Cliff wrote:

The idea that an atheist (or anybody else) needs to "prove" some
kind of non-existence is one of the most ridiculous and destructive
non-ideas that's ever polluted human minds.

Proof is affirmative. It only works on things that actually do
exist. To attempt to twist it around and prove a negative - ANY
negative, is to admit that you don't have a clue about what proof is,
about how logic works, or about which end of you is your head and which
is your ass.


Some might "argue" ....

Obviously, the world is full of people who'd argue. But when they
start using words like "proof", then I think they should be held
responsible for knowing what those words mean. Strabo clearly doesn't.

Incidentally, in the second of Gunner's cites, the supposed
"propoenent" of logic is as incompetent as the person he's arguing with.
He says, for example, that you can't prove Santa Claus is non-existent
"since you cannot know the holiday reality of every person on the planet
or their chimney status". This person doesn't know anything about
proof, either. Even if I DID know the status of every chimney, that's
not the same as knowing that I've included every possible chimney there
is. And how would I PROVE that'd I'd left no chimney unchecked? No
answer. This person has confused statistics, or common versions of
proof, with the real thing.

One of the worst things that can happen to any good idea is for
idiots to start liking it. Their methods of "defending" what's right
often do more harm than good.

KG