Internet Skepticism: Casting Call

[Peter King]

Your posts in defense of Internet Atheism and in opposition to Internet Skepticism belong next to the entry for "nonsense" in a creditable dictionary. These posts of yours illustrate perfectly the classic denials and dismissals of Internet Skepticism. Kudos.

One cannot deny things that do not exist.

 

[Angel]

One cannot deny things that do not exist.

Why not? Intuitively the very opposite would seem to be the case. Your posts seem bereft of any sort of forethought.
That these posts of yours have lately become meme-silly to boot is just an additional embarrassment.
Hope the weather in idyllic Northern Europe holds for you at least.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Yeah, posting nonsense is not going to ignore the meaning of the word atheism, which is godless/without god. Nor is the unicorn angle of any value to this discussion other than it being BS.

Or as the Cambridge dictionary writes:


the belief that God does not exist:


ATHEISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Which is something different than Agnosticism:

the beliefs of someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists:

AGNOSTICISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary



Gratis woordenboek | Van Dale

I didn't say they're the same thing. You're a gnostic atheist and omega is an agnostic atheist. Both of you lack a belief in god. That is all that's required.

Words have meanings, you don't get to change them around because you for some reason want to gatekeep.

atheist noun
athe·​ist | \ ˈā-thē-ist \
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

Atheist | Definition of Atheist by Merriam-Webster

 

[Peter King]

Why not? Intuitively the very opposite would seem to be the case. Your posts seem bereft of any sort of forethought.
That these posts of yours have lately become meme-silly to boot is just an additional embarrassment.
Hope the weather in idyllic Northern Europe holds for you at least.

The weather is fine, Northern Europe is idyllic as ever, that is why we have no time to discuss things that are not really a thing.

And I am meme silly :lamo

Maybe you should try looking in the mirror and you will find the person who does that way too many times.

 

[zyzygy]

Do internet believers exist?

 

[Angel]

Why We're Here:

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?​

​

...
And I am meme silly :lamo
...

Do internet believers exist?

Two strong auditions, fellas. Callbacks almost a lock.
Just Zyz, a minor note: Why no emoji, man?

 

[Peter King]

Why we are here to disagree with your claims

Why We're Here:







Two strong auditions, fellas. Callbacks almost a lock.
Just Zyz, a minor note: Why no emoji, man?

The Top 8 reasons to ignore the tale of the non-existent fantasy that is called "Internet Skepticism" (and a lame 9th one just for the hell of it :lol: )

1. it is :bs

2. people who claim it is a real thing are a bit confused

3. because the fake notion of internet skepticism lacks any basis in reality

4. because the prognosticators of the non-existent "internet skepticism" won't take "we don't care what nonsensical things you claim" gracefully and keeps repeating themselves or if unanswered, they repeat parts of the thread

5. because the "fake internet skepticism" prognosticators usually don't know what they are talking about, yet nevertheless keep acting like people should agree it is a real thing

6. because the notion of making up stuff to create a false narrative is utterly unpractical and leads to nowhere but repetitive threads and nonsensical claims about the non-existent "internet skeptic"

7. because the constant referring to threads that also talk about things that are untrue (like the fantasy thread about the so-called "non-existing atheist"

8. because inevitably some poor poem gets warped/changed to fit a narrative that makes no sense

9. (the previously mentioned lame one) "I just couldn't be bothered to make up more reasons to ignore something that does not really exist to begin with (you know, internet skepticism).


Now for the Obligatory poem:

Illogical

loosely based on Snowball by Shel Silverstein

I once came across a most illogical idea
as wacky as could be.
It made a wacky claims about atheists and the like
and the whole thing made no sense to me.

I tried to reason and explain it was but a fake idea
that the whole premise being discussed was rather asinine.
The sad fact that discussing this is going nowhere fast
I may be self isolated, but this is a waste of my time

Without a new position all we are doing here is this



wasting time in a thread that leads to nowhere slowly/at all.

 

[pinqy]

Why must one "have some concept of a being which nothing greater can be conceived"?

Because in order to say nothing can be conceived that is greater than X, you have to be able to conceive X. And since “great” is a comparative term, you cannot say that X is greater than Y or that nothing is greater that X without defining the qualities that make X greater.

Why does the Prime Mover fail?

Because it doesn’t describe any qualities of greatness.

I don't think I agree with either of these points, but would hear your reasons for thinking them true.

Short version: you cannot say that something is the greatest that can be conceived (Anselm) or maximally great (William Lane Craig) without defining the greatness. It’s nonsensical to say that something is the greatest without being able to say how and in what way.

The words "something" and "God" are not synonymous.

Generally not. But I find that when a “something” cannot otherwise be defined many people substitute the word God.

The phrase "Something that started the universe" and the word "God" do have the same or similar meaning.

. Only if you presume a god started the universe. Something other than a god might have started the universe.

There is a world of difference between "I don't know how the universe started" and "God started the universe."

oh? “How” refers to the processes, the means of accomplishment, the sequence of events, where the energy came from.. Unless you can say what exactly God did and HOW it was done, then “God” doesn’t tell us anything more about the process or Sid our understanding in what happened.

 

[Angel]

Why we are here to disagree with your claims
Without a new position all we are doing here is this
wasting time in a thread that leads to nowhere slowly/at all.

Wasting bandwidth as well as everybody's time with your dodges and disses, Pete -- why? Oh, why?

 

[Angel]

I didn’t say you have to posit an existing god concept, but you do have to have some concept of a being which nothing greater can be conceived. A generalized Prime Mover clearly fails.

The strength of the cosmological argument is that it doesn’t need a particular god concept. But ironically, that’s also its weakness. The only conclusion the cosmological argument can make is that “something” started everything else. As soon as one tries to answer the question of what that something is, that’s in addition to, and not part of, the CA.

My issue is that there is no meaningful difference between “something started the universe but I don’t know what it is or how it did it” and “I don’t know how the universe started.”

Why must one "have some concept of a being which nothing greater can be conceived"?
Why does the Prime Mover fail?
I don't think I agree with either of these points, but would hear your reasons for thinking them true.

The words "something" and "God" are not synonymous.
The phrase "Something that started the universe" and the word "God" do have the same or similar meaning.
There is a world of difference between "I don't know how the universe started" and "God started the universe."

Because in order to say nothing can be conceived that is greater than X, you have to be able to conceive X. And since “great” is a comparative term, you cannot say that X is greater than Y or that nothing is greater that X without defining the qualities that make X greater.

Because it doesn’t describe any qualities of greatness.

Short version: you cannot say that something is the greatest that can be conceived (Anselm) or maximally great (William Lane Craig) without defining the greatness. It’s nonsensical to say that something is the greatest without being able to say how and in what way.

Generally not. But I find that when a “something” cannot otherwise be defined many people substitute the word God.
. Only if you presume a god started the universe. Something other than a god might have started the universe.
oh? “How” refers to the processes, the means of accomplishment, the sequence of events, where the energy came from.. Unless you can say what exactly God did and HOW it was done, then “God” doesn’t tell us anything more about the process or Sid our understanding in what happened.

Yes, all you say about the problems inherent in using the "maximally great" concept may be true, but my question -- and admittedly there was room to miss this in the way I phrased the question -- my question was why rely on that concept at all?

In light of this clarification, your attributing the failure of the cosmological argument to its lack of reliance on the "maximally great" concept does not answer my question.
If we don't rely on the "maximally great" concept, why does the cosmological argument fail?
Same goes for your "short version."

I'm interested in an argument for God's existence that does not involve speculation about the nature of God.

As to the notion that "something other than God might have started the universe," what could that possibly be? If something started the universe, it has to be God. Nothing other than God could start the universe. There is no other rational explanation.

"How" can refer to either process or agency. The process is unknown and unknowable.

 

[Peter King]

Wasting bandwidth as well as everybody's time with your dodges and disses, Pete -- why? Oh, why?

Hilarious, you do know that you have a habit of repeating the same nonsense from your OP several times in threads and then you complain about me wasting bandwidth? Yaur threads often are a total waste of bandwidth and everybody's time.

And I indeed have to ask you, why, why do you foist threads based on nonsensical views/untruthful claims upon "the readers/posters"?

 

[Angel]

Hilarious, you do know that you have a habit of repeating the same nonsense from your OP several times in threads and then you complain about me wasting bandwidth? Yaur threads often are a total waste of bandwidth and everybody's time.

And I indeed have to ask you, why, why do you foist threads based on nonsensical views/untruthful claims upon "the readers/posters"?

Perfect Internet Skeptical PeeWeeHermanism.

 

[Angel]

Perfectly accurate observation of what you do.

That's more PeeWeeHermanism from Internet Skepticism. "I know you are, but what am I" posting. Ludicrous.

 

[Peter King]

Perfect Internet Skeptical PeeWeeHermanism.

Hilariously nonsensical as always.

 

[JustHanging]

View attachment 67277510

wasting time in a thread that leads to nowhere slowly/at all.

I like checking it out every once in a while. It's comedy gold.

 

[Omega Man]

Lol, the definition you gave just proved my point. Disbelief and lack of belief are the same thing. There is no requirement to declare there's a 100% chance there's no god for one to be an atheist. You're making that up. You lack belief in god, atheist, just like the definition you provided says.

So do you not believe in unicorns or do you disbelieve in unicorns? The distinction is super critical right? :lamo



Haha, nowhere in your definition does it say an atheist "knows precisely" god isn't real. How can your own provided definition of the word contradict everything you're saying? Massive fail, atheist.

I said that I DON'T have disbelief in God (whatever it may be). Why do you keep changing my words and creating straw arguments?


OM

 

[Angel]

View attachment 67277553

Hilariously nonsensical as always.

I like checking it out every once in a while. It's comedy gold.

Two peas in a pod. Internet Skeptical camaraderie. A beautiful thing to behold.

 

[Peter King]

Two peas in a pod. Internet Skeptical camaraderie. A beautiful thing to behold.

Great the daily



circus is starting up again. No, just because we disagree with you, we are not the thing you claim we are (something that doesn't really exist to begin with). That we disagree with you is because we are not trying to flog a dead horse of a thread, the sole reason you keep repeating your tedious and ludicrous claims.

So if you do not have an actual point to make

:inandout:

 

[Angel]

Hilariously nonsensical as always.

Great the daily circus is starting up again. No, just because we disagree with you, we are not the thing you claim we are (something that doesn't really exist to begin with). That we disagree with you is because we are not trying to flog a dead horse of a thread, the sole reason you keep repeating your tedious and ludicrous claims.

So if you do not have an actual point to make

:inandout:

Meme-silly posts by Internet Skepticism. Point? Actual point? Why yes, we almost forgot amid all the distractions you post.
Point: your definition of atheism is incorrect.
Point: atheists don't exist
Point: your posts are 100% Grade A Internet Skeptical wastes of bandwidth
Point: you have given a good accounting of yourself in this audition and will no doubt get a callback
Point: congrats.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I said that I DON'T have disbelief in God (whatever it may be). Why do you keep changing my words and creating straw arguments?


OM

Your own definition said disbelief OR LACK OF BELIEF. Look, kid, stop fighting words. If you don't want to be an atheist there's only one way to stop it and that's to start believing in god.

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Ooops. Took me all of 2 seconds to find these first three.
OM

 

[Peter King]

Meme-silly posts by Internet Skepticism. Point? Actual point? Why yes, we almost forgot amid all the distractions you post.
Point: your definition of atheism is incorrect.
Point: atheists don't exist
Point: your posts are 100% Grade A Internet Skeptical wastes of bandwidth
Point: you have given a good accounting of yourself in this audition and will no doubt get a callback
Point: congrats.

Point, your views on atheism are ludicrously incorrect and total BS

Point, atheists do exist, that you whine/tell untruths about it constantly is not going to change that fact

Point, internet skeptical is a made up thing by you and let us be honest, this thread and most of your threads here are a total waste of bandwidth because they are total nonsense.

Point, your posts are mostly in line with the nonsense you peddled in those threads.

Point, thanks, I am very happy with my posts in my idyllic Dutch home where the sun is shining and the easter shopping was just delivered. Fijne Pasen iedereen (happy easter everybody) hope you all have loads of chocolate eggs and regular eggs.

 

[zyzygy]

Your own definition said disbelief OR LACK OF BELIEF. Look, kid, stop fighting words. If you don't want to be an atheist there's only one way to stop it and that's to start believing in god.

Does it matter which god?

 

[Angel]

Point, your views on atheism are ludicrously incorrect and total BS

Point, atheists do exist, that you whine/tell untruths about it constantly is not going to change that fact

Point, internet skeptical is a made up thing by you and let us be honest, this thread and most of your threads here are a total waste of bandwidth because they are total nonsense.

Point, your posts are mostly in line with the nonsense you peddled in those threads.

Point, thanks, I am very happy with my posts in my idyllic Dutch home where the sun is shining and the easter shopping was just delivered. Fijne Pasen iedereen (happy easter everybody) hope you all have loads of chocolate eggs and regular eggs.

Point: your opinion of my threads, posts, views, etc., isn't worth a damn.
Point: prove that one atheist exists or stopper this poop.
Point: an Internet Skeptic is an Internet user who disses, denies, and dismisses -- like someone we know in idyllic Northern Europe.
Point: your posts to my threads are pabulum.

 

[Peter King]

Point: your opinion of my threads, posts, views, etc., isn't worth a damn.
Point: prove that one atheist exists or stopper this poop.
Point: an Internet Skeptic is an Internet user who disses, denies, and dismisses -- like someone we know in idyllic Northern Europe.
Point: your posts to my threads are pabulum.

Point: Then neither is your opinion about just about anything, worth a damn.

Point: We have proved that time and time again but that thread is just there to dis atheists and be a bully about it

Point: And no, an internet skeptic is not a uses who disses, denies and dismisses. That again is a illogical and nonsensical point of view. And this person from the Idyllic Northern Europe knows that your internet skeptic thing is a whole bunch of nonsense.

Point: And your whiny insults keep coming, if that came from someone other than a fabricator of nonsense and a caterwaul I might actually give a crap.

Now, as you again failed to bring up something to discuss, I am going to

:inandout:

 

[pinqy]

Yes, all you say about the problems inherent in using the "maximally great" concept may be true, but my question -- and admittedly there was room to miss this in the way I phrased the question -- my question was why rely on that concept at all?

For the Ontological Argument? It's the first premise and the basis of the whole argument.

In light of this clarification, your attributing the failure of the cosmological argument to its lack of reliance on the "maximally great" concept does not answer my question.
If we don't rely on the "maximally great" concept, why does the cosmological argument fail?

I wasn't suggesting using the maximally great concept for the Cosmological argument. I thought it was clear when I was talking about which, but apparently not. When you asked why the Prime Mover failed, I thought you were talking about it as a concept for the Ontological Argument. For that argument it fails because the Ontological Argument requires a concept of greatness, which Prime Mover does not, by itself, entail.

Same goes for your "short version."

I'm interested in an argument for God's existence that does not involve speculation about the nature of God.

And we're back to the problem of how can you say something exists without some kind of definition? I can say that fairies exist, but what meaning does that have without defining what I mean by fairies, especially if I do not accept any of the traditional stories? What am I left with? And what are you left with saying God exists without being able to say what you mean by God?

As to the notion that "something other than God might have started the universe," what could that possibly be? If something started the universe, it has to be God. Nothing other than God could start the universe. There is no other rational explanation.

How can you say that without touching on God's nature? What qualities are necessary to start the universe and on what basis are you saying only God possesses those qualities?

"How" can refer to either process or agency. The process is unknown and unknowable.

I disagree. The agency would be "Who" or "What." "How" refers to the means, method, process. You cannot say that someone did something without saying how, unless the How is obvious or implied. This doesn't have to be detailed, for example I can say that Muhammad Ali knocked out George Foreman and it's implied that it was by punching him. But if I said an 8 year old child knocked out George Foreman, the How is needed to make sense.