238
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + +
→Application for Deletion
I'm sorry but this is an atrociously bad article that should be deleted. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 17:45, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry but this is an atrociously bad article that should be deleted. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 17:45, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
::The second paragraph doesn't appear to make sense where it states: "For example, the claim to know that God exists, despite the fact that it is technically scientifically impossible to disprove anything (i.e. negative proofs are impossible). Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of God without any real scientific proof." I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. Could someone explain please? [[User:NicosB|NicosB]] 01:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::The second paragraph doesn't appear to make sense where it states: "For example, the claim to know that God exists, despite the fact that it is technically scientifically impossible to disprove anything (i.e. negative proofs are impossible). Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of God without any real scientific proof." I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. Could someone explain please? [[User:NicosB|NicosB]] 01:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::It makes as much sense to me as "Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of [[The Flying Spaghetti Monster]] without any real scientific proof [therefore the FSM must be true]." Runs on the same kinda of logic. Since there is no way to provide proof something doesn't exist, and there is "evidence" for the Christian God, it should trump the non-evidence for a lack of God therefore theism trumps atheism. It's intended to make scientists to look foolish, unscientific and dogmatic and to promote the idea of Evolution/Scientism as a religion. Though I will keep this article in mind if anyone brings up the "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?" --DavidS 11:09, 25 March 2013 (EDT)