• 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

devildavid said:
There you again with this authority hangup.

You are incorrect about epistemology.
Click to expand...
No, you are at sea about philosophy, but insist on posting as if you were an authority -- more Internet Skeptical bad faith.
 
CharisRose said:
I did provide something that was obvious to me that you would be incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

Something that was not obvious to you when you made your first claim.

The “something” I provided was enlightenment that you were incapable of providing a physical rutabaga in a virtual context.

Once, you were enlightened you tried to absolve yourself from following the skeptics “physical “ evidence rule you expect others to follow.

You tried to use a picture of a rutabaga as if it was acceptable evidence of a physical rutabaga found in the physical world.

Of course you never claimed you could provide a physical rutabaga in a virtual context prior to the enlightenment I provided.

Sorry, not going to help. I’m holding you to the same standards you have set for others that you want to wiggle out of for yourself via changing the skeptics “physical” rule.

Please provide a physical rutabaga here in a virtual context.

P.S. Please provide instructions to send me on a quest in the physical world to help me find the physical evidence to help you prove you are actually/factually an atheist?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

Still misrepresenting what I actually posted. Go find your rutabaga.
 
Angel said:
No, you are at sea about philosophy, but insist on posting as if you were an authority -- more Internet Skeptical bad faith.
Click to expand...

Semantics and ontology are not categories of epistemology.
 
devildavid said:
Semantics and ontology are not categories of epistemology.
Click to expand...
Another member set you straight on this, if you refuse to take correction from me.
Quit the contrary posting.
Read:
TheEconomist said:
It depends on what you mean by epistemology.

As long as someone is making an assertion, you can ask how they know the assertion to be true. Some pyshcologists and philosophers do that systematically about topics such as morality, religion, politics, etc. In this context, we'd talk about someone's epistemology to mean the way someone justifies their position. That certainly is more or less always implicitly present in any discussion, philosophical discussions being obviously included.
Click to expand...
 
Peter King said:
1. being skeptical of claims that atheists make is totally logical, nobody needs to take someone else's word for an atheist saying they can prove there are no gods, you cannot prove something that not exist, not gods and not other things.

2. physical evidence of atheism? No, that is just insane to even ask that. Being an atheist is not a physical thing, it is a mental thing/spiritual thing. Atheists are not born with an extra gene or a longer tail bone that one can "physically" prove.

3. if you claim that someone who is a life long atheist is not an atheist, that is a lie in my book.



The skeptic is skeptical about claims, not about the state of being atheist, just like the state of being christian/muslim/jew, etc. etc. etc. You are what you are, you can be skeptical about claims any atheist or theist makes.

And no, one cannot be skeptical about someone's belief in god. That is someone's own feeling/emotion/spirituality.

Being an atheist I am skeptical about claims any theist, EXCEPT of their faith. Claiming you are skeptical about someone even being a believer in god, well than you are not a skeptic, you are inconsiderate douche.

i

You mean Angel's dishonest claim of there not being any atheists? Yeah, because that is not interesting, that is being an a-hole towards people's not believing.

If you want to question/be skeptical of my comment that there is no god, fine, that is your right. That is the basis of skepticism, doubting someone's views, not someone's existence.



That is nonsense, we do not deny someone their faith in their god, skeptics are skeptical when someone says they can PROVE their god is real or that everything in the bible is as good as a history book. Then I get skeptical. If someone says I believe in god and jesus as my savior, fine, how can I be skeptical about that. I am not an asswipe or a douche bag that denies someone their faith because I do not believe in gods.

Because that is not being skeptical, skeptical is when you doubt when people say something is factual, not whether they are what they say they are.
Click to expand...

You have completely missed the point of Angel’s O.P. plus the point I made to back up Angel’s point.

With one exception expressed in your point 2.

It’s a simple point being made... as you said...

Atheists cannot prove by any physical evidence like an atheistic gene or that it has been discovered via the scientific method that all atheists have a longer tail bone.

I agree, that it is a mental thing that is being expressed via the words... I am an atheist. A mental thing that also lacks any physical evidence.

If, I was having a conversation with a lifelong atheist the question of their existence would be mute based on their physical presence.

The skepticism only comes into the debate when the life long Atheist makes a verbal claim to being a life long atheist.

A mental thought that can not be proven via physical evidence.

Do you deny that there are Atheists that expect “believers” who claim there is a GOD... that they must prove that verbal mental claim via The Skeptics Rule.

The Skeptics rule being... the “believers” must provide “physical evidence” as proof their GOD exists in reality and is not just a mental thing?

Can you provide a reasonable explanation why That Skeptic “physical evidence” rule does not apply to a person who claims to be a life long atheist?

A rule that atheists expect others to follow but refuse to apply that standard for themselves when questioned by a skeptic to provide “physical evidence” when they make a claim of a mental thing without any proof that they are in reality atheists?

The point of the argument is about fair play for both sides of the debate. The rules should apply equally to both sides of the debate.

The atheist should abide by the Skeptic “physical rule” they expect others to follow and not to absolve themselves when that rule stifles them in the debate.

imho,
Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
You have completely missed the point of Angel’s O.P. plus the point I made to back up Angel’s point.

With one exception expressed in your point 2.

It’s a simple point being made... as you said...

Atheists cannot prove by any physical evidence like an atheistic gene or that it has been discovered via the scientific method that all atheists have a longer tail bone.

I agree, that it is a mental thing that is being expressed via the words... I am an atheist. A mental thing that also lacks any physical evidence.

If, I was having a conversation with a lifelong atheist the question of their existence would be mute based on their physical presence.

The skepticism only comes into the debate when the life long Atheist makes a verbal claim to being a life long atheist.

A mental thought that can not be proven via physical evidence.

Do you deny that there are Atheists that expect “believers” who claim there is a GOD... that they must prove that verbal mental claim via The Skeptics Rule.

The Skeptics rule being... the “believers” must provide “physical evidence” as proof their GOD exists in reality and is not just a mental thing?

Can you provide a reasonable explanation why That Skeptic “physical evidence” rule does not apply to a person who claims to be a life long atheist?

A rule that atheists expect others to follow but refuse to apply that standard for themselves when questioned by a skeptic to provide “physical evidence” when they make a claim of a mental thing without any proof that they are in reality atheists?

The point of the argument is about fair play for both sides of the debate. The rules should apply equally to both sides of the debate.

The atheist should abide by the Skeptic “physical rule” they expect others to follow and not to absolve themselves when that rule stifles them in the debate.

imho,
Roseann:)
Click to expand...

There is no gene for religion or atheism. The whole premise of this thread is one of dishonesty as it makes the premise of being an atheist the subject of fake skepticism. Skepticism is of claims made by atheist or theist if fair game but them being an atheist or theist is not something a skeptic is concerned with because it is not a true or untrue subject, one is an atheist or theist.

I do not expect a theist to prove something physical when it comes to their religion. I do not want someone to prove their god exist unless they claim there is absolute proof of their god's existence. When someone says my belief is so strong that I know my god exists, then fine, that is not something a skeptical person can denounce or be skeptical about because faith comes from the inside.

When someone however claims they know of a physical manifestation that proves the divine exists, well then I think I can be skeptical about that because that is not something spiritual or from the inside.

I am sorry but this whole thread is one of dishonestly claiming that a skeptic will denounce someone for saying they are an atheist. That is just total nonsense.
 
Peter King said:
There is no gene for religion or atheism. The whole premise of this thread is one of dishonesty as it makes the premise of being an atheist the subject of fake skepticism. Skepticism is of claims made by atheist or theist if fair game but them being an atheist or theist is not something a skeptic is concerned with because it is not a true or untrue subject, one is an atheist or theist.

I do not expect a theist to prove something physical when it comes to their religion. I do not want someone to prove their god exist unless they claim there is absolute proof of their god's existence. When someone says my belief is so strong that I know my god exists, then fine, that is not something a skeptical person can denounce or be skeptical about because faith comes from the inside.

When someone however claims they know of a physical manifestation that proves the divine exists, well then I think I can be skeptical about that because that is not something spiritual or from the inside.

I am sorry but this whole thread is one of dishonestly claiming that a skeptic will denounce someone for saying they are an atheist. That is just total nonsense.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input.

I think we have reached the point of agreeing to disagree.:2wave:

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
Thanks for the input.

I think we have reached the point of agreeing to disagree.:2wave:

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

I don't want to be insensitive about something, but I could never doubt someone's faith, just claims about someone makes about his/her faith. That is skepticism, doubting the truth of an idea or opinion, not doubting whether or not an idea exists.

That is what climate skepticism is about doubting the idea of human interference/or the notion that humans can alter the climate. Not that the climate exists.
 
Peter King said:
I don't want to be insensitive about something, but I could never doubt someone's faith, just claims about someone makes about his/her faith. That is skepticism, doubting the truth of an idea or opinion, not doubting whether or not an idea exists.

That is what climate skepticism is about doubting the idea of human interference/or the notion that humans can alter the climate. Not that the climate exists.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with a sceptic questioning anything.

Questioning “ideas” leads to communication about different ideas and often those questions lead to worthwhile and informative debates.

I didn’t think you were being insensitive by anything you wrote in your post to me.

I just realized after reading your post that you missed the point I was making and decided to just agree to disagree.

The “idea” presented in the O.P. is not a personal affront concerning individual atheists.

It is an “idea” argument concerning the skeptical atheist “physical” rule some atheists during a debate willingly ignore the rule by not holding themselves to the standard they have set for others.

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
I have no problem with a sceptic questioning anything.

Questioning “ideas” leads to communication about different ideas and often those questions lead to worthwhile and informative debates.

I didn’t think you were being insensitive by anything you wrote in your post to me.

I just realized after reading your post that you missed the point I was making and decided to just agree to disagree.

The “idea” presented in the O.P. is not a personal affront concerning individual atheists.

It is an “idea” argument concerning the skeptical atheist “physical” rule some atheists during a debate willingly ignore the rule by not holding themselves to the standard they have set for others.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

What is the "physical" rule and how do some atheists not hold themselves to it?
 
CharisRose said:
I have no problem with a sceptic questioning anything.

Questioning “ideas” leads to communication about different ideas and often those questions lead to worthwhile and informative debates.

I didn’t think you were being insensitive by anything you wrote in your post to me.

I just realized after reading your post that you missed the point I was making and decided to just agree to disagree.

The “idea” presented in the O.P. is not a personal affront concerning individual atheists.

It is an “idea” argument concerning the skeptical atheist “physical” rule some atheists during a debate willingly ignore the rule by not holding themselves to the standard they have set for others.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

As a third generation atheist (and documented atheist, in our governmental basic administration you were registered as an atheist or any religion, I would never ask for physical evidence for someone's faith. To me being baptized or telling me you are of a faith is enough for me to believe you at your word and would never ask for any physical evidence.

The claim I am a skeptic thus there are no atheists because you cannot prove you are one is just not an honest claim (not yours, I realize that fully and I would not say that) as you cannot prove your "feeling/spirituality/faith/not having a faith" in a physical matter.

The claims some atheists make can most assuredly be skeptically views, I would expect nothing else. If an atheist says I can prove there are no gods, he is lying, you cannot prove something's non-existence.

And a skeptical atheist is not skeptical of someone's faith but about some claims a religious person makes. Just like they can be suspicious about my claims. That is just logical when there is a subject that one can never fully prove or disprove.

I am also not in the business of proving there are no gods, the facts that there is no evidence that there are gods is good enough for me as an atheist to know there are no gods. I am not saying I can prove that because it is an internal feeling/fact.

I think the description of what a skeptic is in this thread is not a true description of skepticism. Skepticism is also not religious in nature, it can be about everything. I can be skeptical of views held by conservatives but that would never mean I deny them as being conservatives.
 
OP posts thread claiming 'Proof of God' in November, which fails owing to its flawed logic. Then the OP claims atheists don't exist in December because they supposedly demand 'proof God exists', when the OP failed to substantiate his own claim previously.

However, it's not a troll thread. No.

Meanwhile, one discusses the 'burden of proof' elsewhere, and the OP claims there can be no proof expect for mathematical proof, which of course, ignores what the term 'burden of proof' actually means, and is in direct contradiction with his own claim back in November.

:spin:
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
OP posts thread claiming 'Proof of God' in November, which fails owing to its flawed logic. Then the OP claims atheists don't exist in December because they supposedly demand 'proof God exists', when the OP failed to substantiate his own claim previously.

However, it's not a troll thread. No.

Meanwhile, one discusses the 'burden of proof' elsewhere, and the OP claims there can be no proof expect for mathematical proof, which of course, ignores what the term 'burden of proof' actually means, and is in direct contradiction with his own claim back in November.

:spin:
Click to expand...

I'd go into an essay on Modus Ponens and Modus tollens but those ideas of logic are very likely over the head of Angel and his absurd beliefs, so I would ony be wasting my time and chipping my manucure for the effort.

Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens
 
Angel said:
Another member set you straight on this, if you refuse to take correction from me.
Quit the contrary posting.
Read:
Click to expand...

Semantics and ontology are not categories of epistemology.
 
devildavid said:
Semantics and ontology are not categories of epistemology.
Click to expand...
Bad faith repetition of post by the Internet Skeptic to try to save face in the face of having been properly corrected by Angel. Happens daily.
 
Peter King said:
As a third generation atheist (and documented atheist, in our governmental basic administration you were registered as an atheist or any religion, I would never ask for physical evidence for someone's faith. To me being baptized or telling me you are of a faith is enough for me to believe you at your word and would never ask for any physical evidence.

The claim I am a skeptic thus there are no atheists because you cannot prove you are one is just not an honest claim (not yours, I realize that fully and I would not say that) as you cannot prove your "feeling/spirituality/faith/not having a faith" in a physical matter.

The claims some atheists make can most assuredly be skeptically views, I would expect nothing else. If an atheist says I can prove there are no gods, he is lying, you cannot prove something's non-existence.

And a skeptical atheist is not skeptical of someone's faith but about some claims a religious person makes. Just like they can be suspicious about my claims. That is just logical when there is a subject that one can never fully prove or disprove.

I am also not in the business of proving there are no gods, the facts that there is no evidence that there are gods is good enough for me as an atheist to know there are no gods. I am not saying I can prove that because it is an internal feeling/fact.

I think the description of what a skeptic is in this thread is not a true description of skepticism. Skepticism is also not religious in nature, it can be about everything. I can be skeptical of views held by conservatives but that would never mean I deny them as being conservatives.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info.

Roseann:)
 
Angel said:
Bad faith repetition of post by the Internet Skeptic to try to save face in the face of having been properly corrected by Angel. Happens daily.
Click to expand...

Semantics and ontology are not categories of epistemology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom