Jake Starkey
Verified User
You are saying what I concluded.
There is no evidence, so . . . agnosticism is the only logical way.
There is no evidence, so . . . agnosticism is the only logical way.
God is not great
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Chuckle? I'm not chuckling. It's serious. Two imaginary things without objective evidence are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion.
The fact that you are credulous and believe things just because your pastor told you to is not something to be proud of, Cy.
I NEVER said anything even remotely like that. NEVER.
Ergo you are either mistaken or lying. Since you lie about most things anyway I will assume the latter.
Hey, if you are agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster then enjoy yourself. You are a sad piece pathos.
Is this why you believe in the tooth fairy?
Only if you don't understand atheism.
Cypress has spawned a new underling. A fellow illiterati who doesn't understand atheism or even logic. They will get along quite famously. Like Cy and his amanuensis, Doc Douche the Toxic
I understand there is a strong incentive to claim atheists don't believe in anything and do not have a worldview.
It's very convenient to be able to complain about other people's beliefs, without ever having to answer questions about your own materialistic worldview.
It's simply a lie that there is no prevailing atheist worldview. I know it's a lie because I am the only poster here who has read and investigated the seminal atheist authors and influencers of the 20th and 21st centuries
Where's the spaghetti? lol
Jake Starkey
Verified User
gmark77 has to slow down in this argument because Cypress is hanging g's ass out to dry.
There is no evidence for virgin birth, but I’m not about to say, “Well, I just don’t know for sure.” There is no logic in that.
For theists, their god is an assumption based on faith and not a conclusion based on investigation. It’s the opposite for atheists. Their conclusion is based on investigation and not an assumption based on faith.
It’s part of string theory.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
And an atheist's investigation is no more conclusive than that of a theist.
I also understand that you don't like it so you stamp you widdle feet and decree it not to be real.
Yet you use the same type of reasoning every single day of your life. Ironic that you don't realize it. I can give you about a billion examples if you'd like.
Why do you hate atheists so much?
You haven't done jack shit on here, Cletus.
You certainly haven't "investigated" anything. All you do is watch YouTubes, read Wikipedia and hit up Google AI.
LOLOLOLOLOL
Google AI.
What is there to investigate. You mouthbreathers never offer any evidence for your God other than "My minister tol' me Jebus lubs me!"
You think so? LOL.
I knew you would comport with Cy very well.
Both uneducated and desperate for people to think you actually GOT your GED.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
You don't offer any evidence for atheism. You are guessing as much as the theists.
gmark77 is simply a poser.
gmark77 is simply a poser.
Why don't you do your usual and hit up Google AI?
JEsus fuckin' Christ on a cracker. Are you REALLY that dumb? Did you actually just say that?
No one is ever required to prove the negative of a claim.
Wow, wait until you actually take a logic class, Cletus.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
gmark 77 is offering a Stone fallacy.
The phrase “you can’t prove a negative” is often misused. It’s true that some negatives are hard or impossible to prove, especially universal claims without boundaries. But in logic, science, and law, negatives are proven all the time—especially when framed correctly.
When Negatives
- Mathematics and logic: Negatives are routinely proven.
- Example: “There is no largest prime number.” This was proven by Euclid.
- Example: “√2 is not a rational number.” This is a classic proof by contradiction.
- Formal systems: In structured environments with clear rules (like chess, programming, or geometry), you can prove that something cannot happen or does not exist.
When Negatives
- Empirical claims about the real world: It’s often difficult or impossible to prove a universal negative.
- Example: “There are no unicorns anywhere in the universe.”
- You’d need exhaustive evidence of every possible location, which is impractical.
- Example: “There are no unicorns anywhere in the universe.”
- Philosophical or theological claims: Proving the nonexistence of abstract entities (e.g., God, ghosts) is often considered impossible because the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.
Why the Confusion?
The phrase “you can’t prove a negative” is often misused. It’s true that some negatives are hard or impossible to prove, especially universal claims without boundaries. But in logic, science, and law, negatives are proven all the time—especially when framed correctly.Some versions of superstring theory only include closed looped strings - so I guess we're talking spaghetti-o's here, lol
Thanks for the confession that it's a strategy of atheists to claim their worldview does not brook any questions or require any justification.
Trying to make yourself impervious to questions is a convenient debate strategy.