The atheist gods of 'Lack', the only true religion?

The intelligence of your discourse mirrors the intelligence of your ideas. But it is OK if you can't understand my posts maybe you could do some research and learn about logic systems.

 

Atheists don't have to prove the negative. Theists have to prove the positive.

Theists demanding evidence god does not exist are simply projecting their lack of evidence onto those that refuse to accept that lack in the first place.

And psychologists often call someone who believes their fantasies to be real, delusional.

 

Nah, stupid Boolean logic which ain't relevent to the issue. And claiming to be an agnostic which requires an exact 50/50 split between being a theist and an athiest is the real proof of idiocy.

 

No semantic bullshit. Disbelief is not the same as belief. IN fact it is the direct opposite.

But I do get how its all the same thing in your belief system. Convenient emotional dismissal in the absence of any intellectual evidence.

Consider the fact that theists can't deliver a shred of evidence to support their positive belief? Okay. As an atheist I don't have to prove non-existence of god. I await any evidence that your god actually does exist.

You can't prove your belief and you are using the exact same tactics as people who believe vampires exist. Prove they don't or they do is a pretty stupid defense of such a belief, wouldn't you agree.

 

the logic is sound, you continually fail to comprehend that you are using different and inappropriate senses in your arguments. You cant use a thrid person observation to argue the first person, and your continual barrage of red herring arguments.

observation.

Its foolish to think that anything that is not sentient can either believe or disbelieve.

The above is the all time winner!
Thats the best contradictory nonsense I have seen in a long time.

Sure its not grammatically incorrect, but it fails to convey the condition of a rock in a technical discussion as I thought you were trying to engage?

In a technical discussion the correct description of a rock with regard to thinking or believing unlike a sentient being it is that its impossible for it to do either, as I have said.

why you continue to argue down this road seems really strange unless you are simply trying to cover your mistakes with pages of gish.

Your arguments on this do not convey an in context correct communication with an accurate in context meaning when you switch senses indiscriminately as you do. You may be able to sneak it past the average everyday neoatheist but it doesnt fool everyone. So those atguments may be grammatically correct as far as structure is concerned but convey a completely different sense which renders your argument baseless bs.

Not to someone who has never seen a rock, since they would be forced to ask 'why dont rocks think', people do. what suprises me is that you dont see how over the top ridiculous that your arguments get.

Perfect example of your sense switching. A rock exists is an observation, not what a rock does first person. A rock has no ability to 'do' anything.

The sense I was comparing once again is sentient versus not sentient and off you go into the swensson wild blue yonder creating one red herring after another.

Back to interchanging different senses, while they may be true they do not apply.

It is in my example once again when its all that was given.

Round and round you go on your senses merry go round, where you stop nobody knows.

Because you dont or you pretend or you are simply in denial that the proofs have been given to you stated several different ways. You are blaming me for your shortcomings.

Rocks have no capacity to believe or disbelieve, because its impossible. There is no argument, the rest is your word salad that fails critical thinking.

 

50/50 split wth did that come from? <<---Now thats an example of top shelf idiocy.

 

But you chose to claim and have expressed your disbelief that God exists by defining and expressing yourself as an atheist, therefore you need to prove your position same as theists. the only person that gets a free ticket to the show are those of us who are agnostics since we remain neutral.

Definition of atheist
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

That puts neoatheists in the same predicament theists are in, and theists can equally and legitimately claim neoatheists need to prove their standing since neoatheists are no longer neutral and have taken a religious position same as the theists have. Taking an inferior position that requires you to prove a negative is no ones problem but your own if you are a neoatheist. Maybe neoatheists should consider choosing a different position if they want to brag about how logical and reasoned they are instead of whining that they cant prove their position ya think? This isnt rocket science though it seems neoatheists think it is.

 

Nonsense.

No god is a null set. Its kinda easy to prove a null set, apart from the obvious that is.

god exists is a populated set. And its hard to discern which subset is which within it, let alone which can be "proven".

 

ahhhh, okay then. So you are not familiar with set theory or the concept of "null". IIRC, basic high school math.

the "no god" set is empty, null, nada, zip, bupkiss.

What Is the Null Set?
The null set, also referred to as the empty set, is the set that contains no elements. For example, suppose somebody asked you to find the set of all senior citizens who are less than five years old. Clearly, there are no senior citizens under five because you have to be much older than five to be considered a senior citizen! Therefore, your set contains no elements and is the null set. Another example of the null set is the set of all even numbers that are also odd. Clearly a number cannot be both odd and even, so there are no elements in this set.

 

Guess you aren't following or maybe just incapable of comprehension. If you believe that Boolean logic is applicable to the question of religious belief then one must be either an athiest or a theist. That would appear to be the basis for your " I lack disbelief therefore I am a theist" position.

On the other hand you claim to be agnostic which given you Boolean position could only mean an exact 50/50 split between being an athiest and a theist.

Of course believing that Boolean logic applies to personal beliefs is as you say " top shelf stupidity" . So are you a top shelf idiot or are you rejecting Boolean logic as applicable to belief. Bet you will duck an actual answer!

 

Of course you have a right to free speech and this is an atheist thread. I'll leave you to yourself and your creation.

 

knock knock.... "no god" is a null set. Agnostic is a populated set (think "maybe").

your comprehension dog don't seem to hunt too good.

 

you posted nothing that represents a null set.
by all means show your 'math' and enlighten us.

 

But you don't relate to atheism. It's a conundrum to you. And if it takes religion to keep some people from acting immorally, then I'd have to say that religion does serve a useful purpose in those cases.

 

It seems there is some sort of "blind spot" in your understanding of a null set. Yes it is an abstraction of "nothing". What aren't you getting?

 

Its a good idea to have someone read it out loud and explain the meanings to people who fail to comprehend the content.

My last post explained the neoatheist dilemma quit well.

But you chose to claim and have expressed your disbelief that God exists by defining and expressing yourself as an atheist, therefore you need to prove your position same as theists. the only person that gets a free ticket to the show are those of us who are agnostics since we remain neutral.

Definition of atheist
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

That puts neoatheists in the same predicament theists are in, and theists can equally and legitimately claim neoatheists need to prove their standing since neoatheists are no longer neutral and have taken a religious position same as the theists have. Taking an inferior position that requires you to prove a negative is no ones problem but your own if you are a neoatheist.

Maybe neoatheists should consider choosing a different position if they want to brag about how logical and reasoned they are instead of whining that they cant prove their position ya think? This isnt rocket science though it seems neoatheists think it is.

 

Failure to answer the question. Let me try again. Do you think not having disbelief is the same as having belief. A simple enough yes or no question.

 

depends how and to what you are applying it.

 

so you agree nothing is not something and can only be defined by abstraction. Do I detect at twinkling of actual awareness?

 

It's just another Fallacious "God of the Gaps" variant thread.
Fraudulent trolling OP

Atheists do NOT say "Nothingness".
Atheist say "We don't know/We don't know Yet." ("but that's No reason to fabricate a god until we do")

It's religionists who have thousands of obviously contradicting 'gods',
and at least 75% ergo, are Wrong about Which/Witch god created anything... if any.

If the stars all lined up in the sky one night and formed the first page of the Bhagavad Gita, ALL the Evangelical Christian religionists would have a heart attack. There whole reason for being would be gone.
All their 'truth'/faith/Christ.. ZAPPO.. gone. A lie.

Meanwhile, Atheists like me would be delighted to believe/get some real answers, IF we finally had some EVIDENCE.
`

 

Wow. So much for your intellectual honesty. Do I hear a tacit admission that you can't defend your claim?

If not having disbelief is the same as having belief then of course not having belief is the same as having disbelief and having belief is the same as not having disbelief and having disbelief is the same as not having belief.

And thus being an agnostic is impossible.

 

Hundreds is a mega church? Guess religion really is dying.

 

The only person that does not have a belief is a dead one, that fragment doesnt apply to anything being discussed here.

yep if it is for every other religion then it is for atheists as well.

If you give me your mailing address I will be happy to send you a truckload of butthurt cream and Prozac.

 

And you are an authority on that I suppose.
In this topic I have no belief.
I have theories, but no belief.

And I can assure you, I am not dead.

 

I assume you have already used them since you seem unable to give an honest answer to my questions. Your resorting to stupidity and name calling means you can no longer defend your positions and have to hide behind insults. Of course anyone who believe as you apparently do that every issue only has two sides has to duck if they are going to pretend that there are athiests, theists, and agnostics and then believe that boolean logic applies to religious beliefs.