Atheists Don't Exist

[VanceMack]

Nah man totally, most atheists are secretly theists just like you, they just hate the big mean man so much. :lamo Whatever makes you feel less ridiculous.

Read through some of the hate filled bigoted bull**** that the 'atheists' on this site post on a regular basis...you'll see what I mean...but you wont acknowledge the facts.

 

[AProudLefty]

:lamo

Talk about insecure. You see me make the distinction, but still assume I'm talking about you.

To be fair, you were talking about those atheists who were hurt in their lives.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Read through some of the hate filled bigoted bull**** that the 'atheists' on this site post on a regular basis...you'll see what I mean...but you wont acknowledge the facts.

Maybe you could show me some where a reasonable person reading between the lines will realize he's actually just a hurt theist reaching out and yearning for Jesus. A few examples will do.

 

[Angel]

You equate "Internet skeptics" with atheists, in a generalized attack. When you make a OP like that no one takes you serious and no one really engages in debate. You do not want honest debate you want to provoke those that you hate: atheists.


Your argument is not honest it is extremist and crap. You are like I said here to troll atheists. You never actually debate with anyone just throw out insults, and act all ****ing superior. (and before you freak out with accusations of emotions; adults use cuss words to make a point, not as an indication of emotional turmoil, the only emotion that I have right now is humor related).

I don't see any "argument" identified here in your post. I see a bit of vitriol and a bit more frustration. Like the man said, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Angel]

I can prove I am an atheist, simple, I am one. Ergo a factual statement....

Sorry, Peter. I'm afraid This doesn't hack it. I don't think you understand the thread. The rest of your post went off topic into religion.

 

[Angel]

Ok so I saw god ****ing Jesus up the ass while Mary was giving head to a goat. Good you don’t reject that out of hand.

Reject what? People say the stupid things all the time. I don't pat 'em any rat-ass mind.

 

[Angel]

Those are claims about the nature of God though. Maybe you need to rethink what it is you're actually talking about in this thread because it keeps changing. Are you looking to discuss atheists, a generically undefined God or a specific God?

You've not established what's wrong with that. You've also not addressed the "so what" element. Whether the God you've defined here exists or not doesn't make the blindest bit of difference to us. You'd have to make further claims about the nature of God before it even becomes something worth our consideration.

No, those are logical designations.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I don't see any "argument" identified here in your post. I see a bit of vitriol and a bit more frustration. Like the man said, you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course you dont, since my argument is that your argument is nothing but trolling atheists. No "frustration" and knock of the lording bs "you dont know what you are talking about" fail. It did not work for you, in fact your entire game is not working for you. You should go back to playing golf.

 

[Angel]

Of course you dont, since my argument is that your argument is nothing but trolling atheists. No "frustration" and knock of the lording bs "you dont know what you are talking about" fail. It did not work for you, in fact your entire game is not working for you. You should go back to playing golf.

I don't play golf. And I don't waste my time conversing with the likes of you. Peace out.

 

[Angel]

Unfortunately, in a discussion that involves everybody, “their satisfaction” isn’t satisfactory to a question trying to determine what “God” is in a discussion questioning the very basis of existence.

Religion, religious belief, developed long before the Internet and the Internet forum.

Not at all. If you attempt to explain the very basis of our existence by crediting God, you have just therefore only incompletely suggested the existence of God, but haven’t even explained what God is (its nature) to satisfy that claim.

You seem to be agreeing with me here. Thus your "not at all" makes little sense. Or else your "not at all" makes the only sense in the post.

You didn’t whatsoever; rather you diverted from answering with a non-answer.

That’s cool though, I see how it is then. You just want to custom-frame arguments to disallow the prospect of having them rebutted. It’s an old tactic, but a very comfortable one for those who resort to it.

I answered you. I gave you my definition of God. I'm sorry if it frustrates your forum schtick, but it is what it is.

 

[HonestJoe]

No, those are logical designations.

They're claims about the nature of God that you believe are logical. We've already agreed that you can't prove God exists (or doesn't exist) though so clearly your logic isn't unconditional.

You've also still not addressed the arguably more significant questions about the practical consequences of believing in your generically defined God or what you're actually expecting people to do differently.

 

[Angel]

No, I don't think so.

A theist knows God exists so He exist. Whether God really exists or does not exist doesn't matter. What matters is only what a theist believe exists, because it then does exist for the theist. So even if God doesn't exist there are theists.

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of God. It is a rejection of the belief that any God or Gods exist....from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"(from Wikipedia)

An atheist knows God does not exist. If He doesn't exist there is nothing there for an atheist to reject. One cannot reject (or not believe in) something that doesn't exist. Therefore there is no such thing as an atheist. Even if God does really exist the atheists doesn't believe He does so there is still nothing to reject so there can't be an atheist.

So ......... theists always exist and atheists never exist. I think this informs how we view the world.

Whether God exists or not in reality and in fact does not affect the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist except to make one or the other belief true and one or the other belief false but unverifiable in either case.

 

[Angel]

They're claims about the nature of God that you believe are logical. We've already agreed that you can't prove God exists (or doesn't exist) though so clearly your logic isn't unconditional.

You've also still not addressed the arguably more significant questions about the practical consequences of believing in your generically defined God or what you're actually expecting people to do differently.

No, the claim that something is a necessary and sufficient condition can be made about a million and one things in the world. A wet street has a necessary and a sufficient condition.

The pragmatic benefit of any belief will, I should imagine, vary from believer to believer. Don't you think?

 

[VanceMack]

Maybe you could show me some where a reasonable person reading between the lines will realize he's actually just a hurt theist reaching out and yearning for Jesus. A few examples will do.

You need only read this thread. But no...I cant 'show' you anything. For that to happen, you must be willing to or able to 'see'.

 

[Angel]

No, no, no. At no point in time did I say "I accepted god in my life" is equivalent to "I got a new pet dragon". If you want to get technical, that's what you claimed when you said "My quick answer is that in principle all personal testimony is of equal discursive weight, and logically equivalent." You are saying they are the same. Not I. I'm only making the point that not all personal testimony is the same. And I purposefully left off any god claims in my examples so that we could tackle whether they are all the same before we even delve in to a religious claim. So I took a very common claim (dog) and compared to a ludicrous claim (dragon) just to show that the assertion that they are all equivalent is nonsense.

I am saying that the Internet Skeptic is saying what I am saying, but only when it comes to personal testimony about God.
My thread turns the skepticism of the Internet Skeptic on the atheist in order to reduce to absurdity the treatment of personal testimony about God on the part of the Internet Skeptic.
Personally I agree with you that not all personal testimony is the same. In principle, however, all personal testimony is the same.

 

[Peter King]

Sorry, Peter. I'm afraid This doesn't hack it. I don't think you understand the thread. The rest of your post went off topic into religion.

No, it went into examples how some things can be viewed through a skeptical mindset and some things cannot, like the fact that someone is an atheist/muslim/jew/christian/etc.

 

[Manc Skipper]

You need only read this thread. But no...I cant 'show' you anything. For that to happen, you must be willing to or able to 'see'.

I can't be conned unless I'm totally credulous? Figures.

 

[Peter King]

I am saying that the Internet Skeptic is saying what I am saying, but only when it comes to personal testimony about God.
My thread turns the skepticism of the Internet Skeptic on the atheist in order to reduce to absurdity the treatment of personal testimony about God on the part of the Internet Skeptic.
Personally I agree with you that not all personal testimony is the same. In principle, however, all personal testimony is the same.

Not all personal testimony is the same. You saying your are a christian, well that statement as a rule is impossble to be skeptically dissected. If you claim your personal belief in god means that you say that it is a fact that people in the past lived to 900 years, well then color me skeptical. When you claim all people are direct descendants from Adam and Eve, well color me skeptical. If you claim the earth is 6 thousand or so years old and dinosaurs went extinct less that 6000 years ago, well then color me skeptical. If you claim god killed all the first born in Egypt, well than color me skeptical, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

If people use the bible not as a book of wise lessons but an actual history book, well color me skeptical because I do not believe that.

 

[Angel]

I can't be conned unless I'm totally credulous? Figures.

The deeper question is what motivates the credulity. All cons, long and short, depend for their success on some human failing like greed, lust, etc.

 

[Angel]

Not all personal testimony is the same. You saying your are a christian, well that statement as a rule is impossble to be skeptically dissected. If you claim your personal belief in god means that you say that it is a fact that people in the past lived to 900 years, well then color me skeptical. When you claim all people are direct descendants from Adam and Eve, well color me skeptical. If you claim the earth is 6 thousand or so years old and dinosaurs went extinct less that 6000 years ago, well then color me skeptical. If you claim god killed all the first born in Egypt, well than color me skeptical, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

If people use the bible not as a book of wise lessons but an actual history book, well color me skeptical because I do not believe that.

In principle all personal testimony is the same. Please stop talking about religion with me. I'm not interested in re;igion, and if I were, I wouldn't be interested in an atheist's view of religion, that is, if atheists actually existed.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The deeper question is what motivates the credulity. All cons, long and short, depend for their success on some human failing like greed, lust, etc.

That's as deep as a meniscus!

 

[Peter King]

In principle all personal testimony is the same. Please stop talking about religion with me. I'm not interested in re;igion, and if I were, I wouldn't be interested in an atheist's view of religion, that is, if atheists actually existed.

You cannot talk about skepticism about atheism as you do without comparing to the skepticism you keep harping on about, and that criticism is about religion. You are trying compare apples to oranges and then complaining when I explain how your apple to oranges comparison runs foul of fact/reality.

 

[JustHanging]

That's as deep as a meniscus!

And utter nonsense.

You could con someone who wanted to help others. Get them to give you money to donate to children with cancer, and then keep the money yourself. Like Trump did.

 

[JustHanging]

The deeper question is what motivates the credulity. All cons, long and short, depend for their success on some human failing like greed, lust, etc.

What utter nonsense. See post #173 for an example of a con that doesn't depend on some human failing.

 

[bluesmoke]

That's an image from Robert Bresson's film Au Hasard Balthazar (1966). And I'm male, as the little symbol below my avatar indicates.

Now that's funny. Bresson, the "Christian atheist". The irony.

Many actors ask "How many lines" do I have in a picture? With Bresson, it's "How many words?"