The Adam and Eve are in devorce, so it is time to revise the Methodology of Science

[DogmaHunter]

If two competing things, if two competing theories, if two competing Theologies are possible, then it can be subject for investigation (if a people, who want it are). But we can not say, that theory A is incorrect. One can only say, what A and B together can not be correct. "If a thing is not refuted yet, it counts as existing." But the set S=(A,B) is refuted, however A and B are not yet. Thus, the S does not exist. But A and B are existing. Reality is what exists. Two competing things exist as task for a human.

Here's a claim:

An undetectable 7-headed dragon is going to eat you unless you stop posting on this forum.

I'll go ahead and assume that you can't prove this to be incorrect.
So I trust that means that you assume that this dragon exists until he can be disproven.

Better stop posting then.

If you continue posting, i'll know that you don't actually believe any of the nonsense you write down in here in baby engish.

 

[joinfree]

Here's a claim:

An undetectable 7-headed dragon is going to eat you unless you stop posting on this forum.

I'll go ahead and assume that you can't prove this to be incorrect.

DISPROOF number 1:
The monster was made up by atheist, thus, it does not exist.
DISPROOF number 2:
Who has seen, that unseen dragon is a dragon? Who has seen its colour, flames, and form? The God. But the claimer is god-less. We came to contradiction, so the monster does not exist.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

DISPROOF number 1:
The monster was made up by atheist, thus, it does not exist.
DISPROOF number 2:
Who has seen, that unseen dragon is a dragon? Who has seen its colour, flames, and form? The God. But the claimer is god-less. We came to contradiction, so the monster does not exist.

You do realise we can make the same claims about God and the Bible, right?

 

[AirPo]

And what? How that contradicts the file?

Yes.

 

[AirPo]

DISPROOF number 1:
The monster was made up by atheist, thus, it does not exist.
DISPROOF number 2:
Who has seen, that unseen dragon is a dragon? Who has seen its colour, flames, and form? The God. But the claimer is god-less. We came to contradiction, so the monster does not exist.

Atheist does not believe in god but does believe in dragon. DISPROOF #1 fail.
Invisible dragon does not nee to be seen to be invisible. DISPROOF #2 fail.

 

[joinfree]

Atheist does not believe in god but does believe in dragon. DISPROOF #1 fail.
Invisible dragon does not nee to be seen to be invisible. DISPROOF #2 fail.

1. Unbelievers know things, but do not believe in them. They never trust a thing, but are making practical assumptions.
2. The man has made up the monster, so latter does not exist. Like the FSM does not exist, because is made up.
3. What nonsense is that: "Invisible dragon does not nee to be seen to be invisible"? It is crazy tautology, isn't it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

DISPROOF number 1:
The monster was made up by atheist, thus, it does not exist.

God was made up by theists, thus, it does not exist.

DISPROOF number 2:
Who has seen, that unseen dragon is a dragon? Who has seen its colour, flames, and form? The God. But the claimer is god-less. We came to contradiction, so the monster does not exist.

LOL!!
"Disproving" an unfalsifiable claim by piling on other unfalsifiable claim.
Delicious.


Maybe you should look up what the word "disprove" means.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. Unbelievers know things, but do not believe in them. They never trust a thing, but are making practical assumptions.

Atheism is defined by not believing in gods or supernatural things.
This dragon is not a god nore is it supernatural.
An atheist is perfectly capable of believing this dragon exists and still be atheist.

2. The man has made up the monster, so latter does not exist. Like the FSM does not exist, because is made up.

Man has made up gods.
Hey, if you get to just "refute" bare claims by making contradicting bare claims, then I get to do that too.

3. What nonsense is that: "Invisible dragon does not nee to be seen to be invisible"? It is crazy tautology, isn't it?

Yes, it is.
Too bad you don't see the irony of it.

 

[joinfree]

God was made up by theists, thus, it does not exist.
......

God is not idol. You are talking about an idol: "idol is made up by pagans, so it does not exist." The name of God is ``God'', the idol is what has stolen this name.

I have modified the file, please reread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is not idol.

According to the people following a different religion, your god is the idol.

It's hilariously sad how stuck you are in circularity and confirmation bias.

You are talking about an idol: "idol is made up by pagans, so it does not exist." The name of God is ``God'', the idol is what has stolen this name.
I have modified the file, please reread.

"re"-read?

I'm sorry (not really, but it's nice to be nice), but I didn't bother to read it the first time.
Your initial quote of it in your OP told me everything I need to know.

I'm really not going to waste my time trying to make sense of a google translated word salad.

If you have specific points that you wish to discuss, you are welcome to raise them in a post and I'll happily dismantle and destroy them to the best of my abilities.

Now.... have you looked up the meaning of the word "disprove" yet?
Are you still sticking to your nonsensical idea that "things must be assumed to exist until they can be shown to not exist?".

 

[joinfree]

According to the people following a different religion, your god is the idol.
…..
Are you still sticking to your nonsensical idea that "things must be assumed to exist until they can be shown to not exist?".

My God can not be idol, because He is not disproven.

Presumption of Existence is not Factual Existence and not the Assumption of Existence. But my God is proven to exist. The trolls use Presumption of Non-existence: ``if the thing is not proven, it is like if it does not exist'', it is the ``Burden of Proof''. But I use Presumption of Existence and Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Righteousness: ``until one would become disproven, he is treated as if he is in right''.​

 

[AirPo]

My God can not be idol, because He is not disproven.

Presumption of Existence is not Factual Existence.

So you believe him but cannot know him. Sorry, that's not good enough for me.

 

[joinfree]

So you believe him but cannot know him. Sorry, that's not good enough for me.

Presumption of Existence is not Factual Existence and not the Assumption of Existence. But my God is proven to exist. The trolls use Presumption of Non-existence: ``if the thing is not proven, it is like if it does not exist'', it is the ``Burden of Proof''. But I use Presumption of Existence and Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Righteousness: ``until one would become disproven, he is treated as if he is in right''.

 

[AirPo]

But my God is proven to exist.

That's not true.

 

[joinfree]

That's not true.

Your word against my word.

 

[AirPo]

Your word against my word.

Your word against reality.

 

[joinfree]

Your word against reality.

The atheism is not proven. The trolling is the nihilistic speech without proofs.

 

[AirPo]

The atheism is not proven. The trolling is the nihilistic speach without proofs.

Of course it has. I don't believe in God, therefore atheism exists.

 

[joinfree]

Of course it has. I don't believe in God, therefore atheism exists.

Atheism is nonsense. The nonsense exists only as problem of health.

 

[AirPo]

Atheism is nonsense. The nonsense exists only as problem of health.

How is it nonsense?