Atheists Don't Exist

[roguenuke]

Irrelevancies. Prove that you are an atheist? You can't. This is the same kind of demand for an unprovable proof you and other Internet Skeptics demand of theists.

No it isnt. As has been pointed out to you, you are asked to prove your version or any version of god exists, not that you believe a version of god exists. There is a difference between those two requests.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Well, now that you googled it, you know that a fad is "an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze."
What you still apparently don't know is that New Atheism is "an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze."
What nobody seems to know or understand is that atheists really don't exist. What we have, really, is just a lot of people active on the internet, caught up in the silliness promoted by Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest of the Four Horse's-Asses of Atheism.

The second paragraph is merely your opinion, which is unsupported by any facts.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

In both cases the demand is for proof of the unprovable.

But you claimed to be able to prove god exists. So then how would they be the same?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Angel]

No it isnt. As has been pointed out to you, you are asked to prove your version or any version of god exists, not that you believe a version of god exists. There is a difference between those two requests.

There's no difference: both are impossible.

 

[Angel]

The second paragraph is merely your opinion, which is unsupported by any facts.

Some of the inexhaustible facts supporting my opinion are spread throughout this forum.

 

[Angel]

But you claimed to be able to prove god exists. So then how would they be the same?

Are you not familiar with the famous Broadway musical Man of La Mancha and its signature song "The Impossible Dream"?

 

[Lisa]

Some of the inexhaustible facts supporting my opinion are spread throughout this forum.

I've seen an inexhaustible number of unsupported and outright bizarre opinions from you but facts are as extinct as a pterodactyl in your replies. You have yet to embrace the concept that just because either you or your bible makes a claim it doesn't mean that it is a fact.

 

[Angel]

I've seen an inexhaustible number of unsupported and outright bizarre opinions from you but facts are as extinct as a pterodactyl in your replies. You have yet to embrace the concept that just because either you or your bible makes a claim it doesn't mean that it is a fact.

And you have yet to grasp the fact that Angel has not posted anything about the Bible in any of his threads, is not talking about the Bible in any of his posts, and is not posting or talking about religion. You are still on auto-pilot and do not respond to the content of any of my posts. I've corrected you on this score many times over, but you appear to be incorrigible. Please look to it.

 

[Lisa]

And you have yet to grasp the fact that Angel has not posted anything about the Bible in any of his threads, is not talking about the Bible in any of his posts, and is not posting or talking about religion. You are still on auto-pilot and do not respond to the content of any of my posts. I've corrected you on this score many times over, but you appear to be incorrigible. Please look to it.

How can you discuss god without the Bible, unless you are admitting that you are not Christian? Other religions don't refer to their deity as God, but that seems to escape you when you are desperate to deflect attention from your laughably failed arguments.

 

[stevecanuck]

How can you discuss god without the Bible, unless you are admitting that you are not Christian? Other religions don't refer to their deity as God, but that seems to escape you when you are desperate to deflect attention from your laughably failed arguments.

The Qur'an does. Hundreds of times.

 

[Angel]

How can you discuss god without the Bible, unless you are admitting that you are not Christian? Other religions don't refer to their deity as God, but that seems to escape you when you are desperate to deflect attention from your laughably failed arguments.

I've directed you to this post before, but to no avail apparently. Please read it thoughtfully. It explains clearly the "How" you ask for. If you have questions, I'll be glad to answer them if I can.

The God Question

The God Question involves two propositions that must be distinguished in any discourse that aspires to clarity:

Proposition One

That God is.

Proposition Two

What God is.


Proposition One goes to the question of the existence of God.
Proposition Two goes to the question of the nature of God.

In discourse on The God Question, the conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two should be avoided for the sake of clarity.
The conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two makes for incoherence in discourse.
Much of contemporary discourse on The God Question is incoherent.

This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.​

 

[NWO_Spook]

How can you discuss god without the Bible, unless you are admitting that you are not Christian? Other religions don't refer to their deity as God, but that seems to escape you when you are desperate to deflect attention from your laughably failed arguments.

As you are probably aware, apologists deliberately 'muddy the waters' in order to deflect from the burden of proof for as long as possible. Conspiracy theorists love to employ this tactic as well.

 

[Angel]

As you are probably aware, apologists deliberately 'muddy the waters' in order to deflect from the burden of proof for as long as possible. Conspiracy theorists love to employ this tactic as well.

"Whenever overmatched, avoid direct encounter."
—Darth Vader
​

 

[Lisa]

As you are probably aware, apologists deliberately 'muddy the waters' in order to deflect from the burden of proof for as long as possible. Conspiracy theorists love to employ this tactic as well.

Moving the goalposts and red herrings are among their favorite tactics.

 

[Lisa]

"Whenever overmatched, avoid direct encounter."
—Darth Vader
​

NWO or I am not avoiding anything. You don't have any evidence that is not based on faith or religious belief, but as expected you are trying to claim that others are doing the same thing as a way to rationalize your tactics. Logically, that is a TuToque fallacy. Psychologically it is both gaslighting and psychological projection.

Should I expain the difference between subjective and objective to you?

 

[NWO_Spook]

"Whenever overmatched, avoid direct encounter."
—Darth Vader

Oh look! More ****posting-how in character. Your false attribution assumes that I am 'overmatched' I take it? That is risible coming from he who does not understand logic and intelligent discourse. You can return to flinging poo about Dawkins, for that is the limit of your skills, and I will discuss the tactics of the illogical with whomever I like.

Now run along for the grown-ups are talking.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Moving the goalposts and red herrings are among their favorite tactics.

Indeed.

NWO or I am not avoiding anything.

It's just flame bait and I simply treat it with the contempt it deserves.

 

[Angel]

NWO or I am not avoiding anything. You don't have any evidence that is not based on faith or religious belief, but as expected you are trying to claim that others are doing the same thing as a way to rationalize your tactics. Logically, that is a TuToque fallacy. Psychologically it is both gaslighting and psychological projection.

Should I expain the difference between subjective and objective to you?

You're obviously avoiding reading the post I provided to answer your "How" quandary. If you don't want to discuss this matter with me, stop posting replies to me.

 

[Angel]

Oh look! More ****posting-how in character. Your false attribution assumes that I am 'overmatched' I take it? That is risible coming from he who does not understand logic and intelligent discourse. You can return to flinging poo about Dawkins, for that is the limit of your skills, and I will discuss the tactics of the illogical with whomever I like.

Now run along for the grown-ups are talking.

"You simply fling childish insults which only serve to make you look foolish."
—NWO_Spook
​

 

[Lisa]

I've directed you to this post before, but to no avail apparently. Please read it thoughtfully. It explains clearly the "How" you ask for. If you have questions, I'll be glad to answer them if I can.

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true. Your claim is an opinion based on faith and belief that has no empirical support.

The idea that you have a concept of god and you believe that concept to be empirically true doesn't mean that your supposed rubber defination of a God actually exists because if it did then the entire fiction section at the library would instantly be reshelved as non-fiction. Your entire claim is circular logic because you had done nothing but logically chase your tail and then complain that others won't play your silly game by embracing your fallacious thinking.

https://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/36828/circularlogic.jpg

 

[Angel]

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true. Your claim is an opinion based on faith and belief that has no empirical support.

The idea that you have a concept of god and you believe that concept to be empirically true doesn't mean that your supposed rubber defination of a God actually exists because if it did then the entire fiction section at the library would instantly be reshelved as non-fiction. Your entire claim is circular logic because you had done nothing but logically chase your tail and then complain that others won't play your silly game by embracing your fallacious thinking.

You refuse to read the post I provided. Fine. I have nothing more to say about your auto-pilot Internet Skepticism. Tell it to the marines/

 

[Lisa]

You're obviously avoiding reading the post I provided to answer your "How" quandary. If you don't want to discuss this matter with me, stop posting replies to me.

You have yet to empirically prove anything that doesn't rely on religious faith and fallacious claims. The fact that others don't embrace your faith and your religious beliefs is evidently beyond your comprehension.

Your arguments aren't even original apologetics, as NWO has previously explained.

 

[Lisa]

The Qur'an does. Hundreds of times.

The Islamic religion refers to their god as Allah in English. In the Arabic language, Allah means god.

 

[Angel]

You have yet to empirically prove anything that doesn't rely on religious faith and fallacious claims. The fact that others don't embrace your faith and your religious beliefs is evidently beyond your comprehension.

Your arguments aren't even original apologetics, as NWO has previously explained.

If you wish to discuss this matter with me, turn off the Internet Skeptical auto-pilot, read the post I provided for you, and engage it. Otherwise, cut the rebop.

 

[Lisa]

If you wish to discuss this matter with me, turn off the Internet Skeptical auto-pilot, read the post I provided for you, and engage it. Otherwise, cut the rebop.

I am a critical thinker educated in logic so I don't turn it off for anyone or anything, ever. I do not enjoy reading fiction for that reason.

You want me to stop being logical so I will embrace your sloppy fallacious religious thinking but it isn't going to happen because my brain doesn't work that way.