Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

"Respectful" seems to be a matter of opinion. What's truthful can seem disrespectful to someone who adamantly believes it or is used to hearing it in a certain way. e.g., How does Jesus breathe in heaven where we now know there is no oxygen, and why is sky daddy disrespectful when both sky and daddy are commonly used terms, and God the Father supposedly lives in heaven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

Trying to be reasonable but also reductive, believing in any religion is irrational.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is sky daddy offensive when people literally call god "father"? Lol make up your minds!

"Our father who art in heaven". People say it all the time without being offended. But "Our daddy who art in the sky" sounds odd, even though the words father/daddy and heaven/sky are used interchangeably all the time.

Sounds odd =/= offensive

I say “my mother and father in heaven” and refer to God as you or they and sometimes even she - not him

I love hearing people refer to god as a she/her.

How about "my Mommy and Daddy in the sky" for kids?

My kids would tell you that God is everywhere, not just in the sky.

I also learned that God is everywhere, but still recited the Lord's Prayer, saying "Our Father, who art in Heaven" - Do your kids?

Anonymous wrote:Why is sky daddy offensive when people literally call god "father"? Lol make up your minds!

When I was young and was told that God is my Father, my hackles rose. My reaction was more or less, "I have a father already, thank you very much." It was the start of a long line of dominoes that led me to become agnostic.

As an adult, however, I understand that God as "Father" is more of a metaphor. Partially, my black-and-white, underdeveloped child-mind didn't know how to understand metaphor. And partially, the adults in my religion didn't think to explain it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is sky daddy offensive when people literally call god "father"? Lol make up your minds!

"Our father who art in heaven". People say it all the time without being offended. But "Our daddy who art in the sky" sounds odd, even though the words father/daddy and heaven/sky are used interchangeably all the time.

Sounds odd =/= offensive

I say “my mother and father in heaven” and refer to God as you or they and sometimes even she - not him

I love hearing people refer to god as a she/her.

How about "my Mommy and Daddy in the sky" for kids?

My kids would tell you that God is everywhere, not just in the sky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is sky daddy offensive when people literally call god "father"? Lol make up your minds!

"Our father who art in heaven". People say it all the time without being offended. But "Our daddy who art in the sky" sounds odd, even though the words father/daddy and heaven/sky are used interchangeably all the time.

Sounds odd =/= offensive

I say “my mother and father in heaven” and refer to God as you or they and sometimes even she - not him

I love hearing people refer to god as a she/her.

I try as much as possible to just not use pronouns for God at all, since God is beyond gender. It's easier to do in writing than it is when speaking though. He/him pronouns for God are just so ingrained in the way I speak and I often speak faster than I can think to correct it in the moment.

I do think that there can be instances where attributing certain pronouns to God can provide helpful context for how we're speaking about God in a given situation. Like, if I'm talking about God as a nurturing, life-giving God, using she/her could help underscore that characterization. I also like that she/her pronouns make people pause and consider that God doesn't actually have a gender, even if they usually think of God as he/him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is sky daddy offensive when people literally call god "father"? Lol make up your minds!

"Our father who art in heaven". People say it all the time without being offended. But "Our daddy who art in the sky" sounds odd, even though the words father/daddy and heaven/sky are used interchangeably all the time.

Sounds odd =/= offensive

I say “my mother and father in heaven” and refer to God as you or they and sometimes even she - not him

I love hearing people refer to god as a she/her.

How about "my Mommy and Daddy in the sky" for kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this only happens through lived experiences, not on forums. Except for those who get radicalized.

ITA

I think it (deconversion) can happen both ways and that radicalization need not be a part of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

And the respect goes both ways, right? Keep in mind that an atheist would say that there is not a rational argument for religion. Even religious people will say that religion is a matter of faith.

Yes respect always goes both ways and requires humility on both sides since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through scientific method.

Nor can the existence of leprechauns. Yet none of us are going to believe those exist until we see evidence, right?

Do you find that snarky?

More like Facetious …

See that’s the point. It’s not it’s a totally legitimate comparison and they’re in lies the difficulty.

Why not?

You read the bolded part wrong I think, and I definitely could have worded it better so mu bad.

So what did you really mean to say?

It’s not [Facetious] it’s a totally legitimate comparison [between mythical beings there is little evidence of existence like leprechauns and gods]

What?? and who are you? -- you don't sound like the religious pp who was asked: "So what did you really mean to say?"

Because I am not the religious PP and said the opposite, but left out the parenthetical parts and shouldn't have because the conversation gets truncated in this forum. But I am the one you asked. Note the second "it's" in my original which said "it’s a totally legitimate comparison". Problem is I voice dictated this to my phone so that being said in conversation would be more sensible than it looks written. A comma would have helped immensely.

OK

Anonymous wrote:I think this only happens through lived experiences, not on forums. Except for those who get radicalized.

ITA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

And the respect goes both ways, right? Keep in mind that an atheist would say that there is not a rational argument for religion. Even religious people will say that religion is a matter of faith.

Yes respect always goes both ways and requires humility on both sides since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through scientific method.

Nor can the existence of leprechauns. Yet none of us are going to believe those exist until we see evidence, right?

Do you find that snarky?

More like Facetious …

See that’s the point. It’s not it’s a totally legitimate comparison and they’re in lies the difficulty.

Why not?

You read the bolded part wrong I think, and I definitely could have worded it better so mu bad.

So what did you really mean to say?

It’s not [Facetious] it’s a totally legitimate comparison [between mythical beings there is little evidence of existence like leprechauns and gods]

What?? and who are you? -- you don't sound like the religious pp who was asked: "So what did you really mean to say?"

Because I am not the religious PP and said the opposite, but left out the parenthetical parts and shouldn't have because the conversation gets truncated in this forum. But I am the one you asked. Note the second "it's" in my original which said "it’s a totally legitimate comparison". Problem is I voice dictated this to my phone so that being said in conversation would be more sensible than it looks written. A comma would have helped immensely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

And the respect goes both ways, right? Keep in mind that an atheist would say that there is not a rational argument for religion. Even religious people will say that religion is a matter of faith.

Yes respect always goes both ways and requires humility on both sides since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through scientific method.

Nor can the existence of leprechauns. Yet none of us are going to believe those exist until we see evidence, right?

Do you find that snarky?

More like Facetious …

See that’s the point. It’s not it’s a totally legitimate comparison and they’re in lies the difficulty.

Why not?

You read the bolded part wrong I think, and I definitely could have worded it better so mu bad.

Are you missing some punctuation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

And the respect goes both ways, right? Keep in mind that an atheist would say that there is not a rational argument for religion. Even religious people will say that religion is a matter of faith.

Yes respect always goes both ways and requires humility on both sides since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through scientific method.

Nor can the existence of leprechauns. Yet none of us are going to believe those exist until we see evidence, right?

Do you find that snarky?

More like Facetious …

See that’s the point. It’s not it’s a totally legitimate comparison and they’re in lies the difficulty.

Why not?

You read the bolded part wrong I think, and I definitely could have worded it better so mu bad.

So what did you really mean to say?

It’s not [Facetious] it’s a totally legitimate comparison [between mythical beings there is little evidence of existence like leprechauns and gods]

What?? and who are you? -- you don't sound like the religious pp who was asked: "So what did you really mean to say?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

And the respect goes both ways, right? Keep in mind that an atheist would say that there is not a rational argument for religion. Even religious people will say that religion is a matter of faith.

Yes respect always goes both ways and requires humility on both sides since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through scientific method.

Nor can the existence of leprechauns. Yet none of us are going to believe those exist until we see evidence, right?

Do you find that snarky?

More like Facetious …

See that’s the point. It’s not it’s a totally legitimate comparison and they’re in lies the difficulty.

Why not?

You read the bolded part wrong I think, and I definitely could have worded it better so mu bad.

So what did you really mean to say?

It’s not [Facetious] it’s a totally legitimate comparison [between mythical beings there is little evidence of existence like leprechauns and gods]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have discussions on this religion forum influenced you either away from or towards religion? If away, how? And if towards, which religion and why?

There is not enough compassion and too much judgment by posters on all sides on this forum. Moments of genuine conversation are quickly interrupted by name calling and snark. So, no, the forum hasn't influenced my beliefs at all.

Characterizing the forum as snarky doesn't mean it couldn't influence your beliefs. In fact, it seems somewhat snarky to even say that in this context.

How is it snarky to say that the forum is often snarky and judgmental? I think that if only the atheists or only the religious posters were being judgmental, that might influence me, but I see it from all sides.

DP. Others judgments are snarky, but your judgments are not? "Snarky" is subjective of course. Many theists here see people saying "there is insufficient evidence for your god belief" as snarky.

Right, theists could see statements of fact as snarky if they don't like the statements, and/or are insulted by them, as in "How dare you say that there is insufficient evidence for my god belief" not realizing, or not thinking at the time, that beliefs do not require evidence.

DP
Justified true beliefs require evidence.

I think above is a misrepresentation of religious posters. Most are not up in arms about being asked for evidence of proof of God, which cannot be done. Rather they appear in o object to crude negative generalizations and over simplifications.

No one appreciates being talked to disrespectful ways .

+1

Correct. And I think you would agree that it's not disrespectful to say that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Yes I agree that the existence of God cannot be proven via scientific methods.

I don’t think that is rude at all but there were earlier posts in this thread and others that (may have been deleted) that denounced all religion as evil, all believers as fools, and the root cause of all problems. Etc.

I am fine with rational arguments as long as they are respectful and non reductive.

And the respect goes both ways, right? Keep in mind that an atheist would say that there is not a rational argument for religion. Even religious people will say that religion is a matter of faith.

Yes respect always goes both ways and requires humility on both sides since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through scientific method.

Nor can the existence of leprechauns. Yet none of us are going to believe those exist until we see evidence, right?

Do you find that snarky?

More like Facetious …

See that’s the point. It’s not it’s a totally legitimate comparison and they’re in lies the difficulty.

Why not?

You read the bolded part wrong I think, and I definitely could have worded it better so mu bad.

So what did you really mean to say?