Atheists Don't Exist

[Quag]

This thread is a massive fail

 

[OrphanSlug]

This thread is a massive fail

These things usually are, and it is what happens when arguments are based on word games and shifting definitions.

 

[soylentgreen]

This is the definition of proof you offered:

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.

You can criticise all you want. It is a meaningless exercise. "The answer is no" is not part of the definition it is merely the result of asking the question.

And the reason for the answer being no is not because of an attitude of a closed mind but more the fault of yourself and your ilk for not providing evidence or a good reason for a god.

Again i would point out that personal belief is simply subjective and is not evidence to anyone but that person. Your lack of good reason is because you and others like you will always start from a position that there is a god when trying to give what you think is a good reason. Unfortunately that is not a good reason that is only a reaffirmation of your own belief. It works for you because you already believe in a god. But to anyone who does not share your belief then it is another flawed attempt to prove a god.

Unless you can figure out a way of presenting an argument that does not start with the hidden premise of a god does exist then the answer will always be no. because reaffirmation is not a good reason.

 

[Angel]

You can criticise all you want. It is a meaningless exercise. "The answer is no" is not part of the definition it is merely the result of asking the question.

And the reason for the answer being no is not because of an attitude of a closed mind but more the fault of yourself and your ilk for not providing evidence or a good reason for a god.

Again i would point out that personal belief is simply subjective and is not evidence to anyone but that person. Your lack of good reason is because you and others like you will always start from a position that there is a god when trying to give what you think is a good reason. Unfortunately that is not a good reason that is only a reaffirmation of your own belief. It works for you because you already believe in a god. But to anyone who does not share your belief then it is another flawed attempt to prove a god.

Unless you can figure out a way of presenting an argument that does not start with the hidden premise of a god does exist then the answer will always be no. because reaffirmation is not a good reason.

Once again all theists "look alike" to you. Let's be clear, shall we? I personally have never offered in any post in any thread anywhere personal testimony for the existence of God.

But thank you for this:

"The answer is no" is not part of the definition it is merely the result of asking the question.

This is certainly one of the most unwittingly funny assertions I've read in ten years on the internet. For those just tuning in, this is my interlocutor's answer to my charge that the Internet Skeptic is close-minded vis-a-vis theists.

As for this:

Again i would point out that personal belief is simply subjective and is not evidence to anyone but that person.

It is false on its face. Unless you misspoke and meant to write "personal knowledge" instead of "personal belief." Niels Bohr's personal beliefs about the interpretation of quantum mechanics certainly was evidence to many people. Samuel Beckett's personal beliefs about what James Joyce was about certainly carries weight with those interested in literature.
I think you meant personal knowledge about personal experience, yes?

 

[Angel]

These things usually are, and it is what happens when arguments are based on word games and shifting definitions.

What are "these things," OrphanSlug? Surely you refer to something more than "threads" with this phrase, yes?
And then would you kindly point out the "word games and shifting definitions" on which the OP argument is based?
And just for the sake of completeness would you please tell us what my "argument" is?
Much obliged.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Do Atheists Exist?

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?​

Do you have the slightest idea on how a debate works?

Anyway, I am assuming that this Internet Skeptic person claims to be an atheist, correct? You acknowledge that a person who goes by Internet Skeptic also claims to be an atheist, correct?

In doing so, you have proven that at least one atheist exists.

In all seriousness...are you like 15? Still in high school? Your posts are really self-defeating.

 

[Angel]

Do you have the slightest idea on how a debate works?

Do you really think this forum is about "debate"? If you do, there's a bridge here in my town I can get you a sweet deal on.

Anyway, I am assuming that this Internet Skeptic person claims to be an atheist, correct? You acknowledge that a person who goes by Internet Skeptic also claims to be an atheist, correct?

No, I took pains not to conflate the two.

In doing so, you have proven that at least one atheist exists.

In all seriousness...are you like 15? Still in high school? Your posts are really self-defeating.

You are incorrect. Even had I conflated the two -- which I didn't do -- nothing is proven.
Am I "like 15," you ask? Am I "still in high school," you ask? You, who get not one thing right in your condescending post.
Look to it, sport.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Do you really think this forum is about "debate"? If you do, there's a bridge here in my town I can get you a sweet deal on.


No, I took pains not to conflate the two.


You are incorrect. Even had I conflated the two -- which I didn't do -- nothing is proven.
Am I "like 15," you ask? Am I "still in high school," you ask? You, who get not one thing right in your condescending post.
Look to it, sport.

You...just destroyed the whole premise of your post. SMH....

 

[Quag]

You...just destroyed the whole premise of your post. SMH....

He does that a lot

 

[Angel]

You...just destroyed the whole premise of your post. SMH....

How so, pray tell?

 

[soylentgreen]

Once again all theists "look alike" to you. Let's be clear, shall we? I personally have never offered in any post in any thread anywhere personal testimony for the existence of God.

But thank you for this:

This is certainly one of the most unwittingly funny assertions I've read in ten years on the internet. For those just tuning in, this is my interlocutor's answer to my charge that the Internet Skeptic is close-minded vis-a-vis theists.

As for this:

It is false on its face. Unless you misspoke and meant to write "personal knowledge" instead of "personal belief." Niels Bohr's personal beliefs about the interpretation of quantum mechanics certainly was evidence to many people. Samuel Beckett's personal beliefs about what James Joyce was about certainly carries weight with those interested in literature.
I think you meant personal knowledge about personal experience, yes?

Do not lie to me. You said that your personal testimony was your evidence.

And again your hypocrisy stands out that you yourself are closed minded to there not being a god.

And again you mistake opinion for evidence.

 

[rwee2000]

Do Atheists Exist?

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?​

I'm right here. Ask away.

BTW what is your PROOF that there is a god?

 

[Angel]

Do not lie to me. You said that your personal testimony was your evidence.

And again your hypocrisy stands out that you yourself are closed minded to there not being a god.

And again you mistake opinion for evidence.

Don't call me a liar, pal. Show me where I posted what you claim I said.
And don't call me a hypocrite because you don't know who you're talking to. Show me a post where I summarily dismiss atheism.
Where is opinion mistaken for evidence? Produce the post.

 

[Angel]

I'm right here. Ask away.

BTW what is your PROOF that there is a god?

Your being "right here" proves nothing but that an anonymous poster called "rwee2000" probably exists. No proof of an atheist existing.
I posted a "proof" in another thread called "Proof of God." It's on the first page of this forum.

 

[rwee2000]

Your being "right here" proves nothing but that an anonymous poster called "rwee2000" probably exists. No proof of an atheist existing.
I posted a "proof" in another thread called "Proof of God." It's on the first page of this forum.

I am the poster and I am an atheist, which I have publicly claimed in public many times, of course if you'd like to meet one, ie me, dress warmly it's going to get -22 over the next few days.

 

[Angel]

I am the poster and I am an atheist, which I have publicly claimed in public many times, of course if you'd like to meet one, ie me, dress warmly it's going to get -22 over the next few days.

Your atheism is a matter of personal knowledge; it is unprovable. We may accept your personal testimony as to your atheism, but that is a matter of trust and faith, not a matter of proof. I'll pass on the -22 meeting, thank you; it's 31 here in NYC and that's all I'll take without complaint.

 

[Arjay81]

Do Atheists Exist?

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?​

If they don't exist, why do you continue to waste all of our time arguing against them? It is the truth that doesn't exist in your statements and never has.

 

[Arjay81]

So you felt the need, whilst yawning, to quote the entire OP or thread starter at post #2 in order to dismiss the thread as beneath your interest, did you?
Interesting psychology in an otherwise pointless post.

As are all of your posts

 

[AGENT J]

Do Atheists Exist?

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?​

LMAO Hey look another thread started by you based on lies and unsupportable feelings but ZERO facts and intellectual logic. Cant wait to read this trainwreck and see people right left, center, religious and nonreligious mock it and destroy it for the nonsense it is using facts.

FACTS:
Athiest exist
Your claims above are false and or dishonest
Local Partners and Affiliates | American Atheists

opcorn2:

And this failed OP and the lies in it deliver just like I thought it would. coming up on 300 posts soon and the OP is still a complete failure with honest educated objective people left right and center mocking them for the nonsense they are

 

[Angel]

If they don't exist, why do you continue to waste all of our time arguing against them? It is the truth that doesn't exist in your statements and never has.

Prove that an atheist exists.

 

[Angel]

As are all of your posts

Because you miss the point does not make them pointless.

 

[rwee2000]

Your atheism is a matter of personal knowledge; it is unprovable. We may accept your personal testimony as to your atheism, but that is a matter of trust and faith, not a matter of proof. I'll pass on the -22 meeting, thank you; it's 31 here in NYC and that's all I'll take without complaint.

But you could meet me, can you meet God. Therefor I'm real god is not.

 

[Arjay81]

Prove that an atheist exists.

You are claiming that they don't, even after they tell you constantly that they do. You prove your spurious allegation, which you can't do.

 

[Arjay81]

Because you miss the point does not make them pointless.

No, what you put in them makes pointless, as are you.

 

[weaver2]

Do Atheists Exist? 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.


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

Urban Dictionary:
skeptic
A pseudo-critical thinker and intellectual wannabe. Generally exhibits the following markings:

1. a tendency to completely misunderstand intellectual concepts such as burden shifting in a debate;

2. holding out as an authority on subjects about which he or she has no training or expertise;

3. an inability to respond to any argument or evidence beyond bleeting tired cliches memorized from JREF web forums, "Amazing Meetings" or from such intellecutal "giants" as Richard Dawkins, James Randi, and their ilk;

4. a slavish devotion to science, despite not having seriously, or even not at all, pursued an education or career in a given discipline;

5. a killjoy with a supernatural ability to suck the fun and life out of any gathering of people simply by entering the room.