The Religion of Atheism

nope anyone who lacks disbelief in God is a theist, now everything in the whole universe except absolute atheists are theist, see how simple ignorance works

 

Don't know what to tell you. Just the way things are, we aren't computers.

That has nothing to do with what I asked, I said faith. I can't really see that lack is a matter of degree, if you lack a car, you don't have a car. But, the question still remains.

 

if you lack the gas to get to toledo you may have a tank that is 3/4 full.
if you mean atheists have faith yes they do, there is no 'hard' evidence that God does not exist.

lack
lak/
noun
noun: lack; plural noun: lacks

1. 1.
   the state of being without or not having enough of something.
   "the case was dismissed for lack of evidence"----[meaning not enough]
   synonyms: absence, want, need, deficiency, dearth, insufficiency, shortage, shortfall, scarcity, paucity, unavailability, deficit
   "a lack of cash"----[meaning not enough, missing one penny to no money at all]
   antonyms: abundance

verb
1.
be without or deficient in.

technically a theist can lack, [that is have deficient belief to be 100% theist], that would be a weak theist, any theist that does not have 100% belief lacks belief, so that makes all weak theists atheists.

Makes perfect sense to the neo atheists.

 

Atheism is a disbelief, not a belief.

 

I posted that already

what you mean you are going to throw your nose up at the Oxford English Dictionary —the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words,

Atheism Definition Quoted from the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words the Oxford Dictionary:

Atheism

• the belief that God does not exist.
http://www.webcitation.org/6Lm3Z4SP7


Besides I am demonstrably correct, it wouldn't make sense to post a different refutation of your claim. Which is why we keep pointing out that atheism, by definition, is not a religion, just like water is not wet.

atheism, by definition, is a religion and is the belief no Gods exist.


Purchase your copy of the greatest dictionary in the world HERE, Source: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/th...MItoqj-KOz3AIVQrXACh1DEQ7UEAQYASABEgJr9fD_BwE


More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary—the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words, a fascinating guide to the history and evolution of the language, and one of the greatest works of scholarship ever produced. The Washington Post has written that "no one who reads or writes seriously can be without the OED." Now with the Compact, the world's greatest dictionary is within the reach of anyone who wants one.

 

So, first of all, 'pyle' as I predicted, you are dodging the question. And the question still stands.

Now, to address the blabbering above. If you lack the gas to get to toledo, you 100% do not have the gas to get to toledo, if you lack gas, you don't have any gas. Also, who cares? Now, can you name something that you have hard evidence for? Particularly hard evidence that something does not exist? Something that doesn't require any faith (I lack faith that you will avoid dodging this question as well).

 

"if you lack gas, you don't have any gas"
'pyle'x100
you have 3/4 tank of gas, not zero gas in the tank.
you lack gas, not lack toledo
you are confused

The statement was not I DONT HAVE.

because you lack ENOUGH GAS by an amount of 1/4 tank, you also lack the ability to get to toledo.

 

So, are you really trying to say I'm dodging answering a question that you used to dodge my question and that I answered?

If you lack 'gas', you have no gas, if you lack 'enough to get to toledo', then you may have 3/4 tank.

Now, if we are done with dodging and delaying tactics, would you like to:

1) Answer the questions that you have been dodging.
2) Admit that you are wrong.
3) Admit that you don't really want any answers and are just trolling,
4) Admit you are so emotionally invested in your need to believe in a god that you will cover your ears and scream when your thinking backs you into a corner.
5) Keep dodging by focusing on unimportant trivialities.

Oh, the suspense is killing me...

 

(psst.. spoiler alert, it's 5)

 

I gave you a counter argument, that was not a question.

No, if you lack ANY GAS, then you have no gas.

First off thats not what I said, but it does not make much difference.

Thank you for proving my point.

You can play word games with your bogus approach forever.

If the question were 'strictly' all or nothing with no other choices you can get away with your version.

I lack a gas tank so I cant get to toledo.

It doesnt work when you have other choices.

clear as mud yet?

 

Oh my!! It was 5! Who could have ever guessed.

So, a counter argument has some relation to the argument or question you are responding to. What 'not' dodging a question looks like is an answer to the question asked.

Apropos to the pedantic obsession with definitions, you might want to look into the definition of proof. Also look up if just repeating things over and over make them true.

Now, do you want to try 'not' dodging the questions? Because until you do, your evasion of them simply mean that you can't face the realities they imply.

 

Yes its a negation demonstrating your error.
ne·ga·tion
nəˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: negation; plural noun: negations
1.
the contradiction or denial of something.
contradiction because proof was provided
neo atheists are the ones who are obsessed with forcing the lack down everyones throat not me.

Like it or not lack means 'not enough' (when there are more choices) and just because you want everyone to ASSume it means 0 that does not make it any more legitimate.

As I explained it can mean zero, but then if it means zero you cant claim weak theists and agnostics are atheists which is after all the whole purpose of evengelizing the use of the word lack instead of disbelieve or dont believe.

 

lol, so.. there is zero chance that you are ever going to expose yourself to anything that might threaten your beliefs is there? In a million years, you aren't going to ever answer my questions with anything other than shouting your loose interpretations of dictionary pages at me is there?

 

what question do you believe was not sufficiently answered, I answered (by contradiction) all your questions.

My loose dictionary definitions? WTH do you call throwing ambiguous inconclusive words like lack around? Specific? Care to get serious a little?
Again you cant use lack when there are more than 2 choices because you wind up with an infinite number of possible conclusions.
Hmm, I have to ponder that for a moment it may be one choice.
If you lack a gas tank, (meaning container by any name) you also lack a place to store fuel, so that would be no choice but to have a gas tank, therefore if someone said I lack a gas tank there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from that and that is you have none.

 

I advise you to stop editing your posts. If you don't get it right the first time, just make a new post.

Now, here are the questions:

Would you say that the level of belief or faith required to believe that the cards will end up in new deck order is higher or lower than the belief that the cards will be in any other order?
Can you name something that you have hard evidence for?
Can you name any hard evidence that something does not exist?
Can you name anything that doesn't require any faith at all?

 

You cant use lack when there are more than 2 choices because you wind up with an infinite number of possible conclusions. If you lack a gas tank, (meaning container by any name) you also lack a place to store fuel, so that would be no choice but to have a gas tank, therefore if someone said I lack a gas tank there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from that and that is you have none.

again it depends on how you shuffle, and you are again placing a level, meaning the amount is variable with an infinite number of possible conclusions.

1) yes
2) yes
3) yes

 

First of all, no, second of all, NOBODY GIVES A *******!!!

Talking about a completely random shuffle. Now, just to help you out here. There are only 3 possible answers, not an infinite number. Either it takes more faith to believe that it will be in new deck order, it takes more faith to believe that it will not be in new deck order, or they require the same amount. We are talking about 'faith' or 'belief'... which if you look in your dictionary are different words than 'lack'. I'll tell you when we start talking about 'lack'.

All wrong answers if you can't provide examples.

 

well they should since it blows your premise out of the water and demolishes your lack argument.

Well what you are looking for in that is called a preponderance of evidence used in civil cases, but you have a couple problems that first off the theists can claim the same and secondly you are switching horses and using 2 different types of evidence standards that again is more relaxed for atheists than are demanded of theists.

You asked if i can, and I gave you the answer, and yes I can. Its famous actually. Cogito ergo sum
The problem you have however long before you get to that point is you need to sort oout your faith belief question so it properly fits instead of trying to wear two colors of socks at the same time and then expecting a response in a single color.

 

What lack argument?

So, try to follow. That is all pretty much all wrong, but let's ignore that for now. Right now, this is a simple question with one mathematically correct answer. If it helps, we'll just use the word faith.

So, that is an answer to one of those questions, maybe two. The problem is that it is wrong. Despite what descartes might have said, you can't really know that you exist. You might be a figment of some other being's imagination, or the nature of your non-existence may be way beyond anything we could ever conceive of. So, there is no hard evidence, it isn't something that for doesn't exist, and it requires some amount of faith.

 

to accept that however places you way beyond where the theists are at. Thought arguments however are settled without doubt with the physical. You would need far more than simple purely imaginary conjecture of a thought problem.

 

58 pages now and atheism continues to not be a religion, by definition. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport. It continues to mean a lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Interesting: When I look up the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary the following comes up:

Definition of atheism in English:
atheism


NOUN
mass noun

• Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
  
  

 

So, you still haven't answered my questions, but I think we may actually be making some forward progress, so let's see how this goes.

So, if we think about theodicy for example, belief in a god is actually a much higher hurdle.

Not necessarily, because you don't know that you are experiencing the physical world, everything you have ever experienced may be an illusion, a simulation, a dream, something you can't conceive of. The point is that you don't 100% know. In the same sense, you don't know that there isn't a god.

Well, a god is a purely imaginary conjecture as well.

So all of these things illustrate the point. Not believing in a god is the same as or similar to not believing you are a figment of something's imagination. In a way, it requires some faith to not believe either because you don't really know for sure. If, however, we are going to restrict our belief to things that logically follow from the world we experience (which I do), then we have to eliminate them both. We also have to have some faith that the world we experience is real, that our memories are mostly real, that our senses are relaying things that correlate to something real etc. But, like our deck of cards, the belief that either a god or the imagination conjecture is the reality requires a large degree of unreasonable faith since there is no reason to pick a particular order of a deck of cards.

So... let me know if I've lost you up to this point.

 

you people are so predictable, I knew you were going to pretend the link I posted doesnt really say what I said so here is a screenshot.

I knew where you were going and as I said preponderance of evidence, and now you want to bring in reasonableness precisely what atheists on this board are not to muddy the waters that they pretend are crystal clear.

to argue nothing is real as your premise and reasonable in the same sentence is pathetic if not laughable and dodges the issue taking this to a level of nonsense if for no other reason than because you have precisely 0 evidence either using abstract thought or materially to support it on any level what so ever, unlike the theists who do have abstract evidence to back their ball game which is why I sat back kicked my feet up and waited for your punchline confident you would shoot yourself in the foot in the process.

I think therefore i am is only valid in a 'reasonable' debate, not in a world where you have destroyed every construct of reality and try to sell it as reasonable. Too much scifi maybe?

So cutting to the chase you have moved the atheist position from hard evidence to best guess, same boat, well actually a boat with considerably larger holes than theists are in, and rather than improve your position you lost considerable ground since you are applying and therefore validating pure imagination, which discredits you not them!

 

58 pages now and atheism continues to not be a religion, by definition. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport. It continues to mean a lack of belief in a god or gods.