Atheists Don't Exist

[Tanngrisnir]

Personal testimony does not rise to Internet Skeptical criteria of proof.
The standards of Internet Skepticism are found everywhere a demand for proof of God's existence is made.

Fun to see you compelled to such rank dishonesty, using a stalking horse of your own creation to pigenhole a movement that doesn't exist.

98 pages and yet you still cannot back up the asinine claim in your OP.

 

[Lisa]

You yourself are an Internet Skeptic.
Registering as an atheist is not "proof" that anyone is in fact an atheist.

How, in your illiogical beliefs, does one prove that they are an atheist?

 

[weaver2]

I don't substantially disagree with these sentiments. The thesis of this thread does not challenge atheists or skeptics to "prove" that God does not exist; no, the OP challenges them to prove that atheists exist.

Won't it be difficult for an person responding to this thread to prove h/she doesn't exist if the computer they are typing on can be proven to exist?

 

[Angel]

You still do not understand that it is not the job of atheists or skeptics to prove that God does exist. The onus on proving that their God does exist because believers are claiming that something positively exists despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence, so they must prove their claim to be true. This logical burden has been explained to you by myself and others more than 4 times and yet you still deny this fact. Your delusional religious beliefs do not permit you to rewrite basic concepts of logic. Do unicorns, leprechauns and UFOs exist because I cannot positively prove that they do not? That claim is the equivalent of the statement that you are making and it is as absurd as trying to divide by zero.

Your religious beliefs, your faith, and your experience that cannot be supported or replicated by others do not create empirical evidence of any sentient religious creator-deity.

But it is the job of a member who replies to a post to understand the post she's replying to. Please read my post again. You've missed the point.

 

[Angel]

Fun to see you compelled to such rank dishonesty, using a stalking horse of your own creation to pigenhole a movement that doesn't exist.

98 pages and yet you still cannot back up the asinine claim in your OP.

If the pigeonhole fits..., as the saying goes.

 

[Lisa]

But it is the job of a member who replies to a post to understand the post she's replying to. Please read my post again. You've missed the point.

You don't get to rewrite the rules of logic. Your claims are illogical and your ideas are absurd so I don't need to dance to your tune in my reply.

 

[Angel]

How, in your illiogical beliefs, does one prove that they are an atheist?

No one can.

 

[Angel]

Won't it be difficult for an person responding to this thread to prove h/she doesn't exist if the computer they are typing on can be proven to exist?

The person responding to this thread is not asked to prove that he/she exists; h/she is challenged to prove that h/she is an atheist.

 

[Lisa]

No one can.

Do Do you have any idea what circular logic is?

So you have created a illogical situation where you cannot prove that atheists exist so you are claiming that they do not because you have made it impossible for atheists to exist. The fact that you are intellectually dishonest is very obvious.

 

[Lisa]

No one can.

Do Do you have any idea what circular logic is?

So you have created a illogical situation where you cannot prove that atheists exist so you are claiming that they do not because you have made it impossible for atheists to exist. The fact that you are intellectually dishonest is very obvious.

 

[Angel]

You don't get to rewrite the rules of logic. Your claims are illogical and your ideas are absurd so I don't need to dance to your tune in my reply.

Here you resort to generalized Internet Skeptical dismissal and derogation, talking points. Re-read the OP and grasp the point of the thread and we can continue.

 

[Lisa]

The person responding to this thread is not asked to prove that he/she exists; h/she is challenged to prove that h/she is an atheist.

You are a liar because you have created a situation where they cannot prove that they are an atheist by rigging the rules on your favor and then you are trying to deny what you have done.

 

[Angel]

Do Do you have any idea what circular logic is?

So you have created a illogical situation where you cannot prove that atheists exist so you are claiming that they do not because you have made it impossible for atheists to exist. The fact that you are intellectually dishonest is very obvious.

Stifle the personal derogation and we can continue. There's no circular logic in the OP -- it's a reductio ad absurdum of Internet Skepticism.

 

[Lisa]

Here you resort to generalized Internet Skeptical dismissal and derogation, talking points. Re-read the OP and grasp the point of the thread and we can continue.

You previously admitted that I am a skeptic, so why would I do otherwise?

 

[Angel]

You are a liar because you have created a situation where they cannot prove that they are an atheist by rigging the rules on your favor and then you are trying to deny what you have done.

Suppress the personal derogation, get back on topic, or we're done.

 

[Angel]

You previously admitted that I am a skeptic, so why would I do otherwise?

Touche. Now back to the topic.

 

[Lisa]

Suppress the personal derogation, get back on topic, or we're done.

I do not have to discuss your illogical ideas by your delusional apologetic standards. You want everyone to reject reality and claim that your absurd claims are logical because you are trying to turn logic on its head and then claim that your illogical claims are empirical proof of a non-existent god. If you had actually empirical evidence you would not need to resort to such absurd and intellectually dishonest rules to discuss it while you are also denying that you are doing it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

If the pigeonhole fits..., as the saying goes.

I completely understand that you can't face the fact your OP made claims you can't substantiate and was rife with false premises.

 

[Mach]

No one can.

Then you can prove that "no one can". And yes, I take that as you wrote it, as an absolute.
Let's see it, burden of proof is on you.

I thought you knew that "proof" is used in mathematics, or systems we define. With regards to reality (which we didn't define, we observe and try to describe), we rely on science...evidence/observation, how it fits with the rest of the truths of reality (science, predictive verification, etc.).

You can, like any scientist, evaluate something in reality...does Mach identify as an atheist..i.e. is Mach an atheist.
Yes Angel, I'm an atheist.
Having stated as such many times, having argued as such...the conclusion seems clear, yes, I am an atheist. <- that's the same standard of differentiating true from false, that we use to run most of our entire lives. There is no "better" than that.

The only "internet skeptic" position presented here is yours. That we cannot know, if someone is an atheist. At root you're just employing absolute skepticism "we can't really know!". Which ends up a contradictory position, and is ignored.

Core of skepticism:
I cannot know!
(You know, that you cannot know, is a contradiction).

 

[Angel]

I do not have to discuss your illogical ideas by your delusional apologetic standards. You want everyone to reject reality and claim that your absurd claims are logical because you are trying to turn logic on its head and then claim that your illogical claims are empirical proof of a non-existent god. If you had actually empirical evidence you would not need to resort to such absurd and intellectually dishonest rules to discuss it while you are also denying that you are doing it.

Toodle-loo, Lisa. Get back to me when you're ready to engage in discussion.

 

[Lisa]

Toodle-loo, Lisa. Get back to me when you're ready to engage in discussion.

I am not ready to play in your alternative reality because your claims can only survive in a world ruled by false premises as Tanngrisnor stated previously. Your ideas make the poem Jaberworsky seem rational and Harery Potter read like a study of human anthropology.

 

[Angel]

Then you can prove that "no one can". And yes, I take that as you wrote it, as an absolute.
Let's see it, burden of proof is on you.

I thought you knew that "proof" is used in mathematics, or systems we define. With regards to reality (which we didn't define, we observe and try to describe), we rely on science...evidence/observation, how it fits with the rest of the truths of reality (science, predictive verification, etc.).

You can, like any scientist, evaluate something in reality...does Mach identify as an atheist..i.e. is Mach an atheist.
Yes Angel, I'm an atheist.
Having stated as such many times, having argued as such...the conclusion seems clear, yes, I am an atheist. <- that's the same standard of differentiating true from false, that we use to run most of our entire lives. There is no "better" than that.

The only "internet skeptic" position presented here is yours. That we cannot know, if someone is an atheist. At root you're just employing absolute skepticism "we can't really know!". Which ends up a contradictory position, and is ignored.

Core of skepticism:
I cannot know!
(You know, that you cannot know, is a contradiction).

Prove a negative? You Internet Skeptics are always quick to point out that that can't be done. Then you go into the routine about burden of proof. I see that routine in your post, but you conveniently forget your disclaimer about proving a negative. Curious.

If you were to read the OP of this thread, you'd perhaps understand that this thread is a reductio ad absurdum of the Internet Sleptical demand of theists for "proof" of God's existence. The point of the thread is a send-up of that demand for an impossible proof.

I do know that properly used the word "proof" belongs to closed systems like math and formal logic -- and even there, I believe, an unprovable assumption is necessary. I adopt the Internet Skeptic's loose use of the term "proof" to highlight its misuse.

Atheism is a private personal affair of the heart and mind and can no more be "proved" than can the existence of God.

Yes, I've heard of science. But science is no part of my brief here. Mach's personal testimony that he is an atheist gets the same short shrift here that theist's claims to personal experience of God get from Internet Skeptics.

Russell offered a solution to the paradox you rely on in your post, but there's no need to drag in abstruse points of philosophy. I'll rely on the fair play doctrine: when you prove there is no God, I'll prove there are no atheists.

 

[Lisa]

Prove a negative? You Internet Skeptics are always quick to point out that that can't be done. Then you go into thetence of God.
routine about burden of proof. I see that routine in your post, but you conveniently forget your disclaimer about proving a negative. Curious.


Russell offered a solution to the paradox you rely on in your post, but there's no need to drag in abstruse points of philosophy. I'll rely on the fair play doctrine: when you prove there is no God, I'll prove there are no atheists.

1.) Bertrand Russell was a skeptic and an atheist.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

'Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?' by Bertrand Russell

2.) You are trying to claim that Russell's celestial teapot analogy supported the idea of god existing but it did not.

3.) There is empirical proof that atheists exist but you want to turn reality on its head and think that you can deny it. Your entire premise is a delusional and absurd false premise. You are either a blatant liar or you are delusional.

 

[Mach]

Prove a negative? You Internet Skeptics are always quick to point out that that can't be done. Then you go into the routine about burden of proof. I see that routine in your post, but you conveniently forget your disclaimer about proving a negative. Curious.

I accept that you can't provide the "proof" to back your claim. So much for debate.
AS to your "prove a negative", there you go again, proof. But putting that aside, the "negative" isn't relevant. It would suffice to me if the "atheist" in question, simply went with a pro-theist position like "I believe gods are fictional and don't exist". I mean, either way you don't, won't, and cannot, provide such "proof", so yes, I suppose facing a no-win scenario of your own making, bowing out is appropriate.

If you were to read the OP of this thread, you'd perhaps understand that this thread is a reductio ad absurdum of the Internet Sleptical demand of theists for "proof" of God's existence. The point of the thread is a send-up of that demand for an impossible proof.

I responded to your post, not to the OP. If you can't back your claims, withdraw them and don't make them again.

I do know that properly used the word "proof" belongs to closed systems like math and formal logic -- and even there, I believe, an unprovable assumption is necessary. I adopt the Internet Skeptic's loose use of the term "proof" to highlight its misuse.

There is a difference between an unprovable assumption, and a self-evidently true axiom. But then, were you not setting that up as "both theists and non-theists ultimately guess" sort of thing? Be honest for a change Angel, this deception is beneath someone of your awareness. Use your tools for good, not claiming faith is reaosn.

Atheism is a private personal affair of the heart and mind and can no more be "proved" than can the existence of God.

And once again, you'll have to show me the "proof" of the above claim. Or rather, show how it is you "know it to be true". Burden of proof, once again, rests with you.
Will you appeal this one back to the OP?

Mach's personal testimony that he is an atheist gets the same short shrift here that theist's claims to personal experience of God get from Internet Skeptics.

That's absurd, the two aren't related, your mistake.
I've never seen anyone doubt that a theist who claims they believe in god based on experiences in reality, believes what they believe.
No Angel, the doubt we have, is that this "real feeling", is somehow, magically, evidence of the existence of the object [god, ghosts, vampires, whatever].

Russell offered a solution to the paradox you rely on in your post, but there's no need to drag in abstruse points of philosophy. I'll rely on the fair play doctrine: when you prove there is no God, I'll prove there are no atheists.

So you reject the burden of proof. So much for fair.
But you do get credit for not trying to appeal to more obscure and arguably irrelevant academically arrogant tangents...even though it was you who brought it up(!). After all, if we're so smart, we can surely use common language to describe what we know.

I remember why I don't debate this stuff. You haven't really adhered to any reasonable debate etiquette on the major points yet.

 

[Peter King]

More frustration and misunderstanding. Prove that atheists exist. Claiming to be an atheist and being an atheist are different and distinct epistemological categories.

Incorrect and obstinately nonsense peddling to the end I see. Sorry, but you are illogical and wrong.