In the end, it doesn't matter what he believes. He has a belief. Thus he does not lack a belief, positive or negative, about God or the gods. Which by definition means he is not an atheist.
There is a problem with this logic. People assume that not getting what you prayed for is the prayer not answered. However, no is also an answer. So a lack of what you pray for isn't automatically an unanswered. Heck even as human parents, we won't always answer specifically "no" in not giving our children what they ask for. And we refuse them some things because it would be bad for them to have it, and we care enough not to give them something bad for them.
we both know this is false, as I didn't offer an opinion. I provided the actual definition of atheism, which precludes it from being a religion or belief, by definition.
I have proven that atheism is not a belief. The definition precludes it. I have proven atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, so yes, I lack belief.
You keep going about this backwards. You try to claim that the definition of atheism fits you. The definition of atheism shows you are not one. You hold a negative belief in a god or gods. You believe they do not exist. You have a belief, not a lack of one. The definition of atheist proves you are not one. My 10 month old granddaughter on the other hand is an atheist. She cannot concept, nor has she been exposed to the idea of God or gods. She actually lacks a belief, because she cannot form a belief yet, nor has she been presented with the idea of it.
I have repeatedly proven this false. I have a lack of belief in a god or gods. That is by definition, NOT a belief. this has been proven false.
His alleged lack of belief has no academic basis, its purely political jingoism, and he has convinced himself its rational. Nope, you tried to litigate for rahl and Im going to go back and give you a like for it because you are correct, rahl is agnostic, definitely not atheist. I proved unicorns are real, so suck it up buttercup. Thanks again for proving my point, you lost, suck it up buttercup.
Which definition is that? As far as rahl intended it, I reckon he wasn't talking about any belief at all, just specifically a lack of the belief that God exists. That seems to me to mean that it very much matters what he believes.
Change your attitude. I don't tolerate this kind of crap. You haven't proved anything. I'll believe you when you'll be able to show a white magical flying pure horse with a horn.
you change yours! speaking of strawman arguments, I dont tolerate moving goal posts or strawman arguments, I proved court jesters claim to be the bullshit it is, neither you nor your strawman additions were or will be part of that equation. but but but thats not what you unequivocally stated here: To which I pointed out is an agnostic NOT an atheist. In which you admitted I am correct! You stated unequivocally what rahls version of lack of belief is, and you agreed that the comparative inference correctly identified an agnostic. LOL But that did not suppress your need to claim wrongdoing on my part. Neoatheists conveniently omit the fact that there are people that lack belief in God but are not atheists and/or even many of these people run their lives according to Gods will. Lack of belief fails in every spectrum of thought, 'reason' and 'logic'. There is no point in attempting to discuss any of this with you because when you are cornered you simply move the goal posts with a new strawman.
the basis for my position is the ****ing definition of the word. Atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods. By definition, it is not a religion or a belief. In the identical way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.
FALSE! The basis for your position is the ****ing dictionary, NOT the ****ing definition of the word. Philosophical analysis with the use of ****ing 'LOGIC' algorithms and ****ing 'REASON' is what determines the SUBSTANTIAL definition. Stanford and ALL the universities reject your dictionary as a basis for the usage you claim, sorry. You have been informed of this countless times by so many people I lost count. Besides Swennson has already proven you are agnostic. Swenssons explanation at least makes sense.
Among the thousands of moronic posts you’ve made on this forum, this one may be the most moronic. meanwhile, atheism remains by definition, not a religion or a belief. In the exact same way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.
come on dont post lies, the ONLY reference you have ever cited was the dictionary and your cute little jingo. YOu havent even been able to explain yourself, everyone else has to explain yourself to you.
well yes, the dictionary is what one cites when referring to the definition of a word. you mistake your deficiencies in understanding for some sort of lack on my part.
