that have eluded you like,
Lack of beleif
Why even though there are atheist religions Atheism is not a religion.
That the purpose of philosophy is not to define words.
That you really do need to define what a god is before asking if he exists.

All the things that I and others have been trying to explain to you but you just fail to grasp.
150 pages of nothing, you do want respectful debate don't you?
You are not here just to troll are you?
Now try again with it.

 

the supreme court said not guilty = innocent, what dont you understand about that?

 

Forget that Kokomojo, try to concentrate on what we were talking about and the question I asked you pages ago,

I will explain why your quote from the supreme court actually backs up what I am saying later, in order for you to understand you need to first acknowledge you understand what it is we are talking about.

 

not guilty is legally innocent, best you can do is repeat what I said in the very beginning and pretend I didnt.

 

Here is what you first said,

Now you have posted nothing to back up that assertion, far from me pretending you did not say it, I have repeated it at least twice. That is a fact which shows the error in your statement.

You have provided nothing to do with the discussion, you have talked about presumtions of innocence and not addressed the issue.

So yet again in order to try and help you understand nuance

Here is a link to get you on to the page where I have provided you with explanations to help you. Try reading them and then try to answer this question.

 

Like I said before, there are bigger issues here beyond a simple lack of comprehension. For me, it's like a game of poker and the first one to reach for the dictionary has immediately conceded the point. You cannot define your way to victory in a debate. All you are doing in that case is debating a dictionary and not the person you are discussing with, which is why Koko always fails; he's not interested in listening to what is being said, only what self serving words he can use.

That is not to say that definitions are not important but, far more important is that when we use words to communicate that we agree we are using the same definition and context. Equivocation, bait and switch etc are the dishonest tools of trolls.

Anyway, to the point, it logically follows that if you do not understand '''lack of belief' then you are not going to understand 'presumption of innocence' and 'not guilty' since they are grounded in a similar skeptical philosophy. That said, if someone does not have the mental capacity then you might as well be teaching Baldrick to count.

 

Its perfectly clear you dont understand what you are talking about.
If the supreme court cant help you then I surely cant.

The supreme court interprets and says what the law means not blacks, not some dimwit rubber stamp attorney selling his services.

I'm not the one who fails to understand 'nuances' around here.

By definition, when the Government fails to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is considered legally innocent. see Dowling v. United States, 493 US 342 - Supreme Court 1990




Have a super duper nice day.

 

Ignore, deflect, coloured type, memes your whole arsenal of debating tactics in one post!

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I gave you the supreme courts answer and you are both still in denial.



The real problem with your debate style is obvious, which is why others have you and willie on ignore.

WSmith a real atheist, not a lacker, explained the fallacy of lackerism in painstaking detail several hundred pages ago and none of you have even scratched the surface much less dented the premise. Like with your innocent gig, just dancing around spouting some secret formula that trumps the supreme court that you cant even explain. Good luck with that.

 

No, what you wrote about the supreme court actually strengthens my argument, this is what you will not answer despite repeated requests to do so, this is what you are dodging.

 

it contradicts your argument, if you want to call that strengthen be my guest.

not guilty = legally innocent
apparently you think its illegally innocent!

 

No it does not contradict my argument but again you dodge the question,

 

if you could only prove the point huh!

not guilty = legally innocent
apparently you think its illegally innocent!

 

Again you have edited your original quote after I quoted it and brought out the final big gun in your debate argument, smileys.

Still avoiding all debate on the actual point.