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

there is nothing left to debate on that matter, scotus said you are wrong simple as that, now can we get back to lackerism?

 

Now you are repeating yourself and still avoiding the point, you do not seam to comprehend this is not a contentious issue, it is accepted fact, you simply cannot understand what many people do.

 

No scotus did not show I am wrong you will not debate the point but debate your own point, which is irrelevant to the issue.

I note you have moved the goalpost by now adding "legally"!

 

thats the problem, you do not realize innocent, guilty, and not guilty are all legal constructs used in legal affairs. Only through legal process can one be determined to be guilty or innocent. If not legal then what? Alice in wonderland justice?
Your titanic is long since sunk and sitting on the bottom since you failed to show anything that trumps the supreme court.

 

And now self aggrandisement and claims of victory when you have avoided this simple question for page after page!

 

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

The supreme court settled the matter with anything less than guilty beyond reasonable doubt is innocent.

you have produced nothing and continue to produce nothing in defense of your argument, I am done with this off topic diversion of yours.

 

You claimed that before and I showed you the lawyers, legal experts and legal dictionary that explained the specific point to you, not an interpretation of an unrelated supreme court decision.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/reviewing-atheist-lack-belief-in-deitie

 

WSmith a real atheist, not a lacker, explained the fallacy of lackerism in painstakingly articulate detail several hundred pages ago and no no lacker to date has even scratched the surface much less dented the premise/argument. Lackerism is designed and built on logical fallacies.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

roger wilco on your concession.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

No, WSmith is not a real atheist by your standards, he suggests any god less than the christian one may be an alien! I have no idea what you would call that Alienism perhaps? We await your definition since you love making up words.

 

no one would have guessed

 

no where did he say that so you need to quote it before I will respond since you most likely took something he said out of context, your SOP.

 

If denial helps you and projecting what you do helps go for it, but it is clear you have dodged that question over and over again.

 

I have learned from experience that if you dont quote it, there is a 99% chance its a claim taken out of context from what someone actually said. So quote it if you want to claim it. simple.

 

Please provide quotes to back up your claim. However the point you will not answer the question remains. Need to do a summary of all the replies you have avoided.

 

Forget it, you just want to further distract the thread with useless arguments. I posted smiths work you said aliens I need a quote from you or I have nothing to discuss on that topic.

 

No you avoided the question when he first mentioned it and on subsequent occasions.

 

no question about aliens was directed toward me. his arguments prove how lame the lacker movement is, so I expect as usual you took something out of context..

 

I directed exactly that question at you.

 

what he means by that is a description relating to local atheism, he gives an analogy which classifies aliens as powerful but not gods. Beyond that you have to ask hi. for more details as I cant speak for him on the subject

 

Oh dear, falsified again!