No, it means that i, and others, have pointed the flaws in the thesis embodied in your thread title, and you won't address them. All you offer is a continual "is to/is not" argument of the type one can expect from a child. I've pointed out that you made a mistake in going from the simple agnostic position of "don't know" to the introduction of belief, and i've explained why that's a mistake, and how it's related to so many others here ripping your silly argument to shreds.
Everyone has ripped your silly thesis to shreds here. One statement is the position of the so-called weak atheist; the other statement is the position of what one might just as reasonably describe as the weak theist. Therein lies the contradiction which cripples your ludicrous thesis. You haven't answered that, you've just repeated the statement or said "nope," which is not debate, it's merely contradiction.
I am willing to say that I cannot, at this time, think of a way to express a lack of belief in "x"...that does not include the possibility that "x" exists.
I'm calm--just more passive-aggressive hatefulness from you Frank. You'd love to think i'm angry, but you're not that important.
Everyone has ripped your silly thesis to shreds here. One statement is the position of the so-called weak atheist; the other statement is the position of what one might just as reasonably describe as the weak theist. Therein lies the contradiction which cripples your ludicrous thesis. You haven't answered that, you've just repeated the statement or said "nope," which is not debate, it's merely contradiction. As i've pointed out many times now, you were fine when you stuck with "i don't know." But having introduced belief into a discussion, you're tripping over your own feet. You just won't admit it. You've not defended your thesis, you've just gone the route of contradiction--you just say "no it's not."
And, of course, you continue to attempt to suggest that i'm angry, to tell me to calm down--because, in the end, you've got nothing else to offer. You're pathetic Frank.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Well, come to think of it, it was hard. I asked that question ten pages ago. It took you ten pages and a score of posts back and forth -- veering wildly between transparent evasion, feigned ignorance, and juvenile insults -- to arrive at your answer. And the funny thing is, it's the right answer -- or, at least, the only answer that makes sense, given the position that you've staked out. In other words, it's the answer you should have given ten pages ago. Why you tried so hard to avoid giving it is a complete mystery to me, but I long ago stopped caring.
I have other questions to ask, but I no longer have the patience to wait ten pages to pry a reluctant answer out of you. As it is, this entire thread can be summarized in an Onionesque headline: "Area Man Expresses No Opinion, and Does it Badly." I have, however, learned something here. Not so much about your position, Frank, but about you. I am confident that it will be a long time before I'm sucked into another one of your intellectually barren vortexes of self-caressing.
I still do not have a belief that gods exist...and I still do not have a belief that there are no gods.
You sure want to suggest that i'm not calm. But i'm with Joe on this one, talking to you is a waste of time, even in the casual, unimportant context of the internet.
Everyone has ripped your silly thesis to shreds here.
Have you ever considered joining a cargo cult?
There's an opening if you're interested.
Do you believe cargo exists?
Several people, me included, have shown that your first statement:
I do not believe gods exist
is negated by your second statement:
But I do not believe there are no gods.