• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists Don't Exist

Angel said:
Admission my ass! I ignored no content of yours. I addressed the content of that post in the words "Devildavid Dreck." Afterwards, when you insisted on being embarrassed, I spelled out what that earlier addressment meant.
Click to expand...

Actually, you just ignored the content of another post. Are rocks the condition for rock minds?
 
Angel said:
Admission my ass! I ignored no content of yours. I addressed the content of that post in the words "Devildavid Dreck." Afterwards, when you insisted on being embarrassed, I spelled out what that earlier addressment meant.
Click to expand...

So then it will be ok if I address the content of all your posts as Angel's Asinine Assumptions.
 
devildavid said:
So then it will be ok if I address the content of all your posts as Angel's Asinine Assumptions.
Click to expand...
Your posting history in my threads has already earned you a reputation for bad faith. Frankly I don't give a damn what you post. You have nothing to contribute, and you avoid discussion. Post whatever the hell you like.
 
Angel said:
Do Atheists Exist?

kBvSbpC.jpg


Apparently not.

Not by the standards of Internet skepticism they don't.

At the very least there is no reason to believe that atheists exist.
(This to match the more tempered skeptical claim.)

Internet skeptics demand proof of God's existence.
Internet skeptics jeer at mystery presented as evidence.
Internet skeptics reject personal testimony out of hand.

(I use the word "prove" throughout in the loose sense popularized by Internet skeptics of course.)

So let us turn the tables on the Internet Skeptic.

Let's demand a proof of the existence of atheists.

Let us reject personal testimony as evidence.

(But let's leave the jeering to the Internet Skeptic, yes?)

The purpose and point of this thread is to show the Internet Skeptic the folly of his ways.

(Drum roll please)

because by the standards of the Internet Skeptic

Atheists Don't Exist

Comments
Proofs?
Concessions?​
Click to expand...
Coming in really late to this one.....

A lot really depends upon what one wants to define an atheist as. Mind you atheists factually exist. The question is who is actually one.

I had one person who provided the Mirriam-Webster definition as "lack of belief in god or gods" or something to that effect. The key words there were "lack of belief".

Another person found and provided 16 other references that showed atheism as a disbelief in god or gods, or as a belief that gods or gods don't exist.

When one is presented with any concept, especially one that cannot be objectively proven true or false, one immediately forms a belief about that concept. That belief takes on one of 3 forms.
1) you believe the concept is true.
2) you believe the concept is false.
3) you believe that the evidence is insufficient to say the concept is true or false.

This is what we do for all things, automatically. We don't even really think about it for the most part. Our belief can change, either upon introspection or due to new to the individual evidence. Let me also add that this assumes comprehension of the concept. We can try to explain god or Zues or who/whatever to an infant and they don't form a belief about it because they don't comprehend it. So a belief might not form if the presenter cannot make themselves clear and understood.

With that, if an atheist is to be a person with a lack of belief, then only those who have not been presented with the concept of god or gods is an atheist. These would factually be those ignorant, and those too young to have been presented with or comprehend the idea.

Otherwise, the simple belief that god or gods do not exist is proof of the existence of an atheist.

Sadly the thought experiment or whatever you want to call it, is not a direct comparison to the idea of whether or not God exists. We can directly ask an atheist what they believe. We have only their word because they are the only one who can say what they believe. While we can indeed repeat that they believe such, that still can only come from them initially. Otherwise, I would be able to say that @Angel believes in Zeus. The situation that this thread is supposed to be contrasting, is not us asking God what He believes, or if others exist. It's asking others if God exists. We don't have God available to prove Him nor evidence to disprove him. Atheist themselves are available.
 
Angel said:
Your posting history in my threads has already earned you a reputation for bad faith. Frankly I don't give a damn what you post. You have nothing to contribute, and you avoid discussion. Post whatever the hell you like.
Click to expand...

I take that as your OK on that.
 
maquiscat said:
Coming in really late to this one.....
Click to expand...
Your thoughts are always welcome.

maquiscat said:
A lot really depends upon what one wants to define an atheist as. Mind you atheists factually exist. The question is who is actually one.

I had one person who provided the Mirriam-Webster definition as "lack of belief in god or gods" or something to that effect. The key words there were "lack of belief".

Another person found and provided 16 other references that showed atheism as a disbelief in god or gods, or as a belief that gods or gods don't exist.

When one is presented with any concept, especially one that cannot be objectively proven true or false, one immediately forms a belief about that concept. That belief takes on one of 3 forms.
1) you believe the concept is true.
2) you believe the concept is false.
3) you believe that the evidence is insufficient to say the concept is true or false.

This is what we do for all things, automatically. We don't even really think about it for the most part. Our belief can change, either upon introspection or due to new to the individual evidence. Let me also add that this assumes comprehension of the concept. We can try to explain god or Zues or who/whatever to an infant and they don't form a belief about it because they don't comprehend it. So a belief might not form if the presenter cannot make themselves clear and understood.

With that, if an atheist is to be a person with a lack of belief, then only those who have not been presented with the concept of god or gods is an atheist. These would factually be those ignorant, and those too young to have been presented with or comprehend the idea.
Click to expand...
Your analysis of atheism is spot on, as far as I can see.

maquiscat said:
Otherwise, the simple belief that god or gods do not exist is proof of the existence of an atheist.
Click to expand...
Then it should follow that "the simple belief that god or gods do [...] exist is proof of the existence of a theist." Yes?
Even so, the object of disbelief and the object of belief, respectively, are treated differently, aren't they?
The theist is characterized as foolish for his belief, whereas the atheist is allowed his disbelief without judgment.
That's the case in the world of Internet Skepticism.
See what follows:
maquiscat said:
Sadly the thought experiment or whatever you want to call it, is not a direct comparison to the idea of whether or not God exists. We can directly ask an atheist what they believe. We have only their word because they are the only one who can say what they believe. While we can indeed repeat that they believe such, that still can only come from them initially. Otherwise, I would be able to say that @Angel believes in Zeus. The situation that this thread is supposed to be contrasting, is not us asking God what He believes, or if others exist. It's asking others if God exists. We don't have God available to prove Him nor evidence to disprove him. Atheist themselves are available.
Click to expand...
I call it a reductio ad absurdum. It takes the extreme attitude of Internet Skepticism toward theist claims about belief in the existence of God and turns it back on Internet Skepticism, challenging the free pass it allows atheist claims about disbelief in the existence of God. If personal knowledge and testimony about belief in the existence of God is to be challenged, then so too must claims about disbelief in the existence of God. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The analogy is epistemic in import. If Internet Skepticism is forced to be consistent in its extreme skepticism about belief in God, it must challenge the atheist's disbelief as well. Since, as you rightly point out, we only have the atheist's word for his atheism, it becomes fair game in this turn-about.

Internet Skepticism:the existence of God::Internet Skepticism:the existence of atheists.

The point of this exercise: that which resides in personal knowledge and testimony alone should be respected.



maquiscat said:
...
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
The theist is characterized as foolish for his belief, whereas the atheist is allowed his disbelief without judgment.
Click to expand...

If this is your experience, then it has been rather limited indeed. You may be limiting your own exposure, thus giving yourself a skewed perspective.
 
maquiscat said:
If this is your experience, then it has been rather limited indeed. You may be limiting your own exposure, thus giving yourself a skewed perspective.
Click to expand...
Have you had a different experience, and as a result enjoy an unskewed perspective? If so, I'd like to hear what your experience and perspective are.

By the by, your post forced me to think the reduction through more precisely, and I'm much obliged to you for this. Agter posting my reply, it occurred to me that the analogy might more precisely be expressed in this way:

Internet Skepticism:the existence of God::Internet Skepticism:the existence of atheists.

Of course, this analogy is a reaction to the disanalogy that obtains in the actual state of affairs, and I'll add out of respect for your view, as I've experienced it on the Internet.
Neither the existence of God nor the existence of atheists can be proved to a moral certainty.
 
Angel said:
What's this Internet Skeptical nonsense about an admission?
The brain appears to be a necessary condition for mind in the physical world. That's all it means. Your point is irrelevant.

A falsehood and an irrelevancy -- that's the constitution of your post.
Click to expand...

The mind is a concept invented by those who do not understand that the physical brain contains what they think is separate.
 
devildavid said:
Electrical impulses. When they are absent, so is consciousness.
Click to expand...
Elecrical impulses in the brain are not consciousness. They correlate to consciousness, but they are not consciousness.
 
Angel said:
Elecrical impulses in the brain are not consciousness. They correlate to consciousness, but they are not consciousness.
Click to expand...

Consciousness is physical activity in the brain. Without this activity, there is no consciousness.
 
devildavid said:
Consciousness is physical activity in the brain. Without this activity, there is no consciousness.
Click to expand...
Physical activity in the brain correlates to consciousness, and may be a necessary condition for consciousness, but are not identical to consciousness.
 
Angel said:
Physical activity in the brain correlates to consciousness, and may be a necessary condition for consciousness, but are not identical to consciousness.
Click to expand...

Take away the physical brain and its activity and you take away consciousness completely.The brain is a physical object; it is not a condition. The physical object called the brain is required for consciousness.
 
Angel said:
Have you had a different experience, and as a result enjoy an unskewed perspective? If so, I'd like to hear what your experience and perspective are.
Click to expand...

I've seen atheists as called out as foolish on their beliefs as I have theists. Maybe it is because I was in the Navy and had an extremely wide range of people to interact with.

Internet Skepticism:the existence of God::Internet Skepticism:the existence of atheists.

Neither the existence of God nor the existence of atheists can be proved to a moral certainty.
Click to expand...

You are still making the same error. Atheists, regardless of what the definition is, can indeed be proven. If we go with the first definition of lack of belief, we can prove this at a minimum with those who are incapable of comprehending the concept thus incapable of forming the belief. If we go with the latter definition, then they are as provable as a theist, by the expression of their beliefs. After all the definition of theist or atheist is the belief in the existence or the non-existence of god or gods. Also remember that a theist doesn't automatically worship the deity they believe in. After all most Christians believe in the devil, but worship him. But God isn't in immediate presence for us to be able to prove or disprove him.
 
Angel, please do not respond to this thread anymore. You are making yourself look ridiculouuuuus!
 
devildavid said:
Take away the physical brain and its activity and you take away consciousness completely.The brain is a physical object; it is not a condition. The physical object called the brain is required for consciousness.
Click to expand...
That just means the physical brain may be a necessary condition for consciousness. Tour last sentence defines condition, whether you like it or not.
 
maquiscat said:
I've seen atheists as called out as foolish on their beliefs as I have theists. Maybe it is because I was in the Navy and had an extremely wide range of people to interact with.
Click to expand...
Was there much shipboard talk of God?
maquiscat said:
You are still making the same error. Atheists, regardless of what the definition is, can indeed be proven. If we go with the first definition of lack of belief, we can prove this at a minimum with those who are incapable of comprehending the concept thus incapable of forming the belief. If we go with the latter definition, then they are as provable as a theist, by the expression of their beliefs. After all the definition of theist or atheist is the belief in the existence or the non-existence of god or gods. Also remember that a theist doesn't automatically worship the deity they believe in. After all most Christians believe in the devil, but worship him. But God isn't in immediate presence for us to be able to prove or disprove him.
Click to expand...
The infant atheist is an atheist by stipulation. The same infant is also apolitical, amoral, and not a Libertarian. As for the rest of the class as defined, the beliefs of atheists are no more probative than the beliefs of theists -- belief is a matter of personal knowledge and there's only personal testimony to rely on, and personal testimony cannot be verified. To this extent what you say is correct: the existence of theists can be doubted as well as the existence of atheists. And there is no "error" involved in claiming that if X is unverifiable and Y is unverifiable, then both X and Y are unverifiable -- whatever X and Y turn out to be. Even if they turn out to be God and atheists, respectively. As material for a reductio argument, therefore, atheists and God may effectively be doubted as to their existence.
 
Daqueef said:
Angel, please do not respond to this thread anymore. You are making yourself look ridiculouuuuus!
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Presenting as fact makes you look ridiculous. Please don't respond to this thread anymore.
 
Angel said:
Was there much shipboard talk of God?
Click to expand...

Among other metaphysicals. I learned a lot about the LDS religion/denomination one cruise because one of the Ensigns was Mormon. We had our die hards on both sides as well as moderates. We even discussed other issues such as magic and psionics, not to mention time travel and parallel dimensions/time lines.


The infant atheist is an atheist by stipulation. The same infant is also apolitical, amoral, and not a Libertarian. As for the rest of the class as defined, the beliefs of atheists are no more probative than the beliefs of theists -- belief is a matter of personal knowledge and there's only personal testimony to rely on, and personal testimony cannot be verified. To this extent what you say is correct: the existence of theists can be doubted as well as the existence of atheists. And there is no "error" involved in claiming that if X is unverifiable and Y is unverifiable, then both X and Y are unverifiable -- whatever X and Y turn out to be. Even if they turn out to be God and atheists, respectively. As material for a reductio argument, therefore, atheists and God may effectively be doubted as to their existence.
Click to expand...

By that standard, then very little about a person is provable. How do I prove that slick dumplings is my favorite food? Or that black and red are my favorite colors? But even with that standard, then you are still comparing apples to oranges, or maybe even apples to carrots. The fact remains, that the atheists and theists are there in front of us. The ability to confirm them lies in their claims of self. God is not there in front of us and there is nothing direct to show for Him. If you are using the idea that we cannot prove what a person claims without any other evidence, then all witnesses in a trial are providing unprovable accounts of what happened. Taking this to the worse extreme, this is the logic that dismisses the claim of rape.
 
Angel said:
That just means the physical brain may be a necessary condition for consciousness. Tour last sentence defines condition, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

A physical object is not a condition for something non physical. Consciousness is the word used to describe the physical activity of the physical brain. Therefore, consciousness is physical.
 
devildavid said:
A physical object is not a condition for something non physical. Consciousness is the word used to describe the physical activity of the physical brain. Therefore, consciousness is physical.
Click to expand...
Then it's not a condition. You said it was ("required." remember?). An who says that "consciousness is the word used to describe the physical activity of the physical brain"? You? Physical science? Physical science hasn't a clue as to what consciousness is.
 
Angel said:
Then it's not a condition. You said it was ("required." remember?). An who says that "consciousness is the word used to describe the physical activity of the physical brain"? You? Physical science? Physical science hasn't a clue as to what consciousness is.
Click to expand...

Actually we do, when the electrical activity in our brains is zero, we are dead, no more consciousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom