Atheism and Purpose

[Welsh cake]

Concrete thinking is for children, so why don't you stop with it already. The point is not about the sky being blue. The point is about the concept of proof in general.

In what context are you using the word "Proof" amyway? Please explain your objections. Earlier you mentioned it in the sense of what is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of any given proposition i.e. the sky being blue, but here you're going off on a tangent where I'm no longer sure if you're arguing from epistemology, scientific method or a philosophical viewpoint.

It's about atheists who go around proudly boasting that "science is the only truth!" When the opinions of scientists change with each and every journal article.

Atheists simply don't believe in god (or gods) because the concept is not demonstrable nor manifests in reality that is open to investigation or observation through the senses, quintessentially it does not satisfy their standards of evidence, whether they care whatever findings scientific research yields is a completely different matter altogether.

You go around beating up on the Christian god, and it makes you look stupid.

Likewise Ed you're not allowed to criticise, respond to, or apply any scrutiny to positive claims to knowledge over the Loch Ness Monster's existence, because otherwise that'd make you look really, REALLY stupid.

You say you don't believe in God. What pray tell is this God you don't believe in? Define it. I'll bet you can't. I'll be no one in here can. I'll be no one in here thinks past the concept of the Sunday School god when they think about that which they don't believe in.

We don't have to define what it is that we don't believe in, obviously. Those that do not make any ontologically positive claims for the existence of god or gods have no burden to define it epistemically.

If people start claiming there's a giant frog in the sun and you don't believe for whatever reason and they reject that response by shifting the burden so you can't define their concept, they are being fallacious. They are resorting to informal logical fallacies by simply asserting that the giant frog in the sun is true as long as it has not been refuted. You don't need to refute defeaters to win arguments Ed, you need confirmers for each premise.