Philosophy Now Forum

This thread is about about atheists and they’re not hard to spot.
- Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.
- Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.
- The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.
- Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.
- A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation.
- A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.

Walker wrote:This thread is about about atheists and they’re not hard to spot.
- Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.
- Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.
- The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.
- Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.
- A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation.
- A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.

Brilliant! Another masterpiece in saying nothing that makes sense yet getting the point across that you are insulting atheists. Bravo!!! I think you belong with Tolsteoyoyoyoyoy. Farewell, little chihuahua.

sthitapragya wrote:

Walker wrote:This thread is about about atheists and they’re not hard to spot.
- Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.
- Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.
- The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.
- Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.
- A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation.
- A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.

Brilliant! Another masterpiece in saying nothing that makes sense yet getting the point across that you are insulting atheists. Bravo!!! I think you belong with Tolsteoyoyoyoyoy. Farewell, little chihuahua.

The atheist is also stuck on Nein.

- Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.
- Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.
- The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.
- Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.
- A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation.
- A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.

In addition to the litany, since nothing cannot be experienced, the knower knows the nothing of which the atheist cannot conceive through non-experience.

Walker wrote:This thread is about about atheists and they’re not hard to spot. ...

Are the horns a giveaway?

Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.

In this instance it'd be about your definition of 'to know'?

Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.

Fire away, what empirical proof have you got?

The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.

And others appear to have their own definition of what 'knowing' means, so what is yours?

Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.

What's a 'life-force' when its at home? As I appear to have made four of them.

A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation. ...

What's you definition of a 'God' then? Spinoza's? A big calculating machine? ...

A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.

That just gives you the Noumenon, if you want to call that 'God' feel free but everything you say about it is you just making it up.

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:This thread is about about atheists and they’re not hard to spot. ...

Are the horns a giveaway?

Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.

In this instance it'd be about your definition of 'to know'?

Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.

Fire away, what empirical proof have you got?

The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.

And others appear to have their own definition of what 'knowing' means, so what is yours?

Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.

What's a 'life-force' when its at home? As I appear to have made four of them.

A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation. ...

What's you definition of a 'God' then? Spinoza's? A big calculating machine? ...

A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.

That just gives you the Noumenon, if you want to call that 'God' feel free but everything you say about it is you just making it up.

First work on the reading comprehension, then you can keep trying to be cute.


- Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.
- Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.
- The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.
- Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.
- A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation.
- A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.
- Since nothing cannot be experienced, the knower knows the nothing of which the atheist cannot conceive through non-experience of anything.

Walker wrote:First work on the reading comprehension, then you can keep trying to be cute.

You'd have to write something comprehensible first.

Atheists require empirical proof that God exists in order to know God.

Not really, we just ask you to show us this 'God' of yours as that is the basic understanding of what it is to know something exists.

Empirical evidence as recognized by another but not by the atheist equates to belief in the mind of an atheist.

What empirical evidence is it that you present then?

The atheist projects his own capacity for knowing onto others.

Still not hearing what you mean by this type of 'knowing'?

Everything that an atheist knows hinges on man’s incapacity to create the life-force that animates meat.

Can you show me this 'life-force'? But I've already told you, I've made four of these 'life-forces'.

A non-believing theist impartially considers all sensory input and thinking to be the evidence of God which is life and all creation.

It'd depend upon what you mean by a 'God' and what you think this 'God' is up to?

A non-believing atheist rejects the concept of God’s existence while simultaneously and illogically ignoring his inability to conceive of nothing.

Or he considers that all that sensory input and thinking has never ever shown a 'God' or 'Gods' at all in the whole history of such things.

- Since nothing cannot be experienced, the knower knows the nothing of which the atheist cannot conceive through non-experience of anything.

How are you doing this 'non-experience of anything'?

Your answers are already there in the material and the questions you shape. Start with the fact that doing is an experience, as you well know. Keep working on the reading comprehension, if that’s even on your agenda, atheist.

Walker wrote:...Start with the fact that doing is an experience, as you well know.

I know that experience is what you make of doing something but as usual you've yet to say what it is you are doing?

Keep working on the reading comprehension, if that’s even on your agenda, atheist.

I read well thanks, you appear to have the usual theist trait of avoiding any sentence ending with a question mark.

Nick_A wrote:Hobbes wrote:

You area just digging yourself even deeper in to your pit of despair and desperation.
I said nothing of Newton's laws.

You did write

"Newton is old history. His science is moribund, and surpassed by A greater mind Einstein.
95% of what Newton wrote you would be forced to conclude was utter rubbish and superstition.

If you accept Newton's law of motion what other than the Source provides the impulse for material change. If you can't do it you must accept the potential for the dreaded G word.

I could just see you reading Newton's translation of the Emerald Tablet. Talk about an explosion of blind denial. I would have to duck.

Exactly as I said. I said nothing about Newtons Laws.
And I stick to everything I said.

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:...Start with the fact that doing is an experience, as you well know.

I know that experience is what you make of doing something but as usual you've yet to say what it is you are doing?

Keep working on the reading comprehension, if that’s even on your agenda, atheist.

I read well thanks, you appear to have the usual theist trait of avoiding any sentence ending with a question mark.

Look at the bright side.

You're no worse off.

Walker wrote:Look at the bright side.

Always do.

You're no worse off.

Than what?

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:Look at the bright side.

Always do.

You're no worse off.

Than what?

You are not worse off, asking Walker a question than having a sharp stick in your eye.

Since this topic has only attracted positive atheists, We are met with blind denial making any form of interaction other than the exchange of insults impossible. The negativity which accompanies blind denial excludes it. Reasonable discussion is only possible with negative atheists who unfortunately are not here. Just so you know what I mean by positive and negative atheists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ ... ve_atheism

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.[1][2][3]

The terms "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" were used by Antony Flew in 1976[1] and have appeared in Michael Martin's writings since 1990

by that definition I am a negative atheist. You failed to make any impact because you are useless and your arguments are entirely designed to make yourself feel good. There is no persuasive power in your discussions of "blind deniers" and that is all you ever had to work with.

You opened this thread with nothing but insulting disdain for anyone who doesn't share your prejudices, so you cannot reasonably complain at the negativity reflected back towards you without demonstrating excruciating hypocrisy. You have nothing else to offer so that is to be expected.

You are the agent of all your own failures, and by additionally failing to recognise your own part in the worthlessness of this sorry thread, you are revealed to be in a state of blind denial.