Internet Skepticism: Casting Call

[Angel]

From my internet skepticism :lamo Hilarious and BULL of course.

Nope, my posts are the posts of someone who is a proud atheist and again, the actual existence of atheists has long been proven, the truthfulness and accuracy of this and your "atheist" threads are totally missing/devoid of a coherent position.

Yes, the "test" is borrowed from your Internet Skepticism.
And Yes, your posts are shameful to atheism, and should the actual existence of atheists ever be proven, your posts will cause them extreme embarrassment.

 

[Peter King]

Yes, the "test" is borrowed from your Internet Skepticism.
And Yes, your posts are shameful to atheism, and should the actual existence of atheists ever be proven, your posts will cause them extreme embarrassment.

Still making up things I see. I did not come up with internet skepticism, that was your invention when it comes to atheism.

And no, the only shameful thing I see here is your pathetic attempts to denounce atheism, continued insults to atheists and by making deceitful claims about the posts of others (like your :bs claims that my posts are "shameful to atheism"). All you are doing is repeating your nonsense and nothing much more.

But as always, no content that resembles anything that one can discuss honestly, just more of your dishonest claims and attacks.

 

[Angel]

Still making up things I see. I did not come up with internet skepticism, that was your invention when it comes to atheism.

And no, the only shameful thing I see here is your pathetic attempts to denounce atheism, continued insults to atheists and by making deceitful claims about the posts of others (like your :bs claims that my posts are "shameful to atheism"). All you are doing is repeating your nonsense and nothing much more.

But as always, no content that resembles anything that one can discuss honestly, just more of your dishonest claims and attacks.

Your Internet Skepticism comes through more dramatically with every post: denial, repetition of denial, bad faith, emojis, and now another silly meme. Not a single argument anywhere in any of your posts.

 

[Peter King]

Your Internet Skepticism comes through more dramatically with every post: denial, repetition of denial, bad faith, emojis, and now another silly meme. Not a single argument anywhere in any of your posts.

Nonsense upon nonsense with massive dishonest nonsense, that is your claims of internet skepticism and your claims about atheism.

The only bad faith posting I have seen so far are coming from you. And a silly meme, no, a silly thread.

 

[Angel]

Nonsense upon nonsense with massive dishonest nonsense, that is your claims of internet skepticism and your claims about atheism.

The only bad faith posting I have seen so far are coming from you. And a silly meme, no, a silly thread.

Your denial and dismissal are duly noted again. At this point, as exemplar of Internet Skepticism, your posts are leading the pack.

 

[Peter King]

Your denial and dismissal are duly noted again. At this point, as exemplar of Internet Skepticism, your posts are leading the pack.

And your fake claims are also clear for everybody to see. And I am not an internet skeptic, you are just peddling nonsense.

 

[Angel]

And your fake claims are also clear for everybody to see. And I am not an internet skeptic, you are just peddling nonsense.

Memes, emojis, denials, dismissals, derogation, and the ridiculously self-righteous unresponsive PeeWeeHermanish repetition of same -- your posts, Mr King, are the epitome of Internet Skepticism. Of course, none of this toxic waste you post changes the facts, and the facts are: 1, that you cannot prove that even one atheist actually exists, and 2. that your posts are textbook illustrations of Internet Skepticism.

 

[Peter King]

Memes, emojis, denials, dismissals, derogation, and the ridiculously self-righteous unresponsive PeeWeeHermanish repetition of same -- your posts, Mr King, are the epitome of Internet Skepticism. Of course, none of this toxic waste you post changes the facts, and the facts are: 1, that you cannot prove that even one atheist actually exists, and 2. that your posts are textbook illustrations of Internet Skepticism.

Still better than the cavalcade of nonsense and dishonesty coming from your posts.

1. Atheists exist, that you claim they don't is your problem, not ours. It is not we who are telling things that are not true, that would be you.

2. nope, my posts are those of someone who knows your internet skepticism fakery is exactly that, a hoax.

For the rest it is your usual whining about other people's posts so again, nothing to discuss.

 

[Angel]

Still better than the cavalcade of nonsense and dishonesty coming from your posts.

1. Atheists exist, that you claim they don't is your problem, not ours. It is not we who are telling things that are not true, that would be you.

2. nope, my posts are those of someone who knows your internet skepticism fakery is exactly that, a hoax.

For the rest it is your usual whining about other people's posts so again, nothing to discuss.

Sure thing. Atheists exist because Mr Peter King says so. Atheists exist because Mr Peter King posted a silly-ass meme.
Every post you make, sir, consigns you to the lowest depths of Internet Skepticism.

 

[Peter King]

Sure thing. Atheists exist because Mr Peter King says so. Atheists exist because Mr Peter King posted a silly-ass meme.
Every post you make, sir, consigns you to the lowest depths of Internet Skepticism.

Wow, one of Angels repeating nonsense and nothing else posts. Sorry, but do you have any evidence that atheists do not exist? Outside of course of the totally bogus thread you made about it? No, of course not because that thread is a dishonest to the core.

And nope, still not skeptic, just tired of nonsense peddling. You know, being a skeptic means you are skeptical of something. I am not a skeptic, I know I do not need to be skeptical of what you say because there is zero truthfulness into your claims about atheists.

But again, nothing of any value to discuss so TTFN (at least TTFN as long as your nonsensical responses keep coming).

 

[Angel]

Sorry, but do you have any evidence that atheists do not exist?

Do you have any evidence that God does not exist?

 

[Peter King]

Do you have any evidence that God does not exist?

Do you have proof he/she/it does exist? Because I am not interested in proving things that can never be proved to any logical satisfaction to people who are not of a certain faith/view. You cannot prove imaginary creatures exist, for the very simple reason that they are imaginary.

If you believe in god then fine, believe in god. But don't try to prove to me/convince me that I have to agree with that, because I won't. That is not because I am an asshole, but because I am not interested in evidence that does not exist.

Live and let live is my motto. I am not in the business of jumping through hoops to prove god does not exist, he just doesn't. Just like I don't ask religious people to proof their god exists, if they say he exist because I believe he exists, then fine. The skeptical attitude only exists when someone says they have absolute irrefutable evidence of the existence of their god, evidence that is tangible and probative in a manner that there isn't a doubt in the world about that evidence.

People from the moment societies existed tried to explain away the things they could not comprehend with belief and imaginary things making these things happen.

If I was someone of the Egyptian faith and I stated that Atum's semen was the origin of the world, you would be skeptical too. But to an Egyptian of several millennia ago this was gospel.

I am not interested in convincing people god does not exist and make them atheists like I am. Atheism is inherently a very private thing, just like faith should also be IMO.

So no, I cannot proof imaginary things do not exist, nor am I interested in proving things that are to me absolutely obvious.

 

[Angel]

Sorry, but do you have any evidence that atheists do not exist?...

Do you have any evidence that God does not exist?

Do you have proof he/she/it does exist? Because I am not interested in proving things that can never be proved to any logical satisfaction to people who are not of a certain faith/view. You cannot prove imaginary creatures exist, for the very simple reason that they are imaginary.

If you believe in god then fine, believe in god. But don't try to prove to me/convince me that I have to agree with that, because I won't. That is not because I am an asshole, but because I am not interested in evidence that does not exist.

Live and let live is my motto. I am not in the business of jumping through hoops to prove god does not exist, he just doesn't. Just like I don't ask religious people to proof their god exists, if they say he exist because I believe he exists, then fine. The skeptical attitude only exists when someone says they have absolute irrefutable evidence of the existence of their god, evidence that is tangible and probative in a manner that there isn't a doubt in the world about that evidence.

People from the moment societies existed tried to explain away the things they could not comprehend with belief and imaginary things making these things happen.

If I was someone of the Egyptian faith and I stated that Atum's semen was the origin of the world, you would be skeptical too. But to an Egyptian of several millennia ago this was gospel.

I am not interested in convincing people god does not exist and make them atheists like I am. Atheism is inherently a very private thing, just like faith should also be IMO.

So no, I cannot proof imaginary things do not exist, nor am I interested in proving things that are to me absolutely obvious.

We take it then that you are oblivious to the fact that the same exact argument you offer as regards the existence of God applies to the existence of atheists.
And we take it that that obliviousness accounts for the spate of posts by you objecting to the claim that atheists don't exist.
And finally that your objection to an argument when applied to your belief and your acceptance of that same argument when applied to the belief of others is a form of self-contradiction and bad faith that marks you out as an Internet Skeptic -- as will also, I dare to predict, your inability to comprehend what I've just written in this post.

 

[Peter King]

We take it then that you are oblivious to the fact that the same exact argument you offer as regards the existence of God applies to the existence of atheists.
And we take it that that obliviousness accounts for the spate of posts by you objecting to the claim that atheists don't exist.
And finally that your objection to an argument when applied to your belief and your acceptance of that same argument when applied to the belief of others is a form of self-contradiction and bad faith that marks you out as an Internet Skeptic -- as will also, I dare to predict, your inability to comprehend what I've just written in this post.

Actually, you are wrong as usual. Your denial for the existence of atheists not existing is in no way comparable than people thinking that gods do or do not exist. You are again making a false equivalence.

The logical comparison is "does a Christian exist" and not does god exist. That is another one of your nonsensical comparisons.

And yup, I object to your fake comments about atheists not existing.

 

[Angel]

Actually, you are wrong as usual. Your denial for the existence of atheists not existing is in no way comparable than people thinking that gods do or do not exist. You are again making a false equivalence.

The logical comparison is "does a Christian exist" and not does god exist. That is another one of your nonsensical comparisons.

And yup, I object to your fake comments about atheists not existing.

Oblivious and defensive of obliviousness -- precisely the marks of Internet Skepticism.
I am not wrong -- you are in self-contradiction there. If you persist in denial, I'll post an OP-like post exposing you/

 

[Peter King]

Oblivious and defensive of obliviousness -- precisely the marks of Internet Skepticism.
I am not wrong -- you are in self-contradiction there. If you persist in denial, I'll post an OP-like post exposing you/

Wrong, and it is not me who is living in denial, it would be you.

And what, threats, how grown up is that? This is debate politics, not debate kindergarten.

I knew that posting a post about the substance of the matter was a waste of my time because you persist in your insulting and fake statements about atheism.

 

[Angel]

Self-Contradiction and Hypocrisy in Internet Atheism

Sorry, but do you have any evidence that atheists do not exist?...

Do you have any evidence that God does not exist?

Do you have proof he/she/it does exist? Because I am not interested in proving things that can never be proved to any logical satisfaction to people who are not of a certain faith/view. You cannot prove imaginary creatures exist, for the very simple reason that they are imaginary....

The conclusion that follows from Mr King's bad-faith argument is that atheists, as in the case of God, are "imaginary creatures" whose existence cannot be proved.

This "argument" shall hereafter be referred to as "The King Protocol" in all posts regarding the absurdity of Internet Skepticism​

Note: all bolding in quoted posts mine.

 

[Peter King]

Self-Contradiction and Hypocrisy in Internet Atheism








The conclusion that follows from Mr King's bad-faith argument is that atheists, as in the case of God, are "imaginary creatures" whose existence cannot be proved.

This "argument" shall hereafter be referred to as "The King Protocol" in all posts regarding the absurdity of Internet Skepticism​

Note: all bolding in quoted posts mine.

Pathetic to the end I see. Sorry, but your words mean nothing to me. Now if you don't have anything of value to say or discuss, I am going to do something positive with my time, if you want to keep this negative diatribe going, have at it.

 

[Angel]

Sorry, but your words mean nothing to me....

That's as plain as the nose on your face, Mr King. Now, I don't like kicking a man when he's down, so if you don't try to get in a last word we can let this episode become history.

 

[Omega Man]

Atheists exist because Mr Peter King says so.

Wrong. Atheists exist, because that is what people who do not believe in God are referred to as.


OM

 

[Angel]

Wrong. Atheists exist, because that is what people who do not believe in God are referred to as.

Prove that these people who don't believe in God exist.

 

[Omega Man]

Prove that these people who don't believe in God exist.

I know many personally. Yep, real people which exist, and proclaim their disbelief in God. They exist just as much as you do. Uh... you do exist, don't you?


OM

 

[Angel]

I know many personally. Yep, real people which exist, and proclaim their disbelief in God. They exist just as much as you do. Uh... you do exist, don't you?

All you know is that there are people who proclaim a disbelief in God. Their secret hearts and minds you don't know.
I'm not certain that I exist, or even what that means, and less certain about you.

 

[Omega Man]

All you know is that there are people who proclaim a disbelief in God. Their secret hearts and minds you don't know.
I'm not certain that I exist, or even what that means, and less certain about you.

Sounds like a bunch of Matrix mumbo jumbo. I think, therefore I am. Atheists disbelieve in God, therefore they exist.


OM

 

[Lisa]

Prove that these people who don't believe in God exist.

Can you prove that I don't exist? I have replied to you multiple times, so I do exist.

Skeptics are obviously atheists so if you admit that skeptics exist then atheists automatically also exist because you cannot have a skeptic who isn't an atheist.