Atheists Don't Exist

[devildavid]

I've already answered this question in plain English:

In philosophical language, one raises a semantic issue, the other an ontological issue.

Semantics is not epistemological category. Ontology is an an entirely different philosophical study and also is not a category of epistemology.

So your answer is incorrect.

 

[devildavid]

Since, I refused to help you prove your claim about the “rutabaga” a claim that you were incapable of proving.

I, now see a request being made for Angel to help prove your claim about the “rutabaga”. I also see, that you remain incapable of proving your claim.

Thanks for the enlightenment of your continuation to seek help from others to prove your claim.

Roseann

I made no claim about a rutabaga. I presented a rutabaga as evidence of physical reality. Your refusal to find your own rutabaga does not negate the evidence.

 

[devildavid]

It does not matter that not one skeptic ever said that or asked for proof from either one of us.

Since, not one of the skeptics were interested in that subject until Angel started this thread.

To follow our logic we could claim to be theists but we would be incapable of proving we are actually theists.

You would need to simply believe our claim to be theists is actually based on truth and we are not liars.

Roseann

Yes, it does matter, because it refutes your claim about skepticism. Skepticism acknowledges that people hold all manner of beliefs. Skepticism does not call believers liars. Skepticism looks at the contents of the belief.

 

[Angel]

Semantics is not epistemological category. Ontology is an an entirely different philosophical study and also is not a category of epistemology.

So your answer is incorrect.

The knowledge of philosophy contained in this post of yours is exactly zero. Good riddance, man.

 

[Angel]

I made no claim about a rutabaga. I presented a rutabaga as evidence of physical reality. Your refusal to find your own rutabaga does not negate the evidence.

You presented the word "rutabaga" in a virtual context as evidence of physical reality. That doesn't fly. Moreover, you failed, and still fail, to appreciate the point driven home by your failure to provide physical evidence for a physical reality in a virtual context. CharisRose had you, and still has you, dead to rights.

 

[devildavid]

You presented the word "rutabaga" in a virtual context as evidence of physical reality. That doesn't fly. Moreover, you failed, and still fail, to appreciate the point driven home by your failure to provide physical evidence for a physical reality in a virtual context. CharisRose had you, and still has you, dead to rights.

No, I presented a physical rutabaga as evidence, and instructed all concerned to not take my word for it, but to find their own physical rutabaga. It they refuse to do that, it does not discount the humble rutabaga as physical evidence.

 

[devildavid]

The knowledge of philosophy contained in this post of yours is exactly zero. Good riddance, man.

More ad hominem.

Anyone who can google can find out that I am correct and you are not. You are apparently just making things up as you go along. Ontology is not a category of epistemology. Nor is semantics.

 

[Angel]

No, I presented a physical rutabaga as evidence, and instructed all concerned to not take my word for it, but to find their own physical rutabaga. It they refuse to do that, it does not discount the humble rutabaga as physical evidence.

It is impossible to present a physical rutabaga in a virtual context. You did no such thing.

 

[Angel]

More ad hominem.

Anyone who can google can find out that I am correct and you are not. You are apparently just making things up as you go along. Ontology is not a category of epistemology. Nor is semantics.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple. Epistemology figures into ever philosophical subject.

 

[CharisRose]

I made no claim about a rutabaga. I presented a rutabaga as evidence of physical reality. Your refusal to find your own rutabaga does not negate the evidence.

Yes you did.

You presented the word “rutabaga” as evidence of it’s physical reality.

I asked you to provide a physical rutabaga. You provided a picture.

I asked, again that you provide a physical rutabaga.

Then, since you realized you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga.

You gave me instructions to go shopping and find a rutabaga.

I, then refused to help you prove your claim that the “word” rutabaga was evidence of it’s physical reality.

And, then I asked again for a physical rutabaga as evidence of it’s physical reality.

You were incapable and remain incapable of providing evidence of a physical rutabaga without my help.

I already explained to you in the physical world it is a very simple task to find, look at, touch... etc a physical rutabaga.

What, my refusal to find a physical rutabaga in the physical world did was to...

Negate your claim that your simple use of the word “rutabaga” was actually evidence of the physical reality of a physical rutabaga that can be found easily in the physical world you and I enjoy every day surrounded by a multitude of physical objects, human beings, a world abundant with all manner of physical things that we can see, touch, smell, taste... etc.

Roseann

 

[devildavid]

It is impossible to present a physical rutabaga in a virtual context. You did no such thing.

No, I brought up the humble rutabaga, and asked others to go find their own. I don't require anyone to take my word for it in a virtual context.

 

[devildavid]

You don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple. Epistemology figures into ever philosophical subject.

No, epistemology does not figure into every philosophical subject. That is incorrect.

 

[devildavid]

Yes you did.

You presented the word “rutabaga” as evidence of it’s physical reality.

I asked you to provide a physical rutabaga. You provided a picture.

I asked, again that you provide a physical rutabaga.

Then, since you realized you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga.

You gave me instructions to go shopping and find a rutabaga.

I, then refused to help you prove your claim that the “word” rutabaga was evidence of it’s physical reality.

And, then I asked again for a physical rutabaga as evidence of it’s physical reality.

You were incapable and remain incapable of providing evidence of a physical rutabaga without my help.

I already explained to you in the physical world it is a very simple task to find, look at, touch... etc a physical rutabaga.

What, my refusal to find a physical rutabaga in the physical world did was to...

Negate your claim that your simple use of the word “rutabaga” was actually evidence of the physical reality of a physical rutabaga that can be found easily in the physical world you and I enjoy every day surrounded by a multitude of physical objects, human beings, a world abundant with all manner of physical things that we can see, touch, smell, taste... etc.

Roseann

No, I brought up the humble rutabaga as a piece of physical evidence of physical reality. I never said that the word rutabaga was the evidence, which is why I requested of anyone interested in seeing the evidence to not take my word for it, but find their own rutabaga. I don't think that I am required to invade your privacy and find out who you are and where you live so that I can personally deliver a rutabaga. So no, I never claimed the word rutabaga was the evidence. Go find your rutabaga and become enlightened.

 

[CharisRose]

Yes, it does matter, because it refutes your claim about skepticism. Skepticism acknowledges that people hold all manner of beliefs. Skepticism does not call believers liars. Skepticism looks at the contents of the belief.

Prior to Angels thread and the idea he presented...it didn’t matter to the skeptics whether or not a person claimed to be a theist or even believers in gods.

The skeptics main interest seems to be about a belief in GOD. (not gods or theists)

Please, provide your refutation concerning my claim. TIA

I as a skeptic... am skeptical that claims of being an atheist can be proven based on the fact there is no physical evidence they could provide that can prove they are actually/factually atheists.

Can you provide any physical evidence you are factually/actually an atheist.

I never called anyone a liar.

I stated, that if Angel or I claimed to be theists a skeptic could be skeptical of our claim because we could not prove via any physical evidence claims to being theists.

The skeptic... prior to this thread had no interest in any “theist” claims... which could be labeled as a direct connection to a belief in GOD, that skeptics prefer to question.

imho Prior to this thread a skeptic questioning a claim of being a theist would be downright boring.

Angels “idea” is different than that boring kind of questioning.

It was interesting enough for me to return to this forum and add my :twocents: concerning the subject he presented to the skeptics as a challenge to their skeptic rules that apply to others but do not apply to them in their role as skeptics concerning “beliefs”.

The Skeptical GOD questioners are now balking at this challenge to their role as skeptics via a twist of reversal skeptical questioning being used by Angel or others concerning
a subject the skeptics have no interest in debating combined with the expectation that they should abide by their own rules when debating the subject matter presented on this thread.

Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

No, I brought up the humble rutabaga, and asked others to go find their own. I don't require anyone to take my word for it in a virtual context.

1. You made a claim about the “word” rutabaga.

2. After, I established you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context...

3. That is when you changed the rules that you did not require anyone to take your word for it in a virtual context.

4. Then you brought up the humble rutabaga with no connection to your original claim about the “word” rutabaga.

5. Then you followed up with your idea to enlist others to go find their own real life physical rutabaga to help you prove your claim.

6. You continued to change the rules you expected of others to follow to absolve yourself from the physical rules you expected others to follow simply because you would not admit you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

8. That is why you want to forget or ignore your first claim about the “word” and substitute it with the changes you made following your inability to provide a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

7. Just like you are still incapable of providing physical proof concerning your claim that you are an actually/factually an atheist.

Once again, you want us to just take your word for it that you are actually/factually a person who is an atheist.

Once again, you want to absolve yourself from the skeptics physical rule proof because once again you are incapable of providing physical proof not only here in this virtual context but also in the physical world.

What physical evidence can you send me to find in the physical world that can physically prove you are actually/factually an atheist?

Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

No, I brought up the humble rutabaga as a piece of physical evidence of physical reality. I never said that the word rutabaga was the evidence, which is why I requested of anyone interested in seeing the evidence to not take my word for it, but find their own rutabaga. I don't think that I am required to invade your privacy and find out who you are and where you live so that I can personally deliver a rutabaga. So no, I never claimed the word rutabaga was the evidence. Go find your rutabaga and become enlightened.

I told you before that I do not need your help via instruction or delivery to find a physical rutabaga in the physical world.

I also do not need your instructions or deliveries to become enlightened that physical objects exist in the physical world.

I figured that out all by myself when I was a mere child. Because...

Finding physical objects is child’s play in the physical world. We are surrounded by physical objects every day of our lives.

We can see, touch and examine a multitude of physical objects in the physical world.

Bottom line is... That I provided enlightenment when I helped you discover that you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

Roseann

 

[Angel]

No, I brought up the humble rutabaga, and asked others to go find their own. I don't require anyone to take my word for it in a virtual context.

The bad faith of Internet Skepticism illustrated in 29 mendacious words.

 

[Angel]

No, epistemology does not figure into every philosophical subject. That is incorrect.

The authoritative ignorance of this post is duly noted.

 

[devildavid]

I told you before that I do not need your help via instruction or delivery to find a physical rutabaga in the physical world.

I also do not need your instructions or deliveries to become enlightened that physical objects exist in the physical world.

I figured that out all by myself when I was a mere child. Because...

Finding physical objects is child’s play in the physical world. We are surrounded by physical objects every day of our lives.

We can see, touch and examine a multitude of physical objects in the physical world.

Bottom line is... That I provided enlightenment when I helped you discover that you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

Roseann

You provided nothing that was not obvious. I never claimed that I could provide a physical rutabaga in a virtual context. So go find your rutabaga, as I requested, rather than spreading falsehoods about what I posted here.

 

[devildavid]

The authoritative ignorance of this post is duly noted.

I am correct about epistemology.

 

[beancounter]

I think, therefore I am.

 

[devildavid]

The authoritative ignorance of this post is duly noted.

There you again with this authority hangup.

You are incorrect about epistemology.

 

[CharisRose]

You provided nothing that was not obvious. I never claimed that I could provide a physical rutabaga in a virtual context. So go find your rutabaga, as I requested, rather than spreading falsehoods about what I posted here.

I did provide something that was obvious to me that you would be incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

Something that was not obvious to you when you made your first claim.

The “something” I provided was enlightenment that you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

Once, you were enlightened you tried to absolve yourself from following the skeptics “physical “ evidence rule you expect others to follow.

You tried to use a picture of a rutabaga as if it was acceptable evidence of a physical rutabaga found in the physical world.

Of course you never claimed you could provide a physical rutabaga in a virtual context prior to the enlightenment I provided.

Sorry, not going to help. I’m holding you to the same standards you have set for others that you want to wiggle out of for yourself via changing the skeptics “physical” rule.

Please provide a physical rutabaga here in a virtual context.

P.S. Please provide instructions to send me on a quest in the physical world to help me find the physical evidence to help you prove you are actually/factually an atheist?

Roseann

 

[Peter King]

I as a skeptic... am skeptical that claims of being an atheist can be proven based on the fact there is no physical evidence they could provide that can prove they are actually/factually atheists.

Can you provide any physical evidence you are factually/actually an atheist.

I never called anyone a liar.

1. being skeptical of claims that atheists make is totally logical, nobody needs to take someone else's word for an atheist saying they can prove there are no gods, you cannot prove something that not exist, not gods and not other things.

2. physical evidence of atheism? No, that is just insane to even ask that. Being an atheist is not a physical thing, it is a mental thing/spiritual thing. Atheists are not born with an extra gene or a longer tail bone that one can "physically" prove.

3. if you claim that someone who is a life long atheist is not an atheist, that is a lie in my book.

I stated, that if Angel or I claimed to be theists a skeptic could be skeptical of our claim because we could not prove via any physical evidence claims to being theists.

The skeptic... prior to this thread had no interest in any “theist” claims... which could be labeled as a direct connection to a belief in GOD, that skeptics prefer to question.

The skeptic is skeptical about claims, not about the state of being atheist, just like the state of being christian/muslim/jew, etc. etc. etc. You are what you are, you can be skeptical about claims any atheist or theist makes.

And no, one cannot be skeptical about someone's belief in god. That is someone's own feeling/emotion/spirituality.

Being an atheist I am skeptical about claims any theist, EXCEPT of their faith. Claiming you are skeptical about someone even being a believer in god, well than you are not a skeptic, you are inconsiderate douche.

i

mho Prior to this thread a skeptic questioning a claim of being a theist would be downright boring.

Angels “idea” is different than that boring kind of questioning.

It was interesting enough for me to return to this forum and add my :twocents: concerning the subject he presented to the skeptics as a challenge to their skeptic rules that apply to others but do not apply to them in their role as skeptics concerning “beliefs”.

You mean Angel's dishonest claim of there not being any atheists? Yeah, because that is not interesting, that is being an a-hole towards people's not believing.

If you want to question/be skeptical of my comment that there is no god, fine, that is your right. That is the basis of skepticism, doubting someone's views, not someone's existence.

The Skeptical GOD questioners are now balking at this challenge to their role as skeptics via a twist of reversal skeptical questioning being used by Angel or others concerning
a subject the skeptics have no interest in debating combined with the expectation that they should abide by their own rules when debating the subject matter presented on this thread.

Roseann

That is nonsense, we do not deny someone their faith in their god, skeptics are skeptical when someone says they can PROVE their god is real or that everything in the bible is as good as a history book. Then I get skeptical. If someone says I believe in god and jesus as my savior, fine, how can I be skeptical about that. I am not an asswipe or a douche bag that denies someone their faith because I do not believe in gods.

Because that is not being skeptical, skeptical is when you doubt when people say something is factual, not whether they are what they say they are.

 

[TheEconomist]

I am correct about epistemology.

It depends on what you mean by epistemology.

As long as someone is making an assertion, you can ask how they know the assertion to be true. Some pyshcologists and philosophers do that systematically about topics such as morality, religion, politics, etc. In this context, we'd talk about someone's epistemology to mean the way someone justifies their position. That certainly is more or less always implicitly present in any discussion, philosophical discussions being obviously included.