• 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:
You've proved nothing beyond your physical capacity to utter an English sentence, namely, "I am atheist."
Click to expand...

Well at least I am fluent enough in English to understand that your who premise is one that is total nonsense.

To claim an internet skeptic can say "there are no atheists" is total and utter BS and for someone who claims to be full of knowledge it is astounding that you can make such a stupid claim.

An internet skeptic is someone who asks the atheist who is claiming that he/she can prove that there are no gods (by an objective verifiable method) to do so. In other words an internet skeptic is someone who doubts/questions such bold statement made by an atheist about the existence of gods and the ability to prove none exists.

An internet skeptic is someone who asks the christian who is claiming that he/she can prove that there is a god (by an objective and verifiable method) to do so. In other words an internet skeptic is someone who doubts/questions such a bold statement made by a christian about the existence of god and the ability that he definitely exists.

What you claim an internet skeptic does is just total and complete nonsense. What I am stating is part of the English language, what you have been writing about internet skeptics and atheist is/was and will remain utter an total gibberish.
 
Peter King said:
Well at least I am fluent enough in English to understand that your who premise is one that is total nonsense.

To claim an internet skeptic can say "there are no atheists" is total and utter BS and for someone who claims to be full of knowledge it is astounding that you can make such a stupid claim.

An internet skeptic is someone who asks the atheist who is claiming that he/she can prove that there are no gods (by an objective verifiable method) to do so. In other words an internet skeptic is someone who doubts/questions such bold statement made by an atheist about the existence of gods and the ability to prove none exists.

An internet skeptic is someone who asks the christian who is claiming that he/she can prove that there is a god (by an objective and verifiable method) to do so. In other words an internet skeptic is someone who doubts/questions such a bold statement made by a christian about the existence of god and the ability that he definitely exists.

What you claim an internet skeptic does is just total and complete nonsense. What I am stating is part of the English language, what you have been writing about internet skeptics and atheist is/was and will remain utter an total gibberish.
Click to expand...
Your view of Internet Skepticism is off by a mile. Read the OP. If it makes no sense to you ("gibberish," "nonsense"), then ask a question.
 
Angel said:
Your view of Internet Skepticism is off by a mile. Read the OP. If it makes no sense to you ("gibberish," "nonsense"), then ask a question.
Click to expand...

Yup, defending the stupidity once again. Nope, your view of internet skepticism is off by a light year. And I make perfect sense, you however are either incapable of understanding skepticism when it comes to religion/atheism or you just try and make up something that is untrue. The choice is your.

My description is correct, yours makes no sense whatsoever.

You cannot be skeptical about being an atheist, you can be skeptical about the views of an atheist. Your whole claim is just totally incorrect. Sorry not sorry.
 
Peter King said:
Yup, defending the stupidity once again. Nope, your view of internet skepticism is off by a light year. And I make perfect sense, you however are either incapable of understanding skepticism when it comes to religion/atheism or you just try and make up something that is untrue. The choice is your.

My description is correct, yours makes no sense whatsoever.

You cannot be skeptical about being an atheist, you can be skeptical about the views of an atheist. Your whole claim is just totally incorrect. Sorry not sorry.
Click to expand...

Ah! Now I get it. You're playing the Pee Wee Herman card -- just reversing and recycling my points, parroting and parodying.
You pulled a similar stunt in another thread of mine after having been crushed in debate, and as a result of your mischief there a wonderful longstanding thread was ruined.
Take your vindictive game elsewhere, sport.
 
Angel said:
Ah! Now I get it. You're playing the Pee Wee Herman card -- just reversing and recycling my points, parroting and parodying.
You pulled a similar stunt in another thread of mine after having been crushed in debate, and as a result of your mischief there a wonderful longstanding thread was ruined.
Take your vindictive game elsewhere, sport.
Click to expand...

Nope, the Pee Wee Herman trick/card was already taken at the moment you started this nonsensical thread.

My points are valid, correct and you cannot deny them so you act like you are the one who is right (which you are not).

I have never been crushed in a debate. And I would not know which thread because all your threads are somewhat the same, you post something ridiculous and then ignore all other arguments.

And nobody needs to "ruin" a longstanding thread you make, the premise usually ensures that already.
 
Peter King said:
Nope, the Pee Wee Herman trick/card was already taken at the moment you started this nonsensical thread.
...
I have never been crushed in a debate. And I would not know which thread because all your threads are somewhat the same, you post something ridiculous and then ignore all other arguments.

And nobody needs to "ruin" a longstanding thread you make, the premise usually ensures that already.
Click to expand...
So are we to understand that spite is one of the chief exports of idyllic Northern Europe?

My points are valid, correct and you cannot deny them so you act like you are the one who is right (which you are not).
Click to expand...
Your point -- you really only have the one -- that your declaration of atheism -- your "I am an atheist" -- is proof of the existence of atheists -- this point of yours, I say, is invalid, incorrect, refutable and refuted a score of times already. That you ignore the defeat of your view is not going to alter its defeat.
 
Angel said:
So are we to understand that spite is one of the chief exports of idyllic Northern Europe?
Click to expand...

Nope, our export product is mostly being very down to earth and objective, you might want to try that some time.

Angel said:
Your point -- you really only have the one -- that your declaration of atheism -- your "I am an atheist" -- is proof of the existence of atheists -- this point of yours, I say, is invalid, incorrect, refutable and refuted a score of times already. That you ignore the defeat of your view is not going to alter its defeat.
Click to expand...

My correct point is that your "atheists don't exist" is nonsense.

An internet skeptic does not doubt the existence of atheist, catholics, etc. etc. etc. To be a skeptic is to doubt the claims made by atheists/christians/muslims/jews/etc.

And you have no refuted anything, you made a nonsensical claim and have been shown to be talking gibberish. You have not refuted anything because your whole premise is as dishonest as can be.
 
Peter King said:
Nope, our export product is mostly being very down to earth and objective, you might want to try that some time.



My correct point is that your "atheists don't exist" is nonsense.

An internet skeptic does not doubt the existence of atheist, catholics, etc. etc. etc. To be a skeptic is to doubt the claims made by atheists/christians/muslims/jews/etc.

And you have no refuted anything, you made a nonsensical claim and have been shown to be talking gibberish. You have not refuted anything because your whole premise is as dishonest as can be.
Click to expand...
Spite is as down to earth as it gets -- it wallows in mud.
No, your so-called "correct point" is just the denial and dismissal of my point, a point you can neither grasp nor refute.
Your third sentence expresses a misunderstanding that I've corrected a dozen times already.
The rest is just more assertions of nothing.
 
Angel said:
Spite is as down to earth as it gets -- it wallows in mud.
No, your so-called "correct point" is just the denial and dismissal of my point, a point you can neither grasp nor refute.
Your third sentence expresses a misunderstanding that I've corrected a dozen times already.
The rest is just more assertions of nothing.
Click to expand...

1. my comments have nothing to do with spite but with counteracting the failed nonsensical claims you have made. Big difference.

2. yes my point is correct, it obliterates your failed statement that "atheists do not exist" as if it were something an internet skeptic would say. Which is, as always total hogwash.

3. You have not corrected anything, you have been corrected time and time again. That you are not able to understand such a simple constructs is not our problem, it clearly is yours.

iamatheist.jpg
 
Peter King said:
2. yes my point is correct, it obliterates your failed statement that "atheists do not exist" as if it were something an internet skeptic would say. Which is, as always total hogwash.
Click to expand...
How does your point -- which is nothing more than your assertion that my OP thesis is "nonsense" -- how does that assertion of yours "obliterate [my] failed statement that 'atheists do not exist'"?
 
Angel said:
How does your point -- which is nothing more than your assertion that my OP thesis is "nonsense" -- how does that assertion of yours "obliterate [my] failed statement that 'atheists do not exist'"?
Click to expand...

Because it is a verifiable fact that atheists exist. Now you can doubt the claims an atheist makes, but it still remains a fact that atheists exist.

As said before you can doubt whether an atheist is correct or is wrong in their beliefs, not that they are atheists.
 
Angel said:
Then verify it.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist, I exist, I was born an I am registered in the governmental registers as an atheist.

Just because you claim something ridiculous does not make it true. I already explained why it is wrong but you have not made it believable that I was wrong. You can be skeptical about what someone beliefs or claims, but not the fact that he is what he is. That isn't skepticism to doubt everything, that is being dishonest.

Being skeptical is not doubting people exist but being skeptical about WHAT they believe in. Or else I can say there are not christians, there are no conservatives, etc. etc. etc. etc. Which is not being skeptical, it is being an asshole or a jackass.
 
Peter King said:
I am an atheist, I exist, I was born an I am registered in the governmental registers as an atheist.

Just because you claim something ridiculous does not make it true. I already explained why it is wrong but you have not made it believable that I was wrong. You can be skeptical about what someone beliefs or claims, but not the fact that he is what he is. That isn't skepticism to doubt everything, that is being dishonest.

Being skeptical is not doubting people exist but being skeptical about WHAT they believe in. Or else I can say there are not christians, there are no conservatives, etc. etc. etc. etc. Which is not being skeptical, it is being an asshole or a jackass.
Click to expand...
I'm not doubting people exist. I've told you this before.
I'm doubting atheists exist.
Your "verification" in this post only verifies that someone claims to be an theist.
Atheism is a private matter of heart and mind.
Personal testimony does not prove atheism, not by Internet Skeptical standards 00 read OP again.
Your assertion of a claim does not prove that an atheist exists. You may be just saying that. No way for anyone else to know,
Your persistent assertion of "nonsense" and "gibberish" proves nothing at all except your frustration.
 
Angel said:
I'm not doubting people exist. I've told you this before.
I'm doubting atheists exist.
Your "verification" in this post only verifies that someone claims to be an theist.
Atheism is a private matter of heart and mind.
Personal testimony does not prove atheism, not by Internet Skeptical standards 00 read OP again.
Your assertion of a claim does not prove that an atheist exists. You may be just saying that. No way for anyone else to know,
Your persistent assertion of "nonsense" and "gibberish" proves nothing at all except your frustration.
Click to expand...

To prove something doesn't exist first you have to prove it exists. Since you can't prove, to anyone's satisfaction, that God exists, proving his non-existence isn't possible. Religion is a personal thing. Your beliefs satisfy your religious needs. Why does it matter to you what satisfies the needs of others?
 
Angel said:
I'm not doubting people exist. I've told you this before.
I'm doubting atheists exist.
Your "verification" in this post only verifies that someone claims to be an theist.
Atheism is a private matter of heart and mind.
Personal testimony does not prove atheism, not by Internet Skeptical standards 00 read OP again.
Your assertion of a claim does not prove that an atheist exists. You may be just saying that. No way for anyone else to know,
Your persistent assertion of "nonsense" and "gibberish" proves nothing at all except your frustration.
Click to expand...

Which is nonsense, as a "people/person" atheists have been around for centuries.

Again, if you had stated that as an internet skeptic you were doubtful of the views/claims of atheists I would have agreed with you, that is what some internet skeptics would do. But not saying they do not exist, that is nonsense.

And no, if gibberish and nonsense are a sign of frustration, than you really do not know a lot about frustration. I am trying to have a calm and rational discussion with someone who makes irrational and inaccurate comments about the existence of atheists (by claiming internet skeptics would say they do not exist).
 
Angel said:
I'm not doubting people exist. I've told you this before.
I'm doubting atheists exist.
Your "verification" in this post only verifies that someone claims to be an theist.
Atheism is a private matter of heart and mind.
Personal testimony does not prove atheism, not by Internet Skeptical standards 00 read OP again.
Your assertion of a claim does not prove that an atheist exists. You may be just saying that. No way for anyone else to know,
Your persistent assertion of "nonsense" and "gibberish" proves nothing at all except your frustration.
Click to expand...

How does a personal statement of someone saying that they don't believe in god not prove that atheists exist? What else is their outside of a statement of a lack of faith? Are atheist supposed to sign a public declaration or other such declaration? It seems that you dont understand what skepticism is.

Where are the supposed Internet Skeptic standards that I am supposed to obey?
 
weaver2 said:
To prove something doesn't exist first you have to prove it exists. Since you can't prove, to anyone's satisfaction, that God exists, proving his non-existence isn't possible. Religion is a personal thing. Your beliefs satisfy your religious needs. Why does it matter to you what satisfies the needs of others?
Click to expand...
I don't substantially disagree with these sentiments. The thesis of this thread does not challenge atheists or skeptics to "prove" that God does not exist; no, the OP challenges them to prove that atheists exist.
 
Lisa said:
I exist and many other atheists also exist.

What do you expect as proof that atheists exist?
Click to expand...
Your personal testimony does not rise to Internet Skeptical standards of proof. If anything, you've demonstrated that there is one person who claims to be an atheist.
 
Lisa said:
How does a personal statement of someone saying that they don't believe in god not prove that atheists exist? What else is their outside of a statement of a lack of faith? Are atheist supposed to sign a public declaration or other such declaration? It seems that you dont understand what skepticism is.

Where are the supposed Internet Skeptic standards that I am supposed to obey?
Click to expand...
Personal testimony does not rise to Internet Skeptical criteria of proof.
The standards of Internet Skepticism are found everywhere a demand for proof of God's existence is made.
 
Angel said:
Your personal testimony does not rise to Internet Skeptical standards of proof.
Click to expand...

Who are these Internet Skeptics and how do I contact them to discuss this matter?

If anything, you've demonstrated that there is one person who claims to be an atheist.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that atheist must register as an atheist? I am a member of the American Humanist Society, so I am registered as an atheist because you cannot be both a theist and a secular Humanist.
 
Peter King said:
Which is nonsense, as a "people/person" atheists have been around for centuries.

Again, if you had stated that as an internet skeptic you were doubtful of the views/claims of atheists I would have agreed with you, that is what some internet skeptics would do. But not saying they do not exist, that is nonsense.

And no, if gibberish and nonsense are a sign of frustration, than you really do not know a lot about frustration. I am trying to have a calm and rational discussion with someone who makes irrational and inaccurate comments about the existence of atheists (by claiming internet skeptics would say they do not exist).
Click to expand...
More frustration and misunderstanding. Prove that atheists exist. Claiming to be an atheist and being an atheist are different and distinct epistemological categories.
 
Lisa said:
Who are these Internet Skeptics and how do I contact them to discuss this matter?

Are you under the impression that atheist must register as an atheist? I am a member of the American Humanist Society, so I am registered as an atheist because you cannot be both a theist and a secular Humanist.
Click to expand...
You yourself are an Internet Skeptic.
Registering as an atheist is not "proof" that anyone is in fact an atheist.
 
Angel said:
I don't substantially disagree with these sentiments. The thesis of this thread does not challenge atheists or skeptics to "prove" that God does not exist; no, the OP challenges them to prove that atheists exist.
Click to expand...

You still do not understand that it is not the job of atheists or skeptics to prove that God does exist. The onus on proving that their God does exist because believers are claiming that something positively exists despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence, so they must prove their claim to be true. This logical burden has been explained to you by myself and others more than 4 times and yet you still deny this fact. Your delusional religious beliefs do not permit you to rewrite basic concepts of logic. Do unicorns, leprechauns and UFOs exist because I cannot positively prove that they do not? That claim is the equivalent of the statement that you are making and it is as absurd as trying to divide by zero.

Your religious beliefs, your faith, and your experience that cannot be supported or replicated by others do not create empirical evidence of any sentient religious creator-deity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom