• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists Don't Exist

Angel said:
What are "these things," OrphanSlug? Surely you refer to something more than "threads" with this phrase, yes?
And then would you kindly point out the "word games and shifting definitions" on which the OP argument is based?
And just for the sake of completeness would you please tell us what my "argument" is?
Much obliged.
Click to expand...

The nature of this argument (across several threads in this area of the forums now) boils down to misuse of the terms “proof” and “existence,” therefor it is asinine to suggest atheists do not exist as if theists have exclusive rights to those terms.

An atheist demanding proof is just as argumentative and useless as theists asking for counter proof.

The main reason is something we have covered time and time again, systems of process (science) are adversarial to systems of belief (religion) and that means that neither side will accept much from the other.

This is made infinitely worse by either side claiming use of the system deployed by the other. Theists will never be able to use systems of process to prove anything, atheists cannot use systems of belief to make their case either.

So all of these recent threads are nothing more than ridiculous word games, each side taking a hollow victory lap as if something new was discovered in this debate.
 
Arjay81 said:
You are claiming that they don't, even after they tell you constantly that they do. You prove your spurious allegation, which you can't do.
Click to expand...
No, I'm claiming the Internet Skeptics can't prove they exist in the loose use of "prove" they themselves have polluted the internet with. And I'm challenging Internet skeptics to prove what can't be proved, just as they themselves challenge theists to prove what can't be proved. I've turned the tables on you, sport.
 
weaver2 said:
Urban Dictionary:
skeptic
A pseudo-critical thinker and intellectual wannabe. Generally exhibits the following markings:

1. a tendency to completely misunderstand intellectual concepts such as burden shifting in a debate;

2. holding out as an authority on subjects about which he or she has no training or expertise;

3. an inability to respond to any argument or evidence beyond bleeting tired cliches memorized from JREF web forums, "Amazing Meetings" or from such intellecutal "giants" as Richard Dawkins, James Randi, and their ilk;

4. a slavish devotion to science, despite not having seriously, or even not at all, pursued an education or career in a given discipline;

5. a killjoy with a supernatural ability to suck the fun and life out of any gathering of people simply by entering the room.
Click to expand...
Yup. That's our boy.
 
Angel said:
No, I'm claiming the Internet Skeptics can't prove they exist in the loose use of "prove" they themselves have polluted the internet with. And I'm challenging Internet skeptics to prove what can't be proved, just as they themselves challenge theists to prove what can't be proved. I've turned the tables on you, sport.
Click to expand...

No, you never mentioned the internet until you were challenged on your false statement. You cannot prove your statement so once again you go off on a tangent. Typical of you and those like you who continue to spew falsehoods and insist that they are true, especially when credibly contested with actual proof.

The only tables that you have turned is a 360 degree turn to pint it back at yourself. Sport.
 
Angel said:
Yup. That's our boy.
Click to expand...

You do realize that he is perfectly describing you with his post and once again you cannot dispute it. Hence the resorting to your usual nonsense.
 
Angel said:
Are you sticking your tongue out at me? Oh my!
Click to expand...

Once again making a false statement and claiming it to be true.

If you weren't so heinous I would be tempted to feel sorry for you, but you continue to make that impossible with your level of nonsensical posts.
 
Angel said:
God is Real
Click to expand...

So have "god" show up at my home, after all "God" know everything right so have "God" show up at my home, see easy, "God" can easily prove that "God" exists. Heck Give me "God's" address and I'll show up.
 
Angel said:
Don't call me a liar, pal. Show me where I posted what you claim I said.
And don't call me a hypocrite because you don't know who you're talking to. Show me a post where I summarily dismiss atheism.
Where is opinion mistaken for evidence? Produce the post.
Click to expand...

Post 227# Your words.

Angel said:
The unreasonable demand for proof of personal testimony is dismissal in itself.
Click to expand...

I will call you a hypocrite so long as you display that ability to be one.

As well i reject your claim that my post and i are closed minded. That is nothing more than another deceit by a theist to demand that their god be taken as real when you offer not one good reason for considering a god nor any evidence for one. There is no reason for me to consider this god to be anything other than a work of fiction. You are not asking for me to keep an open mind you are demanding that my mind be so open that my brain falls out.

You have nothing to offer for me to be open minded about . except your personal testimony which is nothing more than subjective opinion and not evidence.
 
soylentgreen said:
Do not lie to me. You said that your personal testimony was your evidence....
Click to expand...
Angel said:
Don't call me a liar, pal. Show me where I posted what you claim I said....
Click to expand...
soylentgreen said:
Post 227# Your words....
Click to expand...
Well, here is Post #227:

Post #227
Angel said:
My loose use of the word "proof" is borrowed from the Internet Skeptic, from you in other words. The rest of your post merely makes my case.
If you claim to be an atheist, prove it. This is Internet Skeptic talk.
The unreasonable demand for proof of personal testimony is dismissal in itself.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in that post do I claim "that your [i.e. my] personal testimony was your [i.e., my] evidence."

Your post is an outright calumny, sir.

The rest of your justificatory post is of a piece. Your posts represent the worst sort of Internet Skeptic bad faith. You misrepresent your interlocutor and then you call your interlocutor a liar. You're not interested in discussion; you're interested in disparaging the Generic Theist. This is another strategy of the Internet Skeptic.
Please post your brand of discursive pollution elsewhere.
Peace out.
 
rwee2000 said:
So have "god" show up at my home, after all "God" know everything right so have "God" show up at my home, see easy, "God" can easily prove that "God" exists. Heck Give me "God's" address and I'll show up.
Click to expand...
God
c/o Conscious Life LLC
The Milky Way, the Universe 0000
 
Well these circular arguments sure are entertaining.

For me it just doesn't matter either way. I guess this sort of describes my feelings about the issue.

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/;[citation needed] a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of god(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.[1][2]

An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist. The existence of god(s) is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant.[3]
 
Angel said:
The Internet is introduced in the OP, the Original Post, post #1. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Introduced? Not proven as anyone can post any stupid thing on it and you claim it to be true. You really are pathetic and a total bigot on this subject, unwilling to even discuss it un less you feel that someone made the mistake of taking you seriously. Read the replies and see that most do not do that and consider you a joke.
 
Last edited:
rickc said:
Well these circular arguments sure are entertaining.

For me it just doesn't matter either way. I guess this sort of describes my feelings about the issue.

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/;[citation needed] a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of god(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.[1][2]

An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist. The existence of god(s) is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant.[3]
Click to expand...
Apathy is a blessing.
Peace.
 
A Guide For The Perplexed

The OP Thesis:

Internet Skepticism:atheism::Internet Skepticusm:theism​
 
Angel said:
Well, here is Post #227:

Post #227


Nowhere in that post do I claim "that your [i.e. my] personal testimony was your [i.e., my] evidence."

Your post is an outright calumny, sir.

The rest of your justificatory post is of a piece. Your posts represent the worst sort of Internet Skeptic bad faith. You misrepresent your interlocutor and then you call your interlocutor a liar. You're not interested in discussion; you're interested in disparaging the Generic Theist. This is another strategy of the Internet Skeptic.
Please post your brand of discursive pollution elsewhere.
Peace out.
Click to expand...

You are desperately trying to lie your way out of this. You have claimed that personal testimony is evidence. ie.
Angel said:
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:
Click to expand...

You are claiming that your evidence is personal testimony.

Absolutely disgusting that you are trying to lie your way out of this.

I have misrepresented nothing. yours is in fact the dishonest attempt to start every argument from the position of there is a god while never giving any reason for a god or evidence of one. Your god is considered to be nothing more than fiction until you demonstrate otherwise and there is no reason to keep an open mind over your closed mind insistence that your imagination be treated as if it were real.
 
soylentgreen said:
You are desperately trying to lie your way out of this. You have claimed that personal testimony is evidence. ie.


You are claiming that your evidence is personal testimony.

Absolutely disgusting that you are trying to lie your way out of this.

I have misrepresented nothing. yours is in fact the dishonest attempt to start every argument from the position of there is a god while never giving any reason for a god or evidence of one. Your god is considered to be nothing more than fiction until you demonstrate otherwise and there is no reason to keep an open mind over your closed mind insistence that your imagination be treated as if it were real.
Click to expand...
No. I'm talking throughout about the Internet Skeptic's treatment of Theists who proffer personal testimony; I'm not talking about myself. You continue to misrepresent my view in order to disparage me personally. This is bad faith posting. Look to it.
 
Angel said:
No. I'm talking throughout about the Internet Skeptic's treatment of Theists who proffer personal testimony; I'm not talking about myself. You continue to misrepresent my view in order to disparage me personally. This is bad faith posting. Look to it.
Click to expand...

You are always referring to yourself, while disparaging any who dare to disagree with you.

The onl personal testimony that you have proven is that you refuse to consider anything that others offer with the same proof you offer. Bigoted as always.
 
Angel said:
No. I'm talking throughout about the Internet Skeptic's treatment of Theists who proffer personal testimony; I'm not talking about myself. You continue to misrepresent my view in order to disparage me personally. This is bad faith posting. Look to it.
Click to expand...

Do not continue this false narrative it only makes you look foolish. Your excuse for not giving evidence is that it is your personal testimony. Otherwise demonstrate your evidence that is in fact empirical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom