You can't validate a claim of nonexistence unless you define what it means to exist. I could say "Scooby Doo exists" and I could say "Scooby Doo doesn't exist" and both statements could be right simultaneously in their own context. Additionally, if you asked people randomly, "who is Scooby Doo?", most would probably answer without any regard for fact, fiction, ideology, or religious belief.
That's the thing with a lot of the atheism vs theism debates. Much of it gets baked together unnecessarily, then you get a bunch of people yappin about how those on the other side of the fence are wrong. Optimally people would just work together to find answers and accept multiple possibilities when something is unknown.
That's the thing with a lot of the atheism vs theism debates. Much of it gets baked together unnecessarily, then you get a bunch of people yappin about how those on the other side of the fence are wrong. Optimally people would just work together to find answers and accept multiple possibilities when something is unknown.
