Logical Examination of Atheist/Atheism, (atheology) A Logical Hipocrisy?

Atheism the belief no G/god(s) exist.

Philosophical analysis:

Faith is not the result of logical reasoning, but rather a profession that God "as a living being" has entered into the believer's experience.

Atheists cannot prove that G/god does not exist yet they maintain Faith that G/god does not exist.

This act of faith situates itself in the person's material and social environment.

Atheists conduct their lives based upon and according to their beliefs, disbelief's, and lack of belief.

Those who believe G/god exists conduct their lives based upon and according to their beliefs, disbeliefs, and lack of belief.

Atheists cannot demonstrate prove the nonexistence of G/god using their standards, the same standards they require theists to prove G/god does exist.

Religious faith interprets reality in terms of the divine presence within the believer's human experience.

When one believes something that they cannot prove they believe it upon faith and faith alone.

Although the person of faith may be unable to prove or explain this divine presence, his or her religious belief still acquire the status of knowledge similar to that of scientific and moral claims.

Atheists utilize the same divine presence to support their faith to lack belief as theists do to support their belief.

Thus even if one could prove God's existence, [or nonexistence] this fact alone would be a form of knowledge neither necessary nor sufficient for one's faith.

Faith connects the faithful to the divine.

It would at best only force a notional assent. Believers live by not by confirmed hypotheses, but by an intense, coercive, indubitable experience of the divine.

Atheists lack a hypothesis to confirm the nonexistence of God and they enjoy a divine experience but refuse to recognize the fact.

Most would consider this a hypocritical religious position.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Peer reviewed Academic Source




For Swensson:

Belief
something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Disbelief
The inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disbelief

Hypocrisy;
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

synonyms: falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity; pietism, piousness; fraud
https://www.google.com/search?q=Hipocracy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

Pietism
was an influential [Atheist] movement in Lutheranism that combined its emphasis on biblical doctrine with the Reformed emphasis on individual piety and living a vigorous Christian [Atheist] life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism

Duplicity
contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action
especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action
law : the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items (such as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action

Piousness
1 the pretending of having virtues, principles, or beliefs that one in fact does not have.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/piousness

Mendacity
Untruthfulness.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mendacity

Pretense
a claim made or implied; especially : one not supported by fact
an inadequate or insincere attempt to attain a certain condition or quality

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

We can add all the logical fallacies of the atheist arguments;

Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest.

When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive.

Ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that one doesn’t know something.
Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once.

Consider the following two claims:

1) “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials [God] exist, so they must not be real.”

2) “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials [God] do not exist, so they must be real.”

If the same argument strategy can support mutually exclusive claims, then it’s not a good argument strategy.

Ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that one doesn’t know something.

If no one has proven the non-existence of ghosts or flying saucers, that’s hardly proof that those things exist or don’t exist. If we don’t know whether they exist, then we don’t know that they exist or that they don’t exist. Ignorance doesn’t prove any claim to knowledge.

Consider the following examples:

Example 1: “We have no evidence that the Illuminati ever existed. They must have been so clever they destroyed all the evidence.”

Example 2: “I know nothing about Tank Johnson except that he has a criminal record as long as your leg, but I’ll bet he’s really just misunderstood.”

Atheists claim that since God has not been proven to their narrow standards God must not exist. A logical fallacy.


FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. Such more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious.

Lets also examine the statement:

"I am an atheist, I lack belief"

1)
Composition fallacy:
This fallacy is a result of reasoning from [applying] the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself--it is an inductive error. Such an argument might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire machine also must be lightweight.
2)
Amphiboly:
(from the Greek word "indeterminate"): This fallacy is similar to equivocation. Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another.

The statement: "I am an atheist, I lack belief" fails because it uses a deliberately ambiguous language that includes even 'weak' theists, and misrepresents the weak theist.

The reverse would be "I am a theist, I do not disbelieve" fails since it includes anyone who lacks belief and would misrepresent the weak atheist and agnostics.

Both approaches are faulty logic.

1)
False analogy
A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone applies facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn.

"atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods."
That is not what atheism 'means'.

Atheism means:

Atheism

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

Again in addition to a false analogy we also have a both the Composition and Amphiboly Fallacy in play which emphasizes the errors being made since once again lacking belief can include weak atheists and agnostics which is hardly the meaning of atheism.

Not all non-religious people are atheists
Immediately contradicted by:
If you lack an active belief in gods, you are an atheist. (a composition fallacy among several others)
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

1)
Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi):
This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion.

"Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport."

The "Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport." quip fails for one because the Oxford Dictionary of the English language has informed us that
Atheism

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

Atheist central agrees!
Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

"Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport." is an inapplicable quip leaning to the absurd since disbelief is the antithesis of belief, while sport is not the antithesis of baseball (100% nonsequitur) and the quip does nothing to argue the validity of the point they are trying to make.

1)
Faulty Analogy
Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively.
This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect.

"Atheism, by definition, is not a religion."

"Atheism, by definition, is not a religion." fails because exactly like Catholicism its the resultant actions corresponding to the belief structure that is religion and requires no deity to be classified as a religion.

Therefore it appears the atheist core foundational structure is severely flawed

1)
Argument from the Negative:
Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium

*Atheists assert and 'faithfully believe' that since theists have not proven God exists and

2)
Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally "Argument from Ignorance"):
Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.

*without regard to the fact that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, that nonetheless "no God exists".

1) Atheists pride themselves on using proven facts as the basis of their belief system.

2) Atheists have been incapable of disproving the existence of God in accordance with their own standards and rules of evidence they applly to others.

3) The nonexistence of God is not a proven fact.

4) Atheists faithfully believe God does not exist.

It would appear the atheist belief system is hypocritical in its core foundation and the reality is that atheists are in fact believers in denial.

 

That's a strange reference. Webcitation from December 11th 2013. Let's see what that source would say today. The Webcitation refers to a site which has since been removed and now points to oxforddictionaries.com, which gives the definition

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (source)

I don't know by what logic they only gave the one definition in 2013, but they seem to have changed their tune.

For starters, it seems to me the difference between amphiboly and equivocation is that amphiboly comes from ambiguous grammar. The issue we have at hand seems more to have to do with ambiguous definitions, which falls under equivocation.

Anyway, equivocation doesn't say that you cannot use ambiguous language, the fallacy arises when you combine two statements with different definitions. I.e. it is not a fallacy to make an ambiguous statement such as the one you've marked in pink, but it is a fallacy of equivocation to combine it with another definition (like the Webcite one you found) and expect them to be talking about the same thing. It is combining them, as you have, which is the fallacy.

Not really. When you make a stipulative definition, other arguments pertaining to that word stop being valid.

For instance, if I said "oranges are tasty", and then someone said "I will now use oranges to refer to paint", then the first statement is no longer valid.

When you run into people who say "atheism is defined to be a lack of belief", you can bet that their other arguments pertaining to atheism is based on that definition. However, when you say "theism is defined to be a lack of disbelief", that's no longer the definition you used previously.

For instance, you mention that the conclusions would misrepresent weak atheists and agnostics, but that is only true if you use the old definition of theist at the same time as you use this new definition, which would be an equivocation.

 

No, atheism is the absence of a belief in god. It's the absence of a belief. And absence of a belief is not a belief any more than abstinence from shoplifting is shoplifting.

No, faith is a confident belief in the existence of a god and that this god influences the faithful even though there is no real evidence of it. To put is simply, faith is the belief in what there is no evidence for.

No, atheists need prove nothing. They just don't believe. There is no more to it than that. We may argue the point logically with you, but we don't need to prove anything. Period.

Thank you.

Incorrect graphic. It should be "God doesn't exist ---> (because) There is no evidence for god ---> (because) None has been found ---> (because) God doesn't exist

Any group of people of any category is comprised of people with different ways of expressing their views even if they all agree. Not ever such expression constitutes the purest, most accurate formulation. Therefore you will find some atheists who will say at one time or another that "God must not exist because God has not been proven and therefore I'm an atheist." But that is not the purest, most accurate formulation. It is more pure and more exact to say "I am an atheist because I have no belief in a god". And therefore attributing your formulation to "atheists" is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

 

Strange has nothing to do with anything, and is your interpretation or spin.
Yes that is the Oxford definition.
It is from the lite edition.
It is a valid definition.
I suggest writing the editors if you have any questions, if you have a copy please take a snapshot and post it so we know your statement that "they changed their tune" is correct unless you desire to commit an equivocation or naked assertion fallacy?
It is still in print feel free to purchase it if you like:
https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Complete-Reproduced-Micrographically-slipcase/dp/0198612583

I am not aware that a term is being used in more than one sense and your understanding of equivocation is faulty it is not in the example I applied it to, it is clearly composition and amphibloy.

Equivocation: Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
Explanation: The word, “gay” is meant to be in light spirits, joyful, and merry, not in the homosexual sense.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation

In its broadest possible sense as I explained anything short of a strong theist would lack belief in God to some extent.

Lack belief assigns atheist to

'weak theist',
'agnostic',
'any classification regarded as non-theist'

Therefore the proper fallacies as said are listed in the following quote:

It does not make sense to me that you would be stumbling around with composition and amphiboly since their application is crystal clear.

No fallacy says you cannot commit a fallacy, that is absurd.
Can we get serious please?
Words have meaning, I stipulated the meaning which is an official definition from the Ox that you can order from amazon today if you like.
Claiming that I can not use a definition of a word is patently over the top ridiculous not to mention it flies in the face of your own claim that words can be stipulative, or does that only apply to atheist usage of words?

It depends on the scope of the matter and the scope of the topic. Other arguments may or may not be valid, an argument constructed as a fallacy is invalid and you are attempting to remove the ability to argue to the contrary to prove the point. The atheist quotes were taken in their entirety.

There is no stipulative anything stated in the quotes.

That did not happen and has no application to the point at hand.

No you cant bet on that, you are adding arguments without citation or demonstration.
They have shown no other arguments.
Personally I dont care, but if you want to argue about 'their imagined arguments' maybe you want to suggest that they make some because the quips quoted are based in pure fallacy including the same quips made by the atheist central.

Its not an old definition that is patently false, the dictionary is still available from amazon as I have shown you.
So please spare me having to shut you down every time you try to skew this into your 'semantics' rabbit hole that you used last time.

Consider the words of an moderator for an atheist thread in the old usenet days.

The Definition of Atheism, the Anal-Retentive Defense of Etymological Purism, and Linguistic Relativism
December 18, 2011 by Jeffery Jay Lowder

Back when I was the moderator of the USENET newsgroup alt.atheism.moderated, I used to debate the definition of atheism and I used to defend the atheism as the lack of belief position. I’m persuaded, however, by Ted Drange that by default we should define our terms in a way which matches ordinary usage. Ordinary usage of the word “atheism” is that it means the belief that God does not exist. I see no benefit whatsoever to the proposal that nontheists should spend their limited time on trying to convince people both that (a) atheism is rational and (b) that they should use the word atheism in a different way, as opposed to merely focusing on (a).

Among professional philosophers, including self-identified atheist philosophers, probably the majority viewpoint is that atheism is the belief that there is no God and agnosticism is the lack of belief in God’s existence and God’s nonexistence. (Notable exceptions would be Michael Martin, Antony Flew, and Keith Parsons.) When professional philosophers want an umbrella term to group together people who believe God does not exist with the people who merely lack belief, probably the majority of them use the term “nontheist.”

For the record, I am fully aware of how condescending it can come across when person A says, “I’m an X,” and person B says, “No, you’re not. You’re a Y.” In other words, who am I to tell people how they should self-identify? In response, I would point out the following.

(1) I think people have the right to label themselves however they wish; I am not making a normative or ethical issue out of this. In other words, I’m not saying nontheists have an ethical requirement to use the word atheist consistently with ordinary usage.

(2) I am suggesting as a matter of strategy and “resource management” that there are much better uses of our time than an anal-retentive defense of etymological purism, i.e., the “but the greek roots of atheism, a + theism, mean literally without theism” defense. The meaning of words can and do change over time. If the meaning of “atheism” has changed from its Greek roots, then so be it.

Instead of focusing on etymology, I suggest a more pragmatic approach. With respect to the definition of atheism, I think we have a situation where two people who speak English and use the same words (e.g., belief, God, atheism, etc.) are effectively speaking two different languages. A self-identified ‘atheist’ and theist may even think they have a disagreement because superficially it seems they are speaking the same language, but they’re not. Because they’re not speaking the same language, we must distinguish the labels we assign to various positions from the positions themselves.

Imagine the following conversation:

Self-Identified ‘Atheist’: I’m an atheist.

Theist: Oh, so you believe that God does not exist. What’s your evidence for the nonexistence of God?

Self-Identified ‘Atheist’: No, I lack the belief that God exists. The lack of belief that God exists does not require any justification unless we first are given some reason to hold that belief.

Theist: No, you’re re-defining words. Atheism is the belief God does not exist.

Rather than continue beating a dead horse, you then try this approach:
Self-Identified ‘Atheist’: We’re using the same words in different ways. Based on how you define the word atheist, then I’m not an atheist; I’m an agnostic. Based on how I define the word atheist, however, I am an atheist. If we’re going to have real dialogue rather than just the illusion of communication, we’re going to have to agree on a set of terminology for the discussion.

Theist: [at this point the theist will either insist on his terminology or be willing to adopt yours; either way, the difference in terminology will be explicitly acknowledged by both sides and real communication will be possible.]

The point is that there is rarely much value in debating definitions, but real dialogue is possible if one of the parties is willing to state their position in terms of the definitions the other party accepts. As Andrew Kirk pointed out, “This is no different to learning a new language, or even a local dialect, and then using it rather than your own native dialect, to aid communication between yourself and a speaker of that dialect.”

I think the main obstacle to taking this sort of pragmatic approach is an unstated (and probably unconscious) assumption of what I will call “linguistic objectivism,” the idea that the truth of definitions of words does not depend upon the subject states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of persons. I cannot even imagine how linguistic objectivism could be true. If it even makes sense to talk about something being the ‘correct’ definition of a word, it seems to me that could only be the case in a relative sense. In other words, to borrow terminology from ethics and apply it to linguistics, I’m suggesting we should drop the pretense of ‘linguistic objectivism’ and instead be ‘linguistic relativists’: we should recognize that linguistics are relative to different cultures and different times.

Indeed, to press Kirk’s analogy all the way, what etymological purists about the “atheism is the lack of belief that God exists” definition are doing is equivalent to an American going deep into Mexico to a city that is not a tourist town, and then being hellbent on the fact that the Mexican locals must speak English, despite the fact that he is, quite literally, on their turf. The point is that, everything else held equal, it seems odd, if not presumptuous, for a group representing a minority linguistic tradition or culture, to insist that the majority linguistic tradition or culture submit to the minority group’s linguistic norms. (Here I am assuming that “atheism,” regardless of how it is defined, is the minority position.)

Now if by some chance the Ox did change it from belief God does not exist to lack of belief and failed to record it as one of the 'options', then we are witnessing the Ox committing literary fraud!

 

Once a proposition is made and you understand it, you cant have absence of belief as the brain immediately process the information as it comes in and forms a belief, thats psychology 001. We talked about that in a different thread.

You can have faith that you will sink the 8 ball in the side pocket, there is no rulebook that requires faith to apply strictly to the belief in a God.

The point is however that atheists are not able to prove God does not exist, and please dont whine to me that atheists are trapped and cant prove, should have thought of that prior to making the fallacious arguments.

Yeh well they do when they want to argue about it. If you dont want to prove anything then dont argue about it.

For proving atheists in reality are believers and no different than theists? Do you understand what I said man?

Circular reasoning is still circular reasoning.

Fine but that is a fallacy as I have shown above as seen again below:
1)
Argument from the Negative:
Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium

*Atheists assert and 'faithfully believe' that since theists have not proven God exists and

2)
Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally "Argument from Ignorance"):
Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.
*without regard to the fact that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, that nonetheless "no God exists".



Saying "I am an atheist because I have no belief in a god", does not change the fact you have no facts to back up your belief and atheists brag about how rational they are only to make irrational choices by acceptance of a hypothesis they have no facts to back it up with.

 

I am always fascinated by those of strong religious faith having such indepth understanding of the minds of those that don't.

Its almost like its their god is speaking to them giving them the down low on what is in store for the non believers.

Ignosticism RULES! The definition of god isn't much of one and sure as hell ain't close enough for government work.

 

Since there is still ZERO credible or compelling evidence that gods exist, the two MOST logical, sensible positions one can have are … agnostic who leans atheist … or agnostic who leans heavily atheist.

Period

No amount of spin, meaningless bible quotes, or rambling drivel from the suckers, er, I mean believers can change that...

 

So you have a belief that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy aren't real..... -but maybe they are?

No, the point is that atheism is the rejection of a belief in god just like most reject the belief in a civilization that exists down deep in the earth.

Yup. You said there is not evidence for god but you believe it on faith anyway.

But it's not circular reasoning. I don't think you really know what circular reasoning is.

Ok so it's irrational to say "there is no god" because there is no proof? You want us to prove a negative? Ok, then first prove there is no tooth fairy since you can't prove there is one.

 

I have an invisible magic penguin, that sits on my shoulder and gives me advice on life, Well, mostly he gives me driving directions,,

And you cannot prove that I don't.

 

I dont know the definition of God do you? They are all believers, some believe yes, some believe no.
What religious faith does an agnostic have btw?

Now you are encroaching on my turf, baloney, agnostic chooses nor leans to either side. However its laughably ridiculous that atheists claim atheism is lack of belief since it includes everyone less than absolute theist. Do you understand that?

It is you wind up right back where you started.

Maybe, hell I dont know, I doubt it, but I would never say no since I have no proof and as an agnostic I do not intend to be a hypocrite like the atheists and claim logic and reason then bank on faith LOL

The direct answer is that Atheism is the rejection of God. The easiest way to know this is that I will ask you if God exists, which requires a yes or no answer. Yes you are a theist no you are an atheist, anything other than yes/no or agnostic would make you are a ***********.

Agnostics dont believe anything on faith, what do you think I believe on faith?

Let me put it this way, if you took that to court they would hand you your ass. Its not my problem, the mess you made for yourselves. Not my problem if you indulge in and accept hypotheses you cannot prove as true. You made your beds now you get to sleep in them. If you cant prove a negative maybe you should have thought twice before attacking the everything not atheist.
I have no reason what so ever to prove there is no tooth fairy since I never claimed I lack belief in tooth fairies, and neither did I claim I believe in tooth fairies so neither do I have any reason to prove they exist.

Thats nice, you will never get lonesome.

 

You never heard of an agnostic atheist???

You need to get out more, bro...

 

IGNOSTICISM. The entire point is there is no real definition of god, so belief in something so ill defined is pretty damn useless from a philosophical perspective.

what religious faith of an agnostic? none what so ever required, but an agnostic could still hold deeply held "spiritual" beliefs which may or may not be perceived as "religious" in nature. For instance there's lots of agnostic Buddhists. A religion technically without a god to worship.

 

Sure thats some really wacked out **** huh?
Atheists stealing 1/2 of the agnostic position and pretending its true. Seriously that anyone tells you agnostic combined with anything but agnostic is most likely jerkin your chain.

Well its useless from an atheist standpoint since their proof requirements are based in material and last time I heard one thing all theists agree on is that God is not material.

Agnostic I suppose. Its an independent belief system that agrees with neither theism nor atheism.
Well thats a misnomer. Religion is not something required, its the expression of ones beliefs that manifests itself therough the way they govern their personal affairs and lives.
Sure I hold believes that in fact align with the theists, murder bad, rape bad, stealing bad, cheating bad, banging your wife bad and so forth.
Never thought about that, I doubt it but maybe its be possible to be agnostic and buddhist at the same time? Its not possible to be agnostic and theist or atheist at the same time because the definitions contradict themselves, and its not reasonable for atheists to claim atheism is lack of belief for the very same reason. It is possible for an agnostic to be the 'combination' of nontheist and nonatheist at the same time, but not one or the other alone.

 

Strawmaning your own argument. Brilliant.

You should clean out the wax, your hearing must be faulty.

 

unlikely what do you think I said?

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

no, the probability approaches 100%.

 

You know I have to laugh when you people come out here foaming at the mouth making bogus claims and accusations then vaporize and disappear.

 

What a strange coincidence, the same statement we examined, you must have missed it, from the OP:

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. Such more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious.

Lets also examine the statement:

"I am an atheist, I lack belief"

1)
Composition fallacy:
This fallacy is a result of reasoning from [applying] the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself--it is an inductive error. Such an argument might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire machine also must be lightweight.
2)
Amphiboly:
(from the Greek word "indeterminate"): This fallacy is similar to equivocation. Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another.

The statement: "I am an atheist, I lack belief" fails because it uses a deliberately ambiguous language that includes even 'weak' theists, and misrepresents the weak theist.

The reverse would be "I am a theist, I lack disbelieve" fails since it includes anyone with less than 100% disbelief and would misrepresent the weak atheist and again inappropriately include the agnostics.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

Thank you for your post proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that atheists lack far more than just belief.

 

I bet that happens a lot to you. Maybe you should consider its you and not them. Self examination is more than just mental masturbation, you know?

 

Still nothing, I knew you just made it up LOL

Anyone here have something productive to say?

There has to be better, someone out here with more talent than these hit and run drive by and hide posters on this board.

 

My guess is they just don't want to deal with your mindless rants.

You just cannot accept reality, living in your bubble.

 

You really are full of yourself. Quite amusing considering the quality of your wit, let alone the quality of your posts. Just because I'm hip to your rhetorical bullshit, it doesn't mean I have to respond to it in kind.