A question regarding proof

[Fred]

Oh, I see, you were trying to trick me.

No, sir. Not at all. No tricks, no bullshit. Just playing by the rules as stated. Stick with it, because it gets really interesting.

Obviously not the same thing, mostly because whether or not you dreamed about a pony doesn't matter.

That's a value judgement and it doesn't change anything. There is still no evidence for my pony.

Rather than say I'd believe you, it would be better to say 'I would think nothing of your claim'.

But you didn't say that. You said you would be inclined to believe me and didn't even stop to question it at all. I find that odd, given that there isn't a shred of credible evidence for it.

If you made a claim that you dreamed about a pony and it became real, that would require further testing.

Stick with the example. You can test all all you want as long as you want. There's no evidence for a pony. And if there's no evidence, the pony doesn't exist.

---

[quote='aleialoura' pid='175891' dateline='1315439471']
All we have is your word you had a dream about a pony. Personally, I don't believe you. It could be true, but it's a dream about a pony... so who cares.

Right. You only have my word and it's good that you don't believe me. How could you when there's no evidence for the existence of dream ponies? Whether you care or not is immaterial. (Hey, that's evidence for you, Rhythm!)

---

I see where this is going, and I can assure you that this kind of crap is not going to make us lift you up on our shoulders as we exclaim how brilliant and great you are for showing us that just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is just ridiculous.

I agree. So instead of your off-base assumption, let's just stick with my argument and see where it goes.

For all the talk about how atheism is based upon reason and logic, they sure seem to scare the living shit out of you folks.