• 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!

Beliefs and Skepticism

Angel said:
Beliefs and Skepticism

Belief - acceptance of an idea as true; the idea so accepted
Skepticism - doubt about the truth of an idea; the doubt itself

​
Click to expand...
Your so called "stanza" is nothing more than you making an attack and positive claims about a group of people. Your premise only exists in your head in a stark display of confirmation bias. In your attempt to spam this forum about how you hate atheists you have shown yourself to be dogmatic and unwilling to debate even the simplest of your blathering spam.

We get it you hate atheists. No matter how many times you come up with these stupid threads that are always nothing more that fallacious exercises in stupidity; you always say the same stupid things and refuse to debate.​
 
Angel said:
The links to philosophical skepticism are given precisely to support the point that Internet Skepticism is not skepticism. They do matter.
If I wish to claim that someone is not a Luddite, I post links to what a Luddite is, to show that the someone in question is not one.
Please stop this silliness, Mr King.
Click to expand...

You confuse fact and definition for opinion Angel. You think it is not skepticism, you claim this, you claim that but none of it is solidified in fact and reality.

And this has nothing to do with Luddites, this has to do with your fatally flawed definition of internet skeptic.
 
Peter King said:
You confuse fact and definition for opinion Angel. You think it is not skepticism, you claim this, you claim that but none of it is solidified in fact and reality.

And this has nothing to do with Luddites, this has to do with your fatally flawed definition of internet skeptic.
Click to expand...
Incoherent post.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Your so called "stanza" is nothing more than you making an attack and positive claims about a group of people. Your premise only exists in your head in a stark display of confirmation bias. In your attempt to spam this forum about how you hate atheists you have shown yourself to be dogmatic and unwilling to debate even the simplest of your blathering spam.

We get it you hate atheists. No matter how many times you come up with these stupid threads that are always nothing more that fallacious exercises in stupidity; you always say the same stupid things and refuse to debate.
Click to expand...
Your fit of pique is noted.
 
Lisa said:
Do you somehow think that any bizarre claim that you can concoct is true because you believe it to be true?

This is a basic concept of logic, that you appear to think that your claims are immune to. You should stick to writing poetry if you don't want your religious claims to be tested.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question, apparently you didn't understand my post, and you don't understand the theme of this thread.
But have a nice day.
 
Lisa said:
You want to reject logic but that cannot happen. Any claim that you make must be testable. It isn't true because you believe it to be.
Click to expand...
You're confusing me and my views with the character and views of some imaginary "Angel" in your head. Please look to it.
 
Angel said:
Incoherent post.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. You definition of an internet skeptic is not a definition but a personal view of what you think is an internet skeptic. You have taken internet skeptic character trades and other less savory internet characters (trolls, asswipes, etc. etc. etc.) and mixed them together into something you claim is an internet skeptic and I happen to disagree because an internet skeptic is able to voice his opinions without being obnoxious or a troll.
 
Peter King said:
No, it is not. You definition of an internet skeptic is not a definition but a personal view of what you think is an internet skeptic. You have taken internet skeptic character trades and other less savory internet characters (trolls, asswipes, etc. etc. etc.) and mixed them together into something you claim is an internet skeptic and I happen to disagree because an internet skeptic is able to voice his opinions without being obnoxious or a troll.
Click to expand...
This is a coherent post. So you disagree with my characterization of the Internet Skeptic. Fine. Yours, I suppose, is as much "a personal view" as you say mine is, yes? Your argument seems to be that there are Internet Skeptics who are not obnoxious, yes? I acknowledge the truth of that claim, but based on my experience it is the exception that proves the rule.
 
Angel said:
You're confusing me and my views with the character and views of some imaginary "Angel" in your head. Please look to it.
Click to expand...

I'm tired of the nonsense that you want people to limit themselves to what you want to discuss and how you want it to be discussed with rules that you create.

The argument that you seem to have connected claiming that god must exist because atheists do not exist is hilariously illogical. The fact that everybody might believe in god doesn't mean that god/s actually exists if everyone is equally deluded and illogical.
BTW, which of the more than 2000 gods would exist in your illogical world, or is it only your god that is true and everyone else is wrong because that is what you claim to believe?
 
Angel said:
This is a coherent post. So you disagree with my characterization of the Internet Skeptic. Fine. Yours, I suppose, is as much "a personal view" as you say mine is, yes? Your argument seems to be that there are Internet Skeptics who are not obnoxious, yes? I acknowledge the truth of that claim, but based on my experience it is the exception that proves the rule.
Click to expand...

I fully admit mine is an opinion too, I am really honest about that. But I know internet skeptics too and sadly you seem to have met the worst kind of internet skeptic.
 
Lisa said:
I'm tired of the nonsense that you want people to limit themselves to what you want to discuss and how you want it to be discussed with rules that you create.
Click to expand...
And I'm tired of your misrepresentation of my views, your persistent attribution to me of arguments I have not made. Your confusion, if that's what it is, has become irritating after a dozen posts of this kind by you.
Lisa said:
The argument that you seem to have connected claiming that god must exist because atheists do not exist is hilariously illogical.
Click to expand...
I have made no such argument.
Lisa said:
The fact that everybody might believe in god doesn't mean that god/s actually exists if everyone is equally deluded and illogical.
Click to expand...
Nor does the fact that you and any number of others don't believe in God doesn't mean that God does not exist.
Lisa said:
BTW, which of the more than 2000 gods would exist in your illogical world, or is it only your god that is true and everyone else is wrong because that is what you claim to believe?
Click to expand...
All religions are true, and there is One Divine Reality behind the 2000 stories about that One Divine Reality.
 
Lisa said:
BTW, which of the more than 2000 gods would exist in your illogical world, or is it only your god that is true and everyone else is wrong because that is what you claim to believe?
Click to expand...

Good question! And - was there an answer to that?

-----------------

EDIT - I see there was an answer - but an elusive one.
 
Angel said:
And I'm tired of your misrepresentation of my views, your persistent attribution to me of arguments I have not made. Your confusion, if that's what it is, has become irritating after a dozen posts of this kind by you.

I have made no such argument.

Nor does the fact that you and any number of others don't believe in God doesn't mean that God does not exist.

All religions are true, and there is One Divine Reality behind the 2000 stories about that One Divine Reality.
Click to expand...

Do you deny that skeptics and atheists exist, despite the obvious fact that more than 1 in 4 people in the US do not believe or have no religious affiliation?

The religious landscape of the United States continues to change at a rapid clip. In Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009.
Click to expand...

If I am misrepresenting it then phrase it is a more coherent forum.

All religions cannot be the same and have a single god. That ignores their core ideas of various religions. The 3 major monotheistic relgions have a common deity/creator of Abraham but that doesn't in any way link them to Hindus, the greek and Roman gods or any other the major relgious belifs. Buddhists do not belive in a god depoite the fact that they are followers of Siddhartha Guatama. You do not get to deny facts or reality as a way to make a statement that cannot logically be true just because you believe it to be true. That would be delusional.
 
Lisa said:
Do you deny that skeptics and atheists exist, despite the obvious fact that more than 1 in 4 people in the US do not believe or have no religious affiliation?
If I am misrepresenting it then phrase it is a more coherent forum.
Click to expand...
You're in the wrong thread. Here's where your question belongs, but read the OP first:

Atheists Don't Exist
 
Angel said:
You're in the wrong thread. Here's where your question belongs, but read the OP first:

Atheists Don't Exist
Click to expand...

I am an atheist and I do exist. Can you prove that I do not, despite my reply? Your semantic games aren't amusing.


You appear to be convinced that you can create the most absurd religious arguments and then force everyone to dance to your tune.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
All religions cannot be the same and have a single god. That ignores their core ideas of various religions. The 3 major monotheistic relgions have a common deity/creator of Abraham but that doesn't in any way link them to Hindus, the greek and Roman gods or any other the major relgious belifs. Buddhists do not belive in a god depoite the fact that they are followers of Siddhartha Guatama. You do not get to deny facts or reality as a way to make a statement that cannot logically be true just because you believe it to be true. That would be delusional.
Click to expand...
I didn't say all religions are the same; I said all religions are true.
Perhaps you should read the OP of the following thread:
The God Question
 
Lisa said:
I am an atheist and I do exist. Can you prove that I do not, despite my reply?

Your semantic games aren't amusing.
Click to expand...
You, the person calling herself Lisa here, exist, but that you are an atheist is another question. Go to that other thread and post your disagreements.
 
Angel said:
I didn't say all religions are the same; I said all religions are true.
Perhaps you should read the OP of the following thread:
The God Question
Click to expand...

All religions cannot possibly be true because many are controdictory. The fact that there is no evidence of any god existing seems to be lost on you and that argument.
 
Lisa said:
I'm tired of the nonsense that you want people to limit themselves to what you want to discuss and how you want it to be discussed with rules that you create.
Click to expand...

Indeed, a good old-fashioned framing fallacy.


OM
 
Angel said:
Three replies so far from Internet Skeptics who apparently are unfamiliar with the nature of poetry. Sad.
Click to expand...

Poetry and theistic religious belief are not common lines of thought in religious belief.

What will it take for you to understand that you can not will a deity into existence with either devout belief or a haiku?

The fact that we, the earth/universe or the concept of religious belief exist doesn't mean that a god exists. That is a watchmaker's fallacy or argument from design. While a watch needs a maker to exist there is no proof that we need a creator to exist. Religious belief is little more than a wish and a rejection of facts.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
All religions cannot possibly be true because many are controdictory. The fact that there is no evidence of any god existing seems to be lost on you and that argument.
Click to expand...
Did you read the OP of the thread I linked?
 
Lisa said:
Poetry and theistic religious belief are not common lines of thought in religious belief.

What will it take for you to understand that you can not will a deity into existence with either devout belief or a haiku?

The fact that we, the earth/universe or the concept of religious belief exist doesn't mean that a god exists. That is a watchmaker's fallacy or argument from design. While a watch needs a maker to exist there is no proof that we need a creator to exist. Religious belief is little more than a wish and a rejection of facts.
Click to expand...
Your point about poetry and religion is ridiculous.
What is fallacious about the watchman's fallacy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom