Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All your nonsensical alternatives, like FSM, Leprechauns, Fairies, and whatnot cannot legitimately be considered to have ANY evidence pointing to their existence. .
What about fairy-rings. I also have 3 Irish mates who swear blind they have seen leprechauns.
...and yet the word 'scientific' is not mentioned even once in your post, not even 'verifiable' evidence is mentioned. In fact you specifically said 'ANY' evidence. It is important to say what you mean. Next time say:
All your nonsensical alternatives, like FSM, Leprechauns, Fairies, and whatnot cannot legitimately be considered to have ANY scientific evidence pointing to their existence. .
Typical. Atheist must insult theist on a personal level. I guess that is part of the atheist creed. So to repeat to the reading comprehension challenged (please carefully read post #1). My simple question was??? A virtual prize awaits for the correct answer!
Thank you for your virtual prizes several people have had to take (because you ask but never give).
It was at least useful that the OP started this thread, thereby demonstrating that he has no idea how basic logic works.
Evidence is needed for for affirmative belief. Evidence is not needed for a lack of affirmative belief. Luke Skywalker, orcs, dragons, sasquatches, etc. - the default position is non-belief until compelling evidence is presented. Ancient books are not compelling evidence, nor are personal revelations (just as the claims of those claiming to be UFO abductees are meaningless).
This is apparently news to the OP. Sometimes, I wonder how people like him manage to function in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
Typical. Atheist must insult theist on a personal level. I guess that is part of the atheist creed. So to repeat to the reading comprehension challenged (please carefully read post #1). My simple question was??? A virtual prize awaits for the correct answer!
When you quoted Hulsker's post to make this reply, you left out the middle paragraph, which contained the basic point of his post; that evidence is never possible for negative claims. Instead of answering the question (which is actually quite common when believers come into this forum to challenge the atheists), you took offense at something that would roll right off of most people and then added an insult of your own.
Now, are you going to answer Hulsker's comment in the middle (bolded) paragraph?
I wonder if they aren't seeing others as they themselves are. The most negative people I run across are always complaining about how rude other people are. Did you notice how he had to hone in on one comment in order to validate his bigotry of atheists? "typical atheist"? what does that even mean?
You correctly implied what - demonising a group they see as demons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itzpapalotl
Good rule of thumb - never say never
You may be right. I'm going to be thinking all day of any 'negative claims' and whether any of them could be falsified. Of course then, just as the 'supernatural' when validated and understood becomes 'natural' and even scientific, a falsifiable negative claim perhaps bones no a negative claim...maybe
Typical. Atheist must insult theist on a personal level. I guess that is part of the atheist creed. So to repeat to the reading comprehension challenged (please carefully read post #1). My simple question was??? A virtual prize awaits for the correct answer!
TRANSLATION: "Typical. Atheist calls out my dishonest shtick. I guess I'll dishonestly edit his post so make it seem like he didn't answer my question when, in fact, he did. I'll also try and shift the discussion away from the one I pretended to pose and accuse him of insults, then I'll insult him in the very next sentence. I hope no one will notice this bit of hypocrisy on my part. I'm really not very good at this, so I'll soon be disappearing from this forum for several months."
TRANSLATION: "Typical. Atheist calls out my dishonest shtick. I guess I'll dishonestly edit his post so make it seem like he didn't answer my question when, in fact, he did. I'll also try and shift the discussion away from the one I pretended to pose and accuse him of insults, then I'll insult him in the very next sentence. I hope no one will notice this bit of hypocrisy on my part. I'm really not very good at this, so I'll soon be disappearing from this forum for several months."
A perfect "Theist = English" translation. I hope the Rep worked.
You may be right. I'm going to be thinking all day of any 'negative claims' and whether any of them could be falsified. Of course then, just as the 'supernatural' when validated and understood becomes 'natural' and even scientific, a falsifiable negative claim perhaps bones no a negative claim...maybe
Maybe I need more coffee....
You have no beer in your refrigerator.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may be right. I'm going to be thinking all day of any 'negative claims' and whether any of them could be falsified. Of course then, just as the 'supernatural' when validated and understood becomes 'natural' and even scientific, a falsifiable negative claim perhaps bones no a negative claim...maybe 
