Atheists Don't Exist

[Daisy]

If one's morals are dictated by fear, one has no morals.

If you're talking about selfish fear, I agree with you but one's morals can also be based on the unselfish fear of displeasing God, much like fear of displeasing a parent...

 

[Angel]

As if I care about your opinion on atheism or anybody's opinion on the subject for that matter.

Unlike religious folks, I don't feel any need to 'prove' I don't believe in any god/s.

I consider myself an atheist and I'm alive. What more proof do I need that I exist and therefore atheism exists?

Another foolish god thread.

The consistent Internet Skeptic denies that atheists exist. Can you prove that you're an atheist?

 

[Angel]

Are you ok? Have I upset you with my little joke? I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were so precious. If this sort of response upsets you, then don't post such ridiculous false generalisations in the first place. It's not hard to figure out, or is it?

You apparently figured it out, yes? How hard could it be?

 

[bongsaway]

The consistent Internet Skeptic denies that atheists exist. Can you prove that you're an atheist?

Not only can I not prove I'm an atheist, I also cannot prove I had a bowel movement this morning but I did and it was crappy.

Why do I even need to prove something I don't feel the need to defend?

Trump says...and mostly I don't believe what trump says either and I feel no need to defend my opinion on that matter either.

Prove it. What a waste of time.

 

[Mortician]

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 have a hard time comprehending what you just posted, logically it doesn't make any sense to me.

I guess I would classify myself as Diest or sometimes an atheist since I have studied many different religions and have a hard time conforming to one faith and frankly I am skeptical of all of them.

 

[Peter King]

The consistent Internet Skeptic denies that atheists exist. Can you prove that you're an atheist?

So you make up that "the consistent internet skeptic denies that atheists exist", something that is utter nonsense because "the internet skeptic" does not exist. But as we know atheists do exist.

And yes, I can prove I am an atheist because I have been registered in my countries basic civil administration as atheist. On top of being an atheist to begin with.

 

[Angel]

Not only can I not prove I'm an atheist, I also cannot prove I had a bowel movement this morning but I did and it was crappy.

Why do I even need to prove something I don't feel the need to defend?
...
Prove it. What a waste of time.

Precisely the point of my thread.

 

[Angel]

I have a hard time comprehending what you just posted, logically it doesn't make any sense to me.

I guess I would classify myself as Diest or sometimes an atheist since I have studied many different religions and have a hard time conforming to one faith and frankly I am skeptical of all of them.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Drowning Man]

Precisely the point of my thread.

So, the point of this thread is that if there can remain some shred of doubt in the belief of anything, that your belief, that we have no reason to believe, is reasonable?

I believe I am typing at a keyboard. Can I prove it without a shred of any doubt? Nope.
Therefore, it's reasonable to believe in a "God".

Is that it?

 

[Angel]

So you make up that "the consistent internet skeptic denies that atheists exist", something that is utter nonsense because "the internet skeptic" does not exist. But as we know atheists do exist.

And yes, I can prove I am an atheist because I have been registered in my countries basic civil administration as atheist. On top of being an atheist to begin with.

You can't prove you're an atheist anymore than a theist can prove he's a theist or prove that God exists. Anyone can claim to be an atheist.

 

[AGENT J]

Atheists Don't Exist

[/B][/CENTER]

almost 400 posts and the fact remains atheists exist and the OP, its lies and made up claims has completely failed.

 

[Jonsa]

You can't prove you're an atheist anymore than a theist can prove he's a theist or prove that God exists. Anyone can claim to be an atheist.

Can you prove you are not an alien marooned here after your spaceship crashed in area 51?

 

[Peter King]

You can't prove you're an atheist anymore than a theist can prove he's a theist or prove that God exists. Anyone can claim to be an atheist.

Nonsense. I already proved I am an atheist. Just like any catholic in the Netherlands can prove on several ways that they were catholics (first by registration with the government) and they also get registered by the church they are baptized at.

You claims are just not accurate. Not about the internet skeptic or about atheism.

 

[Angel]

Nonsense. I already proved I am an atheist. Just like any catholic in the Netherlands can prove on several ways that they were catholics (first by registration with the government) and they also get registered by the church they are baptized at.

You claims are just not accurate. Not about the internet skeptic or about atheism.

The nonsense is yours. You've only proved that you are registered as an atheist. Anyone can register as an atheist. Registration does not prove anything except registration. Atheism, like theism, is a matter of heart and mind, a disposition, and while this can be testified to, testimony, according to Internet Skeptical standards, is not proof.

As an Internet Skeptic yourself, you should know this.

 

[Drowning Man]

.....

 

[Angel]

Can you prove you are not an alien marooned here after your spaceship crashed in area 51?

The comparable question would be: Can you prove you are an alien marooned here after your spaceship crashed in area 51?
And it makes my point.

 

[Peter King]

The nonsense is yours. You've only proved that you are registered as an atheist. Anyone can register as an atheist. Registration does not prove anything except registration. Atheism, like theism, is a matter of heart and mind, a disposition, and while this can be testified to, testimony, according to Internet Skeptical standards, is not proof.

As an Internet Skeptic yourself, you should know this.

1. not an internet skeptic, because you have no provided a definition for it so it is ludicrous to claim that I am one (which I am not)

2. I did prove I am an atheist, 3rd generation atheist, pure and simple.

3. you are not registered as an atheist, you are registered as an atheist at birth.

4. and your internet skeptical standards is nonsense.

 

[Angel]

1. not an internet skeptic, because you have no provided a definition for it so it is ludicrous to claim that I am one (which I am not)

How can you claim not to be that which you claim has not been defined sufficiently for you to know what it is?

2. I did prove I am an atheist, 3rd generation atheist, pure and simple.

You claimed as much only. No proof.

3. you are not registered as an atheist, you are registered as an atheist at birth.

Worse yet as proof.

4. and your internet skeptical standards is nonsense.

Tell that to yourself and your fellow Internet Skeptics.

 

[NWO_Spook]

You apparently figured it out, yes?

Of course I did.

How hard could it be?

You tell me, as you seem to be having trouble understanding simple concepts.

 

[Angel]

Of course I did.

So it couldn't be that hard, as I said in the deleted portion of the post you quote.

You tell me, as you seem to be having trouble understanding simple concepts.

Which "simple concepts" are you referring to?

 

[NWO_Spook]

So it couldn't be that hard, as I said in the deleted portion of the post you quote.

Infantile ad hominem noted.

Which "simple concepts" are you referring to?

Well, I could go on all day based upon all the interactions with you since I returned to this site, but I'll leave it at the false generalisation intended to be an attack on those who question your distorted reasoning.

 

[Angel]

Infantile ad hominem noted.

Is this an ad hominem in your book?

Well, I could go on all day based upon all the interactions with you since I returned to this site, but I'll leave it at the false generalisation intended to be an attack on those who question your distorted reasoning.

Safely vague and general and false. How about one specific example of a "simple concept" I have not understood.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Is this an ad hominem in your book?

Yes, as it obviously questions my intellectual capacity.

Safely vague and general and false. How about one specific example of a "simple concept" I have not understood.

Ok, how about the term 'burden of proof' for a start. Your abuse of the 'False generalisation' is also a valid example. For one who is supposedly interested in philosophy, your grasp of logic is somewhat 'rudimentary'.

 

[Angel]

Yes, as it obviously questions my intellectual capacity.

Oy! I was referring to your "infantile" remark, boss.

Ok, how about the term 'burden of proof' for a start. Your abuse of the 'False generalisation' is also a valid example. For one who is supposedly interested in philosophy, your grasp of logic is somewhat 'rudimentary'.

Another ad hominem in your book?
So what about "burden of proof" have I misunderstood, and where have I shown this misunderstanding?

 

[AProudLefty]

40 pages? The conclusion? Nobody exists.