Atheists Don't Exist

[CharisRose]

I don't want it or need it. It's just that ever since I was a child I have been asking the religious for proof of their far-fetched claims. I find their answers amusing.

Thanks for the answer. Enjoy your amusement.

Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

What double standard are you talking about? Sounds like a strawman. And how do non internet skeptics differ in their treatment of atheists and theists? Skepticism reacts quite differently to beliefs than it does to lack of beliefs.

I get the double standard he speaks of based on my first experience here on the Beliefs and Skepticism section of the forum.

Roseann

 

[devildavid]

I get the double standard he speaks of based on my first experience here on the Beliefs and Skepticism section of the forum.

Roseann

So has anyone said that you don't believe what you say you believe?

 

[Peter King]

I have many Dutch friends. I don't know if any of them are religious, religion is never discussed and seems to play no part in daily life.

I think it plays a part in their life, but not so much openly but privately.

 

[Peter King]

Because God is good He must judge sin fairly. Sinners who have harmed others with their sins must obtain forgiveness from God for those sins if God is to be able to forgive them without being unfair.

gods do not exist, the god of the bible is a monster in the old testament. His supposed son might be a bit more even keeled but the old testament god is an evil killer of millions.

And as god does not exist, sinners need to make peace with themselves and pay the price or make reparations/do good deeds to offset their bad deeds. But for the rest no action is needed.

 

[marke]

gods do not exist, the god of the bible is a monster in the old testament. His supposed son might be a bit more even keeled but the old testament god is an evil killer of millions.

And as god does not exist, sinners need to make peace with themselves and pay the price or make reparations/do good deeds to offset their bad deeds. But for the rest no action is needed.

The God critic stands on his hind legs with his glittering sword in his pipsqueak hands cursing God for being such a monster. What stupid 'bravery' in someone itching for a fight he is going to lose very badly.

 

[Peter King]

The God critic stands on his hind legs with his glittering sword in his pipsqueak hands cursing God for being such a monster. What stupid 'bravery' in someone itching for a fight he is going to lose very badly.

No, gods do not exist.

 

[zyzygy]

I think it plays a part in their life, but not so much openly but privately.

And that's the way it should be.

 

[zyzygy]

Is this god being good when he gives children cancer?

 

[Peter King]

And that's the way it should be.

To me and many Dutch it is the same way with our flag showing tradition. It is done only when it means something to us. National holidays, Royal family birthdays, memorial day (half mast) and liberation day (full mast). Youths also hang out their flag together with their books and usually their schoolbag too.

And with sports of course. But normally you will not see people showing their flag on a daily basis.

 

[Angel]

Even sound evidence for such an entity would be nice. No one has fulfilled the burden of proof in providing sound evidence for a God, and all arguments pro deo are fallacious or downright specious.

There's "sound evidence" all around you and in you, pilgrim. Open your eyes.

 

[CharisRose]

So has anyone said that you don't believe what you say you believe?

Based on the question you wrote above... I think, you have missed the point of this thread.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea stated in your question.

Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

The concept of your supposed God does not mean that God exists. We can discuss the concepts of anything without in any way saying or claiming that it exists. A concept only means that we can define what a god is, it doesn't in any way means that it exists. We can also define what a medieval dragon is, what Godzilla would be or what a UFO is. Once again just because we have a concept of god doesn't mean that any sentient supernatural creator deity exists.

You are desperate to hold on to your claim of a god and it shows in your increasingly militant arguments.

What is the difference between a New Atheist an old athiest because the world atheist (a-theist/non-belief) hasn't changed its meaning. Is "New Atheist" a strawman like your definition of an "internet skeptic" that only you know the meaning of?

a-theist

a- prefix meaning “not, without,” from Greek a-, an- “not” (the “alpha privative”) from PIE root ne- “not” (source also of English un-).

theist - 1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

Possible atheist meanings...

1.“not god”

2. “without god”

3. “not believing in a personal god”

4. “without a personal god“

Roseann

 

[Lisa]

There's "sound evidence" all around you and in you, pilgrim. Open your eyes.

Where is this empirical evidence of a sentient creator that you claim is all around us?

 

[Lisa]

a-theist

a- prefix meaning “not, without,” from Greek a-, an- “not” (the “alpha privative”) from PIE root ne- “not” (source also of English un-).

theist - 1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent God but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

Possible atheist meanings...

1.“not god”

2. “without god”

3. “not believing in a personal god”

4. “without a personal god“

Roseann

Is this your way of sowing confusion and trying to muddy the waters of others beliefs and their stance of being an atheist? I have been very clear that I am an atheist because as of now there is no empiricuial evidence of a sentient supernatural creator. Your beliefs do not create evidence.

 

[devildavid]

There's "sound evidence" all around you and in you, pilgrim. Open your eyes.

There is no evidence of anything that does not exist.

 

[devildavid]

Based on the question you wrote above... I think, you have missed the point of this thread.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea stated in your question.

Roseann

No, the point of this thread is pointless. It stems from a purposeful misrepresentation of what skeptics ask for proof of. Skeptics do not ask for proof of anyone saying they believe in god. They only ask for proof that any god exists. So if a believer claims to have experienced a god and their claim is only backed by personal testimony, a skeptic will question this. But a skeptic does not question that the believer exists. So if someone says they are an atheist, this is not the equivalent of personal testimony involved in claiming to have experienced god. But the OP treats it as the equivalent of personal testimony, creating a caricature of what skepticism is and what skeptics actually treat with skepticism.

 

[CharisRose]

Is this your way of sowing confusion and trying to muddy the waters of others beliefs and their stance of being an atheist? I have been very clear that I am an atheist because as of now there is no empiricuial evidence of a sentient supernatural creator. Your beliefs do not create evidence.

No that was not my intention. That statement is an assumption of my intention. An assumption made without any empirical evidence to back it up.

I was simply providing information concerning possible meanings of the word atheist based on the Greek words and their meanings for the word atheist.

I have no problem with you saying you are an atheist.

The point of this thread is that you can’t provide empirical evidence via you simply saying... “I am an atheist”.

Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

No, the point of this thread is pointless. It stems from a purposeful misrepresentation of what skeptics ask for proof of. Skeptics do not ask for proof of anyone saying they believe in god. They only ask for proof that any god exists. So if a believer claims to have experienced a god and their claim is only backed by personal testimony, a skeptic will question this. But a skeptic does not question that the believer exists. So if someone says they are an atheist, this is not the equivalent of personal testimony involved in claiming to have experienced god. But the OP treats it as the equivalent of personal testimony, creating a caricature of what skepticism is and what skeptics actually treat with skepticism.

In your opinion.

I understand the point being made on this thread.

I experienced the point being made the last time we had a rather long discussion about a rutabaga.

Roseann

 

[Lisa]

No that was not my intention. That statement is an assumption of my intention. An assumption made without any empirical evidence to back it up.

I was simply providing information concerning possible meanings of the word atheist based on the Greek words and their meanings for the word atheist.

I have no problem with you saying you are an atheist.

The point of this thread is that you can’t provide empirical evidence via you simply saying... “I am an atheist”.

Roseann

I am not making the claim that a god exists and then not offering up a shred of evidence to support that claim. I am merely observing that your claim is wholly unsupported and making my lack of god on that very claim.

The idea that Angel thinks that the philosophical school of skepticism somehow means that atheists don't exist but somehow god does is hilariously ironic because the core idea of skepticism is the questioning of claims and even our own existence. You cannot be a skeptic and believe in god.

Skepticism or scepticism is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief or dogma. It is often directed at domains, such as the supernatural, morality, theism, or knowledge.

 

[devildavid]

In your opinion.

I understand the point being made on this thread.

I experienced the point being made the last time we had a rather long discussion about a rutabaga.

Roseann

Not my opinion, but a description of what this thread is all about. It misrepresents what personal testimony is. Saying you believe or do not believe in god is not the same thing as personal testimony.

You did the same form of misrepresentation of my providing the evidence of physical reality in the rutabaga. I asked you to go find a rutabaga, but you insisted that a rutabaga was only represented by my words, which was not a claim I ever made. I suggest you and Angel take my advice and find your own rutabaga. Do not take my word for it, find your own.

 

[CharisRose]

I am not making the claim that a god exists and then not offering up a shred of evidence to support that claim. I am merely observing that your claim is wholly unsupported and making my lack of god on that very claim.

The idea that Angel thinks that the philosophical school of skepticism somehow means that atheists don't exist but somehow god does is hilariously ironic because the core idea of skepticism is the questioning of claims and even our own existence. You cannot be a skeptic and believe in god.

Empirical Evidence: A Definition | Live Science

Angel’s idea is that empirical evidence does not exist and can not be used as proof that any atheists factually exist.

Just saying you are an atheist is not empirical evidence that you are factually an atheist.

Please provide the empirical evidence that all who claim to be atheists factually exist.

Angel never claimed to use empirical evidence concerning the existence of God.

There is a double standard of the skeptic that requires empirical evidence for the existence of God...

And, when it is asked of the skeptic to use that empirical evidence standard to prove the existence of an atheist.

The answer is I am an atheist and that is all I need to use to prove to you that I actually exist as an atheist.

Angel is asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you have set for him.

imho Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

Not my opinion, but a description of what this thread is all about. It misrepresents what personal testimony is. Saying you believe or do not believe in god is not the same thing as personal testimony.

You did the same form of misrepresentation of my providing the evidence of physical reality in the rutabaga. I asked you to go find a rutabaga, but you insisted that a rutabaga was only represented by my words, which was not a claim I ever made. I suggest you and Angel take my advice and find your own rutabaga. Do not take my word for it, find your own.

Sorry not a misrepresentation made by me since I did not make the claim about the one rutabaga, you did.

Here we go again... asking me and now adding Angel to help you prove your claim via a standard you require of us as proof. A standard you refused to apply to yourself.

Roseann

 

[devildavid]

Sorry not a misrepresentation made by me since I did not make the claim about the one rutabaga, you did.

Here we go again... asking me and now adding Angel to help you prove your claim via a standard you require of us as proof. A standard you refused to apply to yourself.

Roseann

No, I made no claim about a rutabaga. I presented a rutabaga as evidence. But since we are online, it requires you to find your own rutabaga, and not use my words as evidence. My presenting of evidence is not a claim of a proof, but a presentation of one shred of evidence of physical reality.

 

[devildavid]

Empirical Evidence: A Definition | Live Science

Angel’s idea is that empirical evidence does not exist and can not be used as proof that any atheists factually exist.

Just saying you are an atheist is not empirical evidence that you are factually an atheist.

Please provide the empirical evidence that all who claim to be atheists factually exist.

Angel never claimed to use empirical evidence concerning the existence of God.

There is a double standard of the skeptic that requires empirical evidence for the existence of God...

And, when it is asked of the skeptic to use that empirical evidence standard to prove the existence of an atheist.

The answer is I am an atheist and that is all I need to use to prove to you that I actually exist as an atheist.

Angel is asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you have set for him.

imho Roseann

Angel had claimed to use empirical abduction concerning the existence of god. How is that any different from using empirical evidence? It isn't.

No skeptic asked for empirical evidence that you believe in a god. Skeptics know that such people exist. So demanding empirical evidence that atheists exist is an entirely different matter than asking for empirical evidence of god. No skeptic is asking for empirical evidence that you or Angel exist.