Atheists Don't Exist

[soylentgreen]

The typical Internet Skeptic gives no "good reason" for dismissal. Show me a good-faith claim I've summarily dismissed in my two years at DP and I'll forgive your disparaging remark.


As my OP points out in parentheses, I am using the word "proof" in the loose way adopted by Internet skeptics. Accounting for an ism does not prove that any individual believes the ism.


I referred to the close0mindedness of the post. I don't know you from Adam.

You have been given many good reasons but your own inability to consider anything you say as wrong leads you to dismiss them out of hand.

You use proof in a deliberately vague way so as to be able to deny any proof given. I have told you what atheist meaning of proof is and all you do is reject it.

It matters not how you try to squirm your way out of this. It still makes you a hypocrite when your own posts show a closed mind to any possibility that your opinion is wrong.

The "evidence" is the personal testimony I'm speaking of, and it is dismissed by the Internet Skeptic.
If you hold logical and reasoned argument to be a "rabbit hole," then don't follow me down.

Here is a good example of the Internet Skeptic's dismissal:

It is not dismissal out of hand, it is dismissal with good reason. Your personal testimony is nothing more than a subjective opinion. If you would actually admit that instead of pretending it is somehow your distorted definition of evidence then there would be no problem.
You only look at the dismissal and try to pretend there is no reason for it.

 

[Angel]

You have been given many good reasons but your own inability to consider anything you say as wrong leads you to dismiss them out of hand.

You use proof in a deliberately vague way so as to be able to deny any proof given. I have told you what atheist meaning of proof is and all you do is reject it.

It matters not how you try to squirm your way out of this. It still makes you a hypocrite when your own posts show a closed mind to any possibility that your opinion is wrong.



It is not dismissal out of hand, it is dismissal with good reason. Your personal testimony is nothing more than a subjective opinion. If you would actually admit that instead of pretending it is somehow your distorted definition of evidence then there would be no problem.
You only look at the dismissal and try to pretend there is no reason for it.

My loose use of the word "proof" is borrowed from the Internet Skeptic, from you in other words. The rest of your post merely makes my case.
If you claim to be an atheist, prove it. This is Internet Skeptic talk.
The unreasonable demand for proof of personal testimony is dismissal in itself.

 

[Angel]

You declared atheism a religion and stated you believe ALL aspects of ALL religions, therefore you believe in god and don't believe in god at the same time. Sounds stupid and contradictory doesn't it?

You can not believe all aspects of all religions at once. You know this but you're lying about it anyway.

Again you're shooting from the hip: I never declared atheism a religion -- you confuse me with someone else. Or rather your post derives from the bigoted belief that "all theists look alike."

The record again shows who's lying here:

"All Religion is True."
Angel Trismegistus



Professor Ward agrees.



Namaste​

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...understanding-religion-21.html#post1068794611

 

[Questerr]

God is the necessary and sufficient condition for the physical universe, life on earth, and consciousness.

This is an empirical inference to the best explanation of the mysterious phenomena mentioned in the definition. The definition is logical and ventures nothing about the nature of God -- like benevolence, omniscience, perfection, etc.

How so a non-sequitur? We were discussing whether of not God is an established answer or not.

Why? What are the qualities of this god that allow it to be the necessary and sufficient condition for the physical universe?

What are the conditions necessary and sufficient for the physical universe that require a God?

 

[Questerr]

Again you're shooting from the hip: I never declared atheism a religion -- you confuse me with someone else. Or rather your post derives from the bigoted belief that "all theists look alike."

The record again shows who's lying here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...understanding-religion-21.html#post1068794611

All religions can’t be true. It’s impossible for it to be true that Jesus to be God’s son and also the physical incarnation of God co-equal to that God (Christianity) while also true that Jesus is not God’s son, is not the physical incarnation of God, but is one of God’s prophets, though not the last one (Islam) while also true that Jesus was just a wise rabbi (Judaism).

Those are mutually exclusive. They can’t be all be true.

 

[AGENT J]

Now you're calling me a liar! You're posting out of your ass, pal. I'm the fella who posted the thread "Understanding Religion" not long after he became a member, and I'm the fella who posted many times that "All religions are true." Take your bad faith posting elsewhere.

Nobody called you a liar, every time you make that claim its proven wrong and shows the only lie posted is yours. FACTS: Athiest exist
Your claims above are false and or dishonest
Local Partners and Affiliates | American Atheists

 

[weaver2]

"Indeed, the appeal of New Atheism to a certain cast of mind lies precisely here, in its solid grounding in ignorance of religion.

As represented by New Atheism, the ongoing public insult to older more thoughtful forms of atheism must needs cease, that the dialogue between an informed skepticism and religious faith might be rid of its present shrillness and stupidity.

The aim of this thread is above all to strike a blow against the valorization of ignorance popularized by New Atheism, and to achieve this aim by striking a blow in the cause of understanding religion."


Now get gone, man. Your posts are stinking up my thread.

What's New Atheism? Why is it ignorant? And what is your quarrel with Dawkins?

 

[Angel]

What's New Atheism? Why is it ignorant? And what is your quarrel with Dawkins?

"New Atheism" is the name given by journalism to the wave of public strident atheism initiated by "The Four Horsemen of Atheism" -- Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris -- about fifteen twenty years ago in the wake of 9/11, a wave still rippling through the Internet.

"New Atheism" is ignorant of the distinction between the existence of God and the various religions promoting faith in various versions of the nature of God.

My quarrel with Richard Dawkins is that because he pontificates outside evolutionary biology and disparages religion, his ignorance has done a great deal of harm to impressionable minds.

 

[Angel]

You are asking of atheists something that is impossible to quantify, one is an atheist or one is not. The same as one is a christian or not. It is not a skeptical thing you can let loose on that.

If you find what I'm asking unreasonable, you need to be reminded that for the purposes of this thread I am merely adopting the attitude and the demand of the Internet Skeptic.

The apples I am talking about is the pure statement of someone to state that they are atheist or theist.

The oranges are when someone makes a claim he/she says is proven without a shadow of a doubt as factual that skepticism is warranted.

Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. When Internet Skepticism asks for proof of what cannot be proven, it is being unreasonable. This thread turns the tables on the Internet Skeptic.

Skepticism is doubt; it is not dismissal out of hand. Skepticism itself requires an argument for its doubt. Without an argument skepticism becomes mere contrarianism.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) If you find what I'm asking unreasonable, you need to be reminded that for the purposes of this thread I am merely adopting the attitude and the demand of the Internet Skeptic.
2.)Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. When Internet Skepticism asks for proof of what cannot be proven, it is being unreasonable. This thread turns the tables on the Internet Skeptic.
3.)Skepticism is doubt; it is not dismissal out of hand. Skepticism itself requires an argument for its doubt. Without an argument skepticism becomes mere contrarianism.

1.) you mean something you completely made up, a false dishonest narrative, that multiple posters destroyed
2.) see #1
3.) when you have a legit argument let us know, so far none has been presented and the fact remains atheist exists

 

[Manc Skipper]

"New Atheism" is the name given by journalism to the wave of public strident atheism initiated by "The Four Horsemen of Atheism" -- Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris -- about fifteen twenty years ago in the wake of 9/11, a wave still rippling through the Internet.

"New Atheism" is ignorant of the distinction between the existence of God and the various religions promoting faith in various versions of the nature of God.

My quarrel with Richard Dawkins is that because he pontificates outside evolutionary biology and disparages religion, his ignorance has done a great deal of harm to impressionable minds.

You want a clear field for your ministering to those "impressionable minds" The last thing you want is a contradictory point of view.

 

[Angel]

You want a clear field for your ministering to those "impressionable minds" The last thing you want is a contradictory point of view.

Not quite. I don't minister. I want those "impressionable minds" to be exposed to literature and art, not to celebrity vaporings.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Again you're shooting from the hip: I never declared atheism a religion -- you confuse me with someone else. Or rather your post derives from the bigoted belief that "all theists look alike."

The record again shows who's lying here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...understanding-religion-21.html#post1068794611

So just to get this straight, you're an adherent to every religion and belief system on the planet except atheism, which you hate with a fiery passion? Why? Do the contradictions not bother you?

You know there are many religions without a god right? How do you square that?

 

[Angel]

So just to get this straight, you're an adherent to every religion and belief system on the planet except atheism, which you hate with a fiery passion? Why? Do the contradictions not bother you?

You know there are many religions without a god right? How do you square that?

Atheism is not a religion.
If by "adherent" you mean supporter, then yes, I support religion generally and therefore every religion individually, in the same way, to help you with an analogy, that an adherent of liberal democracy supports a multiparty system without necessarily being registered with any particular party.

All religion is true in the sense that all religions promote connection with a transcendent reality.

 

[Peter King]

If you find what I'm asking unreasonable, you need to be reminded that for the purposes of this thread I am merely adopting the attitude and the demand of the Internet Skeptic.

Except it is not only not unreasonable, it is perfectly reasonable. You are not trying to emulate and internet skeptic, who questions aspects of religion and claims made by religious people. You are adopting the attitude of a troll/douche bag who goes on the internet to insult. Now you are not a troll/douche bag, you are just for the purpose of this thread emulating one, but that does not change the fact that a true skeptic is skeptical of over broad claims by religious people or the attempts of religious people to inject their brand of religion into government/education/public life where a skeptic is justified in questioning the wisdom or whether such an large influence is desirable.

A skeptic is denying that someone is religious/atheist. A troll/douche bag is. And that makes such claims as atheists don't exist not skeptical, but offensive.

And I know, you are just pretending to be a skeptic but the avenue you have chosen to take does not sound like a skeptic.

Skepticism is being skeptical about specific claims an atheist/christian/muslim makes, not denouncing their faiths. That is not being skeptical. And you are right, in the age of social media, skepticism and discussion has been diminishing to almost nothing due to people going on social media with an attitude of trying to hurt/insult rather than inform/disagree.

Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. When Internet Skepticism asks for proof of what cannot be proven, it is being unreasonable. This thread turns the tables on the Internet Skeptic.

Skepticism is doubt; it is not dismissal out of hand. Skepticism itself requires an argument for its doubt. Without an argument skepticism becomes mere contrarianism.

But an internet skeptic just asks for evidence if someone claims with absolute certainty that for example the earth was created in 6 days. Or that because of what genesis says man and dinosaurs had lived together on earth because the earth is only 6 thousand years old.

That is what people can justifiably be skeptical of. Skepticism of people's religious or non-religious views are not skepticism but assholerism IMHO, complete douchebaggery. I do not skeptically attack someone for the fact that he says he is christian/muslim/atheist. I do however reserve the right to be skeptical of cults.

This is at least my view.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Atheism is not a religion.
If by "adherent" you mean supporter, then yes, I support religion generally and therefore every religion individually, in the same way, to help you with an analogy, that an adherent of liberal democracy supports a multiparty system without necessarily being registered with any particular party.

All religion is true in the sense that all religions promote connection with a transcendent reality.

So now you're back peddling that you don't actually believe all religions you just mean in a more general sense. There are lots of atheistic religions, do you exclude those as well? Do you hate Buddhists because they don't believe the way you want them to that there's a puppet master pulling at their strings?

 

[soylentgreen]

My loose use of the word "proof" is borrowed from the Internet Skeptic, from you in other words. The rest of your post merely makes my case.
If you claim to be an atheist, prove it. This is Internet Skeptic talk.
The unreasonable demand for proof of personal testimony is dismissal in itself.

Again, I have given you a definition of proof that is not at all loose.

As usual you do not listen and instead make up your own fantasy argument.

I do not have to prove anything about atheist because you are doing nothing more than pretending it is the same as your claim of a god. Atheist is a concept as is god it is only you who has the silly notion that your god is anything more and try top give proof of that and of course always fail in the attempt.

And no one demands proof of ytour personal testimony. They demand proof when you try to pretend that personal testimony is evidence that is empirical. It is not and you should start to realise that instead of giving us your persecution complex.

 

[Angel]

So now you're back peddling that you don't actually believe all religions you just mean in a more general sense. There are lots of atheistic religions, do you exclude those as well? Do you hate Buddhists because they don't believe the way you want them to that there's a puppet master pulling at their strings?

No back-pedaling. I said all religions are true and I stand by that, and have explained what I mean by that. I never said I believed all religious stories; I said (in that thread quoted from 18 months ago) that my connection to transcendent reality was through one particular story, one particular religion. That's what I said and all I said.

What are called "atheistic religions" are merely religious stories that don't envision a deity or deities in transcendent reality; nevertheless, these religions recognize and connect people with transcendent reality. I love Buddhism. I don't care what other people believe. The "puppet-master" conceit has nothing to do with anything I believe; once again, this is Internet Skeptic presumption and error.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

No back-pedaling. I said all religions are true and I stand by that, .

Why would you make a statement like that, there are thousands of religions, created under all kinds of conditions, for all kinds of reasons.

A much closer guess would be " none of them are true."

 

[Angel]

Again, I have given you a definition of proof that is not at all loose....

This is the definition of proof you offered:

Unless you have developed your own personal definition of proof then the proof required by atheist standard is of two parts.
Firstly can you provide any empirical evidence of a god? The answer of course is, no.
Secondly, can you give a good reason as to why we should consider a god? The answer of course is, no.

The very fact that the answers are no is your empirical evidence.

The fact that there is theism is a good reason and the only reason atheism also exists. That is your good reason.

Your assertion that " The answer of course is, no" demonstrated precisely what I'm criticizing in the Internet Skeptic's attitude.
That you are unaware of the close-mindedness of your "definition" of proof is par for the course for Internet skeptics.

Your post says that the Internet Skeptic demands proof that the Internet Skeptic declares in advance cannot be provided.

That is exactly what this thread demands of the Internet Skeptic: proof that is impossible.

 

[Angel]

Why would you make a statement like that, there are thousands of religions, created under all kinds of conditions, for all kinds of reasons.

A much closer guess would be " none of them are true."

Mine is not a guess. And I explain what I mean by the claim in #239 above.

 

[Angel]

Except it is not only not unreasonable, it is perfectly reasonable. You are not trying to emulate and internet skeptic, who questions aspects of religion and claims made by religious people. You are adopting the attitude of a troll/douche bag who goes on the internet to insult. Now you are not a troll/douche bag, you are just for the purpose of this thread emulating one, but that does not change the fact that a true skeptic is skeptical of over broad claims by religious people or the attempts of religious people to inject their brand of religion into government/education/public life where a skeptic is justified in questioning the wisdom or whether such an large influence is desirable.
...
That is what people can justifiably be skeptical of. Skepticism of people's religious or non-religious views are not skepticism but assholerism IMHO, complete douchebaggery. I do not skeptically attack someone for the fact that he says he is christian/muslim/atheist. I do however reserve the right to be skeptical of cults.

This is at least my view.

Fair enough. But there are a lot of the type you name passing themselves off as skeptics. How does one tell the genuine articles from the type you name without a scorecard?

 

[JustHanging]

So now you're back peddling that you don't actually believe all religions you just mean in a more general sense. There are lots of atheistic religions, do you exclude those as well? Do you hate Buddhists because they don't believe the way you want them to that there's a puppet master pulling at their strings?

It's almost like he realizes how stupid he looks believing in the equivalent of Santa Claus, and he thinks he'll feel less foolish if he can prove we believe in Santa Claus as well.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Mine is not a guess. And I explain what I mean by the claim in #239 above.

No it doesn't.

 

[Angel]

No it doesn't.

Yes I do and it does,