Internet Skepticism: Casting Call

[Angel]

Those members who've followed Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism in this forum know what Internet Skeptics don't know, namely, that Internet Skepticism is a misnomer. Far from being any sort of ordinary or philosophical skepticism, Internet Skepticism in point of fact turns out to be a kind of Anonymous Creepism, a bastardized hybrid of technology and human nature. If you are new to Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism, it is strongly recommended that you check out the following threads before proceeding any further in this thread:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/377599-atheists-dont-exist.html
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/380360-beliefs-and-skepticism.html

Top Ten Reasons To Deplore Internet Skepticism

Please Note
deplore = feel or express strong disapproval of (something).
​

10. Because Internet Skepticism lacks Intellectual Integrity.

9. Because Internet Skepticism does not take correction gracefully or else does not take correction at all.

8. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't know what it's talking about, yet nevertheless won't stop talking about what it doesn't know.

7. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't understand or misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents what its oppoents are talking about.

6. Because Internet Skepticism is unoriginal and chiefly relies on second-hand opinion with pretensions to authority.

5. Because Internet Skepticism does not listen and cannot learn, which is the very soul of stupidity.

4. Because Internet Skepticism is habitually coarse and vulgar, mocking and bullying, with a marked propensity to rely on emojis to these ends.

3. Because Internet Skepticism is malicious in intent and as a result given to the personal derogation of those who dare to oppose it.

2. Because Internet Skepticism routinely posts in bad faith, ignoring refutation and correction and persistently repeating points previously dispatched by opponents.


And the number one reason to deplore Internet Skepticism:


1. Because Internet Skepticism is the militant arm of Internet Atheism in mufti.

Comments?
Testimonials?
Confessions?

Watch this.

An appeal to Internet Skeptics
Please do not quote the entire Original Post on the first page.​

​

 

[OrphanSlug]

This is perhaps the worst attempt at an in advance victory lap by using your OP as a means to demean and disparage everyone who disagrees with you. Ironically, the worst display of religious principles in these forums in recent memory.

There have been people who have tried to engage in the discussion without resorting to anything in your list, no matter if you are unwilling to admit that.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Another one of your pathetic threads where you will refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said.

This really isn't that complicated. The person making a positive claim about something has the burden to prove it. If I tell you there's invisible punk unicorns on Saturn, it would be on me to prove it, not on you for not believing me. What you demand is that the other person proves there is no invisible pink unicorns on Saturn then declare "checkmate unicorn skeptics!" when they can't.

You're making the claim of god's existence, therefore it is on you to prove it. Until then, I don't believe you, in the exact same way you don't believe in unicorns on Saturn. Maybe there are, but until it's proven I'm going to dismiss it.

 

[Moonglow]

1. Because Internet Skepticism is the militant arm of Internet Atheism in mufti.

 

[JustHanging]

Those members who've followed Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism in this forum know what Internet Skeptics don't know, namely, that Internet Skepticism is a misnomer. Far from being any sort of ordinary or philosophical skepticism, Internet Skepticism in point of fact turns out to be a kind of Anonymous Creepism, a bastardized hybrid of technology and human nature. If you are new to Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism, it is strongly recommended that you check out the following threads before proceeding any further in this thread:

Atheists Don't Exist
Beliefs and Skepticism

Top Ten Reasons To Deplore Internet Skepticism

Please Note
deplore = feel or express strong disapproval of (something).
​

10. Because Internet Skepticism lacks Intellectual Integrity.

9. Because Internet Skepticism does not take correction gracefully or else does not take correction at all.

8. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't know what it's talking about, yet nevertheless won't stop talking about what it doesn't know.

7. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't understand or misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents what its oppoents are talking about.

6. Because Internet Skepticism is unoriginal and chiefly relies on second-hand opinion with pretensions to authority.

5. Because Internet Skepticism does not listen and cannot learn, which is the very soul of stupidity.

4. Because Internet Skepticism is habitually coarse and vulgar, mocking and bullying, with a marked propensity to rely on emojis to these ends.

3. Because Internet Skepticism is malicious in intent and as a result given to the personal derogation of those who dare to oppose it.

2. Because Internet Skepticism routinely posts in bad faith, ignoring refutation and correction and persistently repeating points previously dispatched by opponents.


And the number one reason to deplore Internet Skepticism:


1. Because Internet Skepticism is the militant arm of Internet Atheism in mufti.

Comments?
Testimonials?
Confessions?

Watch this.

An appeal to Internet Skeptics
Please do not quote the entire Original Post on the first page.​

​

 

[Angel]

^^^^
Did I or did I not say "Watch this"?
It took only four posts for an Internet Skeptic to ignore or not read the appeal for a simple courtesy:

Watch this.

An appeal to Internet Skeptics
Please do not quote the entire Original Post on the first page..​

Am I right or am I right about Internet Skepticism!

 

[Angel]

This is perhaps the worst attempt at an in advance victory lap by using your OP as a means to demean and disparage everyone who disagrees with you. Ironically, the worst display of religious principles in these forums in recent memory.

There have been people who have tried to engage in the discussion without resorting to anything in your list, no matter if you are unwilling to admit that.

Here's #7 right on cue.

 

[Angel]

Another one of your pathetic threads where you will refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said.

This really isn't that complicated. The person making a positive claim about something has the burden to prove it. If I tell you there's invisible punk unicorns on Saturn, it would be on me to prove it, not on you for not believing me. What you demand is that the other person proves there is no invisible pink unicorns on Saturn then declare "checkmate unicorn skeptics!" when they can't.

You're making the claim of god's existence, therefore it is on you to prove it. Until then, I don't believe you, in the exact same way you don't believe in unicorns on Saturn. Maybe there are, but until it's proven I'm going to dismiss it.

I'll debate you anytime and anywhere, sport. Just debate in good faith, yes?
Would you like to debate the intellectual integrity of Internet Skepticism?
By the way, the burden of proof lies with anyone who makes a claim that is challenged. So I challenge you claim that I "refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said."
So let's hear your argument.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I'll debate you anytime and anywhere, sport. Just debate in good faith, yes?
Would you like to debate the intellectual integrity of Internet Skepticism?
By the way, the burden of proof lies with anyone who makes a claim that is challenged. So I challenge you claim that I "refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said."
So let's hear your argument.

No you won't. You'll go literally hundreds of pages in this thread without actually addressing anything anybody says.

I challenge your claim that god exists, therefore it is on you to prove your claim, it is not on me. You dishonestly try to pretend that for me to not believe in your claim that I must disprove it. That's not how it works. Being an atheist is simply lacking the belief in any god, it requires no positive statements, no doctrine, and no dogma. If and when somebody presents me with evidence that god does exist, I'll change my position, until then, I'll continue not believing in god just like you and I both don't believe in unicorns on Saturn.

You go out of your way to attack and insult anyone who has the audacity to *gasp* not believe the claim you make but can't prove. This thread is evidence of that. You've classified everyone that doesn't believe your claim into one big group you can throw stones at. By your own definition you're an "internet skeptic" that doesn't believe in space unicorns.

 

[Angel]

I'll debate you anytime and anywhere, sport. Just debate in good faith, yes?
Would you like to debate the intellectual integrity of Internet Skepticism?
By the way, the burden of proof lies with anyone who makes a claim that is challenged. So I challenge you claim that I "refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said."
So let's hear your argument.

No you won't. You'll go literally hundreds of pages in this thread without actually addressing anything anybody says.

I challenge your claim that god exists, therefore it is on you to prove your claim, it is not on me. You dishonestly try to pretend that for me to not believe in your claim that I must disprove it. That's not how it works. Being an atheist is simply lacking the belief in any god, it requires no positive statements, no doctrine, and no dogma. If and when somebody presents me with evidence that god does exist, I'll change my position, until then, I'll continue not believing in god just like you and I both don't believe in unicorns on Saturn.

You go out of your way to attack and insult anyone who has the audacity to *gasp* not believe the claim you make but can't prove. This thread is evidence of that. You've classified everyone that doesn't believe your claim into one big group you can throw stones at. By your own definition you're an "internet skeptic" that doesn't believe in space unicorns.

So in this post you fail to meet your burden of proof for your claim that I ""refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said."
And in this post you ignore the challenge to debate the intellectual integrity of Internet Skepticism.

Your two posts to this thread have illustrated several of the charges in the OP Top Ten List.

You want to discuss God? Fine. There are three or four active threads of mine devoted to the existence of God where we might more properly do so. Do you need the links?

 

[Angel]

[See quote and meme above at #5]

Thanks, man. My cup runneth over.

 

[stevecanuck]

Those members who've followed Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism in this forum know what Internet Skeptics don't know, namely, that Internet Skepticism is a misnomer. Far from being any sort of ordinary or philosophical skepticism, Internet Skepticism in point of fact turns out to be a kind of Anonymous Creepism, a bastardized hybrid of technology and human nature. If you are new to Angel's deconstruction of Internet Skepticism, it is strongly recommended that you check out the following threads before proceeding any further in this thread:

Atheists Don't Exist
Beliefs and Skepticism

Top Ten Reasons To Deplore Internet Skepticism

Please Note
deplore = feel or express strong disapproval of (something).
​

10. Because Internet Skepticism lacks Intellectual Integrity.

9. Because Internet Skepticism does not take correction gracefully or else does not take correction at all.

8. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't know what it's talking about, yet nevertheless won't stop talking about what it doesn't know.

7. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't understand or misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents what its oppoents are talking about.

6. Because Internet Skepticism is unoriginal and chiefly relies on second-hand opinion with pretensions to authority.

5. Because Internet Skepticism does not listen and cannot learn, which is the very soul of stupidity.

4. Because Internet Skepticism is habitually coarse and vulgar, mocking and bullying, with a marked propensity to rely on emojis to these ends.

3. Because Internet Skepticism is malicious in intent and as a result given to the personal derogation of those who dare to oppose it.

2. Because Internet Skepticism routinely posts in bad faith, ignoring refutation and correction and persistently repeating points previously dispatched by opponents.


And the number one reason to deplore Internet Skepticism:


1. Because Internet Skepticism is the militant arm of Internet Atheism in mufti.

Comments?
Testimonials?
Confessions?

Watch this.

An appeal to Internet Skeptics
Please do not quote the entire Original Post on the first page.​

​

Prove internet skepticism exists.

 

[JustHanging]

Thanks, man. My cup runneth over.

That's gotta suck. Try getting a bigger man-bra.

 

[Moonglow]

So in this post you fail to meet your burden of proof for your claim that I ""refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said."
And in this post you ignore the challenge to debate the intellectual integrity of Internet Skepticism.

Your two posts to this thread have illustrated several of the charges in the OP Top Ten List.

You want to discuss God? Fine. There are three or four active threads of mine devoted to the existence of God where we might more properly do so. Do you need the links?

But, I thought God was omnipresent...

 

[Moonglow]

I want to know if you notified Rondo Hatton to use his likeness for your advertisement?

 

[Angel]

Prove internet skepticism exists.

Easy Peasy.

Another one of your pathetic threads where you will refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said.

This really isn't that complicated. The person making a positive claim about something has the burden to prove it. If I tell you there's invisible punk unicorns on Saturn, it would be on me to prove it, not on you for not believing me. What you demand is that the other person proves there is no invisible pink unicorns on Saturn then declare "checkmate unicorn skeptics!" when they can't.

You're making the claim of god's existence, therefore it is on you to prove it. Until then, I don't believe you, in the exact same way you don't believe in unicorns on Saturn. Maybe there are, but until it's proven I'm going to dismiss it.

No you won't. You'll go literally hundreds of pages in this thread without actually addressing anything anybody says.

I challenge your claim that god exists, therefore it is on you to prove your claim, it is not on me. You dishonestly try to pretend that for me to not believe in your claim that I must disprove it. That's not how it works. Being an atheist is simply lacking the belief in any god, it requires no positive statements, no doctrine, and no dogma. If and when somebody presents me with evidence that god does exist, I'll change my position, until then, I'll continue not believing in god just like you and I both don't believe in unicorns on Saturn.

You go out of your way to attack and insult anyone who has the audacity to *gasp* not believe the claim you make but can't prove. This thread is evidence of that. You've classified everyone that doesn't believe your claim into one big group you can throw stones at. By your own definition you're an "internet skeptic" that doesn't believe in space unicorns.

QED

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Easy Peasy.



QED

Notice how everyone tells you that you refuse to address anybody's points and refuse to engage in debate then here you are proving us all right. Another lazy thread fail.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Notice how everyone tells you that you refuse to address anybody's points and refuse to engage in debate then here you are proving us all right. Another lazy thread fail.

This is the OP's typical approach, using the least religious method imaginable to defend religions.

Perhaps the most eloquent evidence to date that we should be ignoring the principles religion brings to the table of discussion about... well, everything.

 

[JustHanging]

This is the OP's typical approach, using the least religious method imaginable to defend religions.

Perhaps the most eloquent evidence to date that we should be ignoring the principles religion brings to the table of discussion about... well, everything.

The very best leader Evangelical Christianity can produce is someone who scams money from children with cancer, and steals from charity. Should we be surprised by the actions of lesser Evangelicals who look up to the behavior?

 

[Angel]

This is the OP's typical approach, using the least religious method imaginable to defend religions.

Perhaps the most eloquent evidence to date that we should be ignoring the principles religion brings to the table of discussion about... well, everything.

You're in bad company, man. They don't know what you're saying in that initial insight and being Internet Skeptics just seize on the phrase "we should be ignoring the principles religion brings to the table."

That initial insight is very good indeed. The phrase commonly used here is "thought-provoking." It made me think anyway. And I dare say I think you're on to something there.
Again, this "something" will be lost on your Internet Skeptic fans, but I just wanted you to know it wasn't lost on me, ostensibly your opponent in this matter.

The conclusion you draw from this insight -- the conclusion your Internet Skeptic fans will seize on -- is another matter, however. In short, I don't see that it follows from your initial insight. Perhaps it will please you to enlighten me on this inference, yes? How does an oblique non-religious defense of religion invalidate religious principles?

 

[Angel]

Notice how everyone tells you that you refuse to address anybody's points and refuse to engage in debate then here you are proving us all right. Another lazy thread fail.

#7. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't understand or misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents what its opponents are talking about.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

#7. Because Internet Skepticism usually doesn't understand or misunderstands or deliberately misrepresents what its opponents are talking about.

Not believing something you claim but can't prove isn't some kind of sickness, you know. It's perfectly rational for me to not believe your fantastical claims until there is evidence to support them.

 

[Angel]

The very best leader Evangelical Christianity can produce is someone who scams money from children with cancer, and steals from charity. Should we be surprised by the actions of lesser Evangelicals who look up to the behavior?

#10. Because Internet Skepticism lacks Intellectual Integrity.

 

[Jake]

#10. Because Internet Skepticism lacks Intellectual Integrity.

I have seen your threads before and they are nothing but attempts to troll and say horrible things about forum members. What is lacking in your life that you feel the need to do such a thing?

 

[Angel]

Not believing something you claim but can't prove isn't some kind of sickness, you know. It's perfectly rational for me to not believe your fantastical claims until there is evidence to support them.

Did you not see the following reply to you?

I'll debate you anytime and anywhere, sport. Just debate in good faith, yes?
Would you like to debate the intellectual integrity of Internet Skepticism?
By the way, the burden of proof lies with anyone who makes a claim that is challenged. So I challenge you claim that I "refuse to debate anyone and will just declare checkmate repeatedly while providing no coherent responses to anything said."
So let's hear your argument.

Or did you ignore it?
If you wish to discuss God with me, we can do it in one of these threads:
God is Real
Proof of God