Originally Posted by Comrade Bork
Only something that does exist can be proven to exist.
If something does not exist, there can be no "proof" of its non-existence. There can only be a consistent absence of such proof.
It is not for agnostics to prove the non-existence of God.
It is for gnostics to prove the existence of God.
And until they do, admit their particular flavor of silly superstition is just that -- silly superstition -- and stop demanding that their fellow man live by their silly superstitious tenets.
You seem to be responding like the question as an attack;
I don't care.
I'm just wondering if this reasoning applies to all things we know *not to exist* vs believing in things unproven
to exist...like critters from another galaxy.
Personally, I believe in God, but I'm not committed to some denomination or Orthodox, just as I feel certain there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I can't prove either to be truth, but I don't see any proof to the contrary, either.
It seems like the base fundamental to aetheism always comes down to burden of proof for theist as opposed to general acceptance that we don't know one way or the other.
I don't care what others believe, I'd think it would be the same with aetheist, but there seems to be an evangelical quality to aetheism here.