Username: Additional_Goose_556
​
Interlocutors: Redditor4 (atheist), Redditor8, Redditor9 (atheist/anti-theist)
​
Subreddit: DebateAnAtheist
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Preface: Questions aren't always appreciated. Sometimes, you will be attacked for asking questions.
But you can always turn your attackers into an example.
​
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor4:
I'd argue before we can answer such a question you need to get to the point of showing a deity can even exist.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
I'd argue before we can answer such a question you need to get to the point of showing a deity can even exist.
​
What if, on a fundamental level, your existence itself shows you a Diety exists, but you just don't have your eyes open to see the show?
​
Or, what if, on a fundamental level, the OP already shows a Diety exists (just by existing itself), but you just don't have your eyes open to see the show?
​
That is, suppose existence in itself inherently reflects the existence of a Diety, and you are just inherently suppressing it.
​
How do you know this isn't the case?
​
So would you still argue they need to show you a Diety can even exist?
​
What would OP "showing" that even look like?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor4:
What if, on a fundamental level, your existence itself shows you a Diety exists, but you just don't have your eyes open to see the show?
​
What utter nonsense.
​
You want to make claims something exists, you need to provide evidence. Otherwise it can be ignored.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
​
What utter nonsense.
​
Or, it makes perfect sense.
​
Is that how you normally talk to people? You just assert utter nonsense and move on?
​
How is my comment utter nonsense? What does it need in order to not be utter nonsense?
​
​
You want to make claims something exists, you need to provide evidence.
​
What exactly is evidence, and why do you need to provide it?
​
Come on, wouldn't you like to discuss fundamentals with a theist?
​
​
Otherwise it can be ignored.
​
You say, "otherwise it can be ignored", as if it can't be ignored if evidence is provided, but that would be false. It can be ignored either way, whether evidence is provided or not. // This was a silly thing for me to say. Saying "otherwise it can be ignored", does not imply it can't be ignored in other cases.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor4 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor8:
What if, on a fundamental level, your existence itself shows you a Diety exists, but you just don't have your eyes open to see the show?
​
Or, what if, on a fundamental level, the OP already shows a Diety exists (just by existing itself), but you just don't have your eyes open to see the show?
​
That is, suppose existence in itself inherently reflects the existence of a Diety, and you are just inherently suppressing it.
​
How do you know this isn't the case?
​
So would you still argue they need to show you a Diety can even exist?
​
What would OP "showing" that even look like?
​
That’s a really bad argument for the existence of god.
​
You are basically saying “how do you know that god doesn’t?”
​
How do you know the Easter bunny doesn’t exist? Or the flying Spagetti monster? Or Santa?
​
The point where one accepts a claim is when the claim has met its burden of proof.
​
You can try to bring your Argument why our existence itself shows the existence of a deity.
​
If your best argument is “you just haven’t opened your eyes” you’ll probably won’t get far in convincing skeptics
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
That’s a really bad argument for the existence of god. You are basically saying “how do you know that god doesn’t?”
​
You think questions make a bad argument? I'm not surprised! They are just questions.
​
​
How do you know the Easter bunny doesn’t exist? Or the flying Spagetti monster? Or Santa?
​
You should establish that I know these things don't exist before asking me how.
​
​
The point where one accepts a claim is when the claim has met its burden of proof.
​
OK.
​
Then your claim that I have a bad argument hasn't met it's burden of proof, because I don't accept it. So can you meet your burden of proof?
​
​
You can try to bring your Argument why our existence itself shows the existence of a deity.
​
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not interested in making that argument at this time.
​
I think I'm spending enough energy having to defend myself for asking questions in this forum.
​
​
If your best argument is “you just haven’t opened your eyes” you’ll probably won’t get far in convincing skeptics
​
Alright, and if your best argument is “you just haven’t opened your eyes”, you probably won’t get far in convincing skeptics.
But this doesn't seem to apply to either of us, does it? So what is the point of us saying this?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor8 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor9:
I'm not going to get all they way into this conversation, but I think you should know the reason you're having to "defend yourself for asking questions" is because, to myself at least, they are obviously disguise statements. Aka not really questions, but statements pretending to be questions. It's pretty dishonest imo
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
I'm not going to get all they way into this conversation, but I think you should know the reason you're having to "defend yourself for asking questions" is because, to myself at least, they are obviously disguise statements. Aka not really questions, but statements pretending to be questions. It's pretty dishonest imo
​
I see.
​
Let me try applying your method of communication, and maybe we'll all get to see how you like it.
​
You've obviously been dishonest this entire time.
​
Man, that was fun.
​
I am defending my questions because people are trying to twist them into something they are not.
​
Do you expect others to take you seriously here?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor9:
Excuse me? There is no need for such hostility. I was just attempting to show you why you were having troubles on this post. Being ingenuine is frowned upon generally, but very much so here. Your questions came off more as statements than actual questions, at least to my perception.
​
Idk how I've been dishonest "this whole time" since that was the first response I've made on this post.
​
​
Do you expect others to take you seriously here?
​
I could ask you the same question. If you wish to be taken seriously then you must take steps to assure understanding. I commented on your approach, how I perceived it anyways, and you react childishly. This implies you do not wish to be taken seriously, so have fun with that.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
I suppose you don't like it.
​
​
Excuse me?
​
You aren't excused. You established hostility. Your dishonesty isn't welcome with me. You should concede your unjustified hostile statements and be more careful next time.
​
Are you like this all the time? Assume dishonesty in people and then call them needlessly hostile when they do it back to you? Do you know if this a trait common to atheists at this forum? or is this just you?
​
​
There is no need for such hostility.
​
I mirrored your approach. That is, by assuming dishonesty in me, you established that it is fair for me to assume dishonesty in you. So I did what is fair.
​
Yet, you are charging me with hostility for using the method you first used. What is the definition of hypocrite?
​
Go write yourself that there is no need for such hostility. You need to tell yourself that instead of telling me. Preferably, do it for all of us to see. Or, concede your statements.
​
​
I was just attempting to show you why you were having troubles on this post.
​
No, that is a lie. You are being dishonest. You obviously intended to make me look poor from the beginning, because you skipped all steps toward understanding and went straight by assumption.
​
Do you like that? I am assuming dishonesty in you. Do you enjoy being on the receiving end? This is the method you established, not me. Hey, I'm asking you a question! Do you like it?
​
Why are you attempting to show me something you don't know?
​
Instead of acting like you know more than you actually do, you could have atleast taken steps to ask me if my questions were genuine.
​
​
Being ingenuine is frowned upon generally, but very much so here.
​
Apparently that is another lie. Your dishonesty currently has upvotes.
​
​
Your questions came off more as statements than actual questions, at least to my perception.
​
Now your position weakens after being challenged. They went from "not questions" to "questions that come off more as statements than questions".
​
Why aren't you calling my questions "obvious disguise statements" anymore? Did you realize it was unfair of you? Do you concede your statement? Please fill me in on the details, I want clarity. You're being rather silent about your shifts. You should answer this so people may consider taking you seriously.
​
​
Idk how I've been dishonest "this whole time" since that was the first response I've made on this post.
​
Dishonesty in your only response to me is logically dishonesty in your entire interaction with me.
​
​
Do you expect others to take you seriously here?
​
I could ask you the same question. If you wish to be taken seriously then you must take steps to assure understanding.
​
OK. According to your rule, you shouldn't be taken seriously.
​
You jumped in charging me with dishonesty before ensuring understanding. So do you think you're a joke? Hey! I'm asking you a question. Are you a joke?
​
Where were your steps to ensure you understood my questions? It was hostile of you to declare my questions weren't genuine based on your assumption.
​
Do you think that was a fair way for you to act? Do you think you should be taken seriously while you skip steps and assume people's intentions?
​
​
I commented on your approach, how I perceived it anyways, and you react childishly.
​
Or, you assumed dishonesty in me, declared it to the world, and I reacted by feeding you your own toxicity. Stay in your lane.
​
If it is childish to be fair, then you need to be more childish.
​
​
This implies you do not wish to be taken seriously, so have fun with that.
​
Are you serious?
​
If you think someone doesn't want to be taken seriously here, you encourage it? Don't you want to increase the quality of this subreddit by discouraging foolishness?
​
This interaction is a disappointment. But if you think I'm being irrational somewhere, let me know.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor9:
I'm not reading all that, but dude wtf. I wasn't dishonest, I wasn't hostile, I was only trying to show you how your comments could be interpreted (and were, by me). Enjoy your life, jerk. Goodbye.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
I'm not reading all that, but dude wtf.
​
Dude, are you okay?
​
Do you have trouble reading? or do you just choose to give low effort?
​
​
I wasn't dishonest, I wasn't hostile...
​
I wasn't dishonest, I wasn't hostile, I was only asking questions.
​
But then you came from seemingly nowhere and charged me with dishonesty, based on your own assumption. So I'll keep the position that you are dishonest and hostile.
​
​
I was only trying to show you how your comments could be interpreted (and were, by me).
​
You interpreted my questions as being dishonest statements based on your own assumption, then you declared it.
​
I can use that method, too.
​
Your comments are obviously dishonest.
​
That's your method used against you. Do you like that? Is that productive behavior? What kind of reaction should I expect after saying that?
​
Did you expect a reaction? If so, what kind?
​
​
Enjoy your life, jerk. Goodbye.
​
Hey, I'm not finished with you! Come back and answer my questions! Don't you want to concede your dishonesty for the sake of your reputation?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor9 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Previous: [005] An Image of Ignorance
​
Next: [007] Understanding Falsifiability
​
Enter: Additional Writings