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

You still cant prove to a blind man that a solid object is in fact a wall using the atheist standards of proof, in fact you cant prove anything at all using the atheist standards for burden of proof, at least to a level of satisfaction for the atheists on this board.

If that is true that theists dont have any evidence God exists and atheists do have evidence God does not exist then its reasonable for an atheist to believe God does not exist.

HOWEVER- atheists do not have any evidence that God does not exist then its unreasonable to deny the existence of God because the fact of the matter is that the atheist does not know this for a fact, and therefore becomes a hypocrite because the atheist demands absolute proof from theists but needs none what so ever for themselves to be an atheist.

 

I made a point, the same point I have been making, I dont like it when people try to include me in their delusion and try to tell me what I am when they cant even correctly figure out what they are.

 

It's a question of what you are, and why you even bothered with this thread. What are you running away from? Are you afraid that the atheists are actually right?

 

I cant imagine why you would think anyone who buried the whole atheist metaphorical foundation of 'lack of belief' is 'running away' from anything, and even more laughable conclude I think they are right? Thats some serious kind of twisted!

 

Running, running.

 

you mean charging charging! lol

 

Atheists cannot produce any evidence God does not exist and can only demonstrate their delusion.

You cant be an atheist without denying the existence of God, rocks lack belief because they have no brain, your definition and claim puts atheist philosophical genius on par with a rock. I love it actually!

It is, thats why I am LMFAO.

Good for you!

And there you go, after countless times of demanding no one tell you what to believe and here you are telling me and everyone else what to believe. Respect is a one way street for atheists.

 

explain how one can possess a conclusion without grounding it in a belief.

 

So one mans quest to tell everyone what they are regresses to childish piles of excreta, LMAO, bolded text, petty sniping and self proclaimed delusions of adequacy.

 

If atheism is what I propose it to be, then atheism is not a conclusion (as in your example, a rock might "have" it).

 

if atheism is what you propose then there is no difference between the thought process of a human and that of a rock. the human brain cant make any conclusion without first having 2 thoughts which result in a belief, a rock on the other hand fits your proposal very well.

 

Bingo, except that the atheists think they have superior knowledge and reasoning abilities on loan from God, when in fact its highly inferior as they believe and accept as true what is not fact contrary to their preaching.

 

Atheists simply lack a belief in gods, there is no reason to take a position, as you showed.

 

therefore any reasonable person would conclude atheists have the same mental capacity as a rock because rocks also lack belief in Gods.

both theist and atheist ARE positions. duh!

Stop troll baiting me, I showed no such thing.

 

For that particular thought process yes. It would not say "I believe in the existence of a god", nor would an atheist. It is in itself not a conclusion, it is merely the state you're in when you have/would not make that statement.

Either way, you skipped a bit. Again.

If someone says "I think the colour orange is pretty", would you accept the following rebuttal?

"No they would not, as I explained again, above, and additionally to be a orange one must be a fruit or they are not an orange, hence even if [some condition], you would still need to be a fruit to be an orange."

Is the original person not justified in choosing the definition which makes the argument they're trying to make?

 

No any reasonable person would not conclude that atheists have the same mental capacity as a rock, it is an idea unworthy even for you.

I will continue to show where you prove your own idea wrong, you show the no position is needed argument very well in it.

Again smileys and duh! do not add to your argument, but if they make you feel better keep at them.

 

your orange example is not a legitimate comparison since is describes 2 unrelated things, a fruit versus a color, and there is no provision to apply agnostic in there.

that really does not make sense, it does not have to be vocalized to make it true.

 

In your case, fantasy comes to mind.

 

If I were an atheist that would be true!

 

Stop troll baiting me.

 

If you have a problem report it to the mods, in the meantime I will reply as I wish within forum rules. I realise you do not like someone who does not get distracted by your obscurification tactics.

 

Do you understand English? I have said, and I have said all along that, 'I lack belief and I am an atheist'.

These all sound like your problem to resolve, many on here have tried to help you with that but, you have decided to be as you have.

You still haven't explained why the rock is a problem.

 

Too funny, you have spent weeks whining like a child and throwing hissy fits because atheists do not believe what you want them to believe and you turn around and say this? Hilarious!

 

Do you know what, I am not going to respond to this with rebuttal because it is just so far off base that I am concerned about what it represents. This is just the internet, when it stops being fun then stop.

All you need to know is that I am an atheist and I lack belief.