Atheists Don't Exist

[roughdraft274]

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.

I don't see how you can agree that not all personal testimony is the same and then trash "internet skeptics" (a silly term to use if you are looking for honest debate) for saying the exact same thing. Especially when religious personal experiences vary greatly, feature completely different experiences, religions, gods, moral codes etc.

You just completely ended your own thread as far as I can tell. :shrug:

 

[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:

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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'.

Aha, so no, you have no evidence to support your ridiculous assertion that most atheists secretly believe in god, they're just bitter and angry at their parents and your sky fairy. When you can't argue on substance, go for insults and a straight up refusal to accept they don't believe what you do.

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.

The Bible says non believers exist, so by creating this thread you're calling god a liar.

 

[Omega Man]

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

Non-sequitur.

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
.

You appear to be straying here. Whether or not I agree in the possibility of God (whatever it truly is) existing, I – unlike you – do not proclaim to know for certain what it is. So if I were to suggest that God (whatever it truly is) created everything, I still don’t know what God is – therefore I’ve explained nothing. Same as you. Therefore to conclusively corroborate that God (whatever it truly is) is the one responsible for all this, one must also consider the nature of God in doing so. Is God (whatever it truly is) intelligent, or meaningless? Natural, or supernatural? Involved, or neutral? A fatherly deity first known to ancient Near Easterners, or something nobody has ever truly known or identified?

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.

Humor me then with that answer again. I suspect that you will not, and that’s okay. Trust me, frustration is the last thing I’d ever feel with anonymous people on the internet. Lightly amused would be a more accurate assessment.


OM

 

[jamesrodom]

Hell, even 3.2 beer will generate that discussion.

OMG! West Virginia--where I now live--was famous for its 3.2 beer back in the day! Is it even still around?

 

[jamesrodom]

Welcome to DP.

Thanks. I'm relatively new to this forum, but I've got years of experience in others, and this kind of "discussion" is hardly unique to DP.

As a matter of fact, there was a Religion Forum in the old AOL/Compuserve days were conversations like this one were legion. Pages and pages would be devoted to "what the meaning of is, is" kinds of topics.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

No, you’re just playing with long words to try to make it sound like you’re saying something meaningful. The simple fact is that you’re either asserting the existence of a God with no defining characteristics or you’re asserting the existence of a God with some defining characteristics. The former would be literally meaningless and the latter would require logical explanation to justify.

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

I can’t see any consequence, positive or negative, for only believing in the existence of “some kind of god”. Consequences can only come from specifically defined beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs include some form of deity or not. You’ve yet to offer anything meaningful to explain why anyone should believe in the God you’re proposing.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

I can’t see any consequence, positive or negative, for only believing in the existence of “some kind of god”. Consequences can only come from specifically defined beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs include some form of deity or not. You’ve yet to offer anything meaningful to explain why anyone should believe in the God you’re proposing.

Just the belief in a God is probably not positive or negative, it is what the Religion orders you to do, and how well you follow it that creates Consequences.
Some gods are good, some are pure evil.

 

[Questerr]

Just the belief in a God is probably not positive or negative, it is what the Religion orders you to do, and how well you follow it that creates Consequences.
Some gods are good, some are pure evil.

Just the belief in a god without that god possessing any traits or qualities is also completely pointless.

 

[MrWonka]

Let's demand a proof of the existence of atheists.

Hi! /QED

 

[Angel]

That's as deep as a meniscus!

Shock-absorbing, to be sure.

 

[Angel]

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.

Because we've managed to have civil conversations in the past, I'll ask you to identify the "apples" and the "oranges" in the thesis of my thread.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's a "good reason" to you, as dismissable as the good reasons to believe that you militant skeptics dismiss out of hand (this point is in the OP btw).
And it doesn't matter how you account for atheism; can you prove that atheists exist?
Finally, I said that your post exhibits close-mindedness. Please read carefully before replying.

No, not out of hand but instead after giving a good reason to dismiss. Unlike you who simply does dismiss because you are closed minded to any possibility but a god.

Accounting for atheism is proof. Otherwise you really do need to define proof as anything other than your ability to just deny what anyone has said.

Do not try and be pedantic. I created that post so you can only be referring to me as closed minded. Which again i remind you is hypocritical of you who will only consider the existence of a god.

 

[Angel]

I don't see how you can agree that not all personal testimony is the same and then trash "internet skeptics" (a silly term to use if you are looking for honest debate) for saying the exact same thing. Especially when religious personal experiences vary greatly, feature completely different experiences, religions, gods, moral codes etc.

You just completely ended your own thread as far as I can tell. :shrug:

Okay, we'll take this point by point (because you've remained civil in our conversation):
1.

I don't see how you can agree that not all personal testimony is the same and then trash "internet skeptics"

Very simply because I distinguish between my (and your) open-minded professed treatment of personal testimony and the treatment accorded the personal testimony of theists by Internet skeptics.

2.

(a silly term to use if you are looking for honest debate)

I don't see anything "silly" about calling skeptics engaged in internet posting "Internet skeptics." but I would like to hear why you consider the term "silly."

3.

for saying the exact same thing.

Saying and doing are two different things, and in fact I don't see any professions of this kind from the DP skeptics -- do you?

4.

Especially when religious personal experiences vary greatly, feature completely different experiences, religions, gods, moral codes etc.

The variety of personal testimony is irrelevant in light of its blanket rejection.

5.

You just completely ended your own thread as far as I can tell.

How so? I don't see the abortion.

 

[soylentgreen]

Someone saying "I'm atheist" is personal testimony. Personal testimony is rejected and dismissed by Internet Atheist. This is covered in the OP. Are you a speed reader?
Moreover, I'm not talking about the Bible or any religion when I talk about the existence of God.

Personal testimony is not dismissed. You can say you believe in a god and no one can deny that. However you personally try to take it a step further and attempt to demonstrate evidence or a good reason for a god. An attempt that always fails because you in fact have nothing to offer but your personal, subjective opinion.

This thread is just a ridiculous attempt by you to demand that atheist follow you down the rabbit hole of absurd logic that you use to prove a god.

 

[Angel]

Non-sequitur.

You appear to be straying here. Whether or not I agree in the possibility of God (whatever it truly is) existing, I – unlike you – do not proclaim to know for certain what it is. So if I were to suggest that God (whatever it truly is) created everything, I still don’t know what God is – therefore I’ve explained nothing. Same as you. Therefore to conclusively corroborate that God (whatever it truly is) is the one responsible for all this, one must also consider the nature of God in doing so. Is God (whatever it truly is) intelligent, or meaningless? Natural, or supernatural? Involved, or neutral? A fatherly deity first known to ancient Near Easterners, or something nobody has ever truly known or identified?

Humor me then with that answer again. I suspect that you will not, and that’s okay. Trust me, frustration is the last thing I’d ever feel with anonymous people on the internet. Lightly amused would be a more accurate assessment.

God is the necessary and sufficient condition for the physical universe, life on earth, and consciousness.

This is an empirical inference to the best explanation of the mysterious phenomena mentioned in the definition. The definition is logical and ventures nothing about the nature of God -- like benevolence, omniscience, perfection, etc.

How so a non-sequitur? We were discussing whether of not God is an established answer or not.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Shock-absorbing, to be sure.

Definitely brownian motion involved.

 

[j brown's body]

My wife and I are atheists, but we argue about it. The God she doesn't believe in is a cruel God, the one I don't believe in is a loving God.

 

[Angel]

No, you’re just playing with long words to try to make it sound like you’re saying something meaningful. The simple fact is that you’re either asserting the existence of a God with no defining characteristics or you’re asserting the existence of a God with some defining characteristics. The former would be literally meaningless and the latter would require logical explanation to justify.

My words are no longer than yours. Giving the necessary and sufficient conditions for x is the business of science, philosophy, sociology, psychology, ans so on; it is something we do in everyday life everyday.

I can’t see any consequence, positive or negative, for only believing in the existence of “some kind of god”. Consequences can only come from specifically defined beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs include some form of deity or not. You’ve yet to offer anything meaningful to explain why anyone should believe in the God you’re proposing.

Then the consequences are the province of the thousand and one religions of the world.

 

[Angel]

Hi! /QED

That's proof of a genial anonymous poster at best.

 

[Angel]

No, not out of hand but instead after giving a good reason to dismiss. Unlike you who simply does dismiss because you are closed minded to any possibility but a god.

The typical Internet Skeptic gives no "good reason" for dismissal. Show me a good-faith claim I've summarily dismissed in my two years at DP and I'll forgive your disparaging remark.

Accounting for atheism is proof. Otherwise you really do need to define proof as anything other than your ability to just deny what anyone has said.

As my OP points out in parentheses, I am using the word "proof" in the loose way adopted by Internet skeptics. Accounting for an ism does not prove that any individual believes the ism.

Do not try and be pedantic. I created that post so you can only be referring to me as closed minded. Which again i remind you is hypocritical of you who will only consider the existence of a god.

I referred to the close0mindedness of the post. I don't know you from Adam.

 

[Angel]

Personal testimony is not dismissed. You can say you believe in a god and no one can deny that. However you personally try to take it a step further and attempt to demonstrate evidence or a good reason for a god. An attempt that always fails because you in fact have nothing to offer but your personal, subjective opinion.

This thread is just a ridiculous attempt by you to demand that atheist follow you down the rabbit hole of absurd logic that you use to prove a god.

The "evidence" is the personal testimony I'm speaking of, and it is dismissed by the Internet Skeptic.
If you hold logical and reasoned argument to be a "rabbit hole," then don't follow me down.

Here is a good example of the Internet Skeptic's dismissal:

An attempt that always fails because you in fact have nothing to offer but your personal, subjective opinion.

 

[Angel]

Definitely brownian motion involved.

Pedesis is a bitch!

 

[Omega Man]

God is the necessary and sufficient condition for the physical universe, life on earth, and consciousness.

This is an empirical inference to the best explanation of the mysterious phenomena mentioned in the definition. The definition is logical and ventures nothing about the nature of God -- like benevolence, omniscience, perfection, etc.

How so a non-sequitur? We were discussing whether of not God is an established answer or not.

So is this God you speak of intelligent, or meaningless? Natural, or supernatural? Involved, or neutral? A fatherly deity first known to ancient Near Easterners, or something nobody has ever truly known or identified?

What is God, to you?

ETA: Your answer refers to what you think God's functionality and purpose is, but doesn't expound upon what you think God itself truly is.


OM

 

[roughdraft274]

1.
Very simply because I distinguish between my (and your) open-minded professed treatment of personal testimony and the treatment accorded the personal testimony of theists by Internet skeptics.

You either have a logical argument or you don't. You're argument is either logical or illogical independent of if people are mean to you on the internet. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that this makes a difference. You've admitted that you don't think all personal testimony is the same. So you're only real complaint seems to be that you are just unhappy that "internet skeptics" don't buy your personal testimony and you don't like that. But at the end of the day, it's fine for them to disregard your personal testimony if they feel it doesn't warrant a belief in your claim. If you tell them you have a dog, they will likely believe you because nothing in your testimony goes against the real world facts that they encounter every day. They have seen dogs, they have owned dogs, they have friends who have dogs etc.. If you tell them you have a personal experience that lets you know that there is a god, they will say that your claim requires more evidence than mere personal testimony due to the fact that nothing you have claimed comports with the facts that they know and experience in reality. The exact same way that you would require more evidence from someone who provides you with personal testimony regarding god that contradicts your personal testimony regarding god.

This entire thread it seems, is just you wanting to play bad faith games with logic. You perfectly well understand that not all personal testimony claims are the same. You know full well that you have dismissed others personal testimonies because they didn't comport with your own. You are just upset that atheists don't give your personal testimony a pass. But you've presented no good reason for them to do so.

4.
The variety of personal testimony is irrelevant in light of its blanket rejection.

It's not irrelevant. The wide variety is exactly the reason that religious personal testimony with concrete claims should be largely rejected. If you are invited to a party and they give you the address, most people would consider it wise to accept that address and go to that location for the party for obvious reasons. If you are invited and the ten people organizing the party send you 10 addresses that are all different, then it wouldn't make sense to choose 1 and accept that one or to accept all 10 sense logically they can't all be right. The logical position is to question all of the addresses until you are able to get more evidence that there is an actual party and what the correct address is.