203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 90:
Line 90: + +
→'Weak Atheism'
::::::::Well, if there isn't clear, undeniable proof of God, that kinda destroys his whole argument that it is basically impossible for a 'weak atheist' to be an atheist due to the evidence (or, rather, lack of it), rather than an underlying world view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Well, if there isn't clear, undeniable proof of God, that kinda destroys his whole argument that it is basically impossible for a 'weak atheist' to be an atheist due to the evidence (or, rather, lack of it), rather than an underlying world view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: No, it doesn't destroy my argument at all. See also the parts about proof and evidence at [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: No, it doesn't destroy my argument at all. See also the parts about proof and evidence at [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) So, to summarise what appears to be your entire argument, what you are basically saying is that you are free to propose anything you like, and, if people cannot definitively prove you wrong, that is a solid scientific theory. OK, I'll do this myself. The universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn which cannot be seen or detected by any known method. Prove me wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)