Nope. That's like saying someone's at a tipping point between homosexual and transgendered. Two different things.

You mean NOT the position, right?

@LovinLarge None of that makes sense...

@JeffMurray It makes sense to him. If it makes sense to him, I'm not sure it matters if it makes sense to anyone else. Although it did seem like he left out a word but perhaps not.

I was asking people to walk me through their logic and many were generous enough to do so. I learned far more than anticipated from their responses. One thing I learned was that sometimes it is helpful just to think about what someone wrote rather than responding. Another is that whether I agree with any of them is unimportant.

@LovinLarge I have added a correction, thank you

@JeffMurray

Possibly, you meant to say, "The post makes no sense." "The post is nonsense." or "There is no sense to be discerned in that post."

In addition, the ellipsis neither is needed nor is it the correct punctuation, which ironically in and of itself "makes no sense".

@LovinLarge That's why I addressed you, not him. If I was looking for guidance on something, I'd like input on the subject itself as well as others' opinions on the suggestions given. For instance, if you were seeking advice on a quick way to add and subtract a lot of numbers, and while some people suggested a calculator there were a few that suggested an abacus, wouldn't you appreciate if that idea was denounced so as to not waste time and energy looking into it? If his response to you was valuable, my response should be as well.

@LenHazell53 Not sure how what you thought I should write is any better for you than what I wrote, but sure. (Except, of course, for the fact that 'post' usually refers to the thing posted at the top and 'comment' or 'reply' would be the word for the nonsense you wrote.)
As for the ellipsis, they are used to denote an omission of words. In this case, it was an omission of, "it's not just the incorrect or missing word that's a problem." If you're going to correct people, you should know what you're talking about.

@JeffMurray If I didn't value your response, I wouldn't have used any of my time to address it. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt once but now you just seem like a troublemaker. I don't have time for such nonsense. Please make a positive contribution or move along.

Wow. Thank you for your effort. I will try to get my head around that. "Try" being the operative word. My brain is a little rusty (not compared to most people of course) but really understanding that will take some effort.

Thank you for that amazingly well thought out essay on the subject.
How would you assess reincarnation which, unlike your example of a unicorn, has been investigated scientifically to some degree, and does appear (to some) to have a degree of validity? Would this cast in doubt the stance of the 'hard' atheist?

@Storm1752 I'd need to see the studies, methodology used, peer review, scientific support, critiques, etc. — but, even then, I'm not a scientist and my opinion on the matter should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless, reincarnation is something I don't know how one would go about effectively and strictly testing, so I'm curious how it was done or attempted. It seems that it would require that the subject have verifiable, overwhelmingly detailed and intimate knowledge of someone else's life with absolutely no external access to that information. I think that would be very difficult to illustrate, especially for a large-scale study with many participants, but perhaps not impossible under the right conditions. That still would not be sufficient, however. Even if it were possible to show deep knowledge of someone else's life in that way, I think it wouldn't immediately point to reincarnation as the explanation. Off the top of my head (and I'm not suggesting any of these are more or less likely), someone might have visions of someone else's life, or they might commune with the dead, or they might have had a memory implant from aliens, or they might be ridiculously lucky in their guesses, or they might be a time traveler who witnessed the events firsthand. (Or it might merely be an error in methodology or someone fabricating/misinterpreting data due to their own biases in favor of reincarnation.) And then we have all the work ahead of us to show how reincarnation works, to demonstrate there's a substantive soul of some sort, that it traverses time and space independently, that it carries memories and experiences with it, and so on. I guess my default position boils down to, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I need the extraordinary evidence in this case.

What evidence could exist to support the hypothesis that there is no god? How can I disprove something that never existed? The onus of proof is on the affirmative, for which there is also no evidence.

@LovinLarge To borrow/use a Legal Terminology here, An case that relies sole upon unproven, tried and tested evidence is merely, nothing more than a False claim at best."
E.g. one single compendium of stories, i.e. the bible, CLAIMS itself to be the Truth yet it also contradicts itself time and time again.
No-one, absolutely no-one can prove a Negative just as no-one can prove a false claim, but a claim made with tried, tested Empirical evidence can be proven.
And yet, the Sciences have dozens, if not thousands, of books each containing tried and tested proven evidences with very few, if any, contradictions within them.
It IS easier to follow along with mere assumptions and suppositions IF one is so afraid of the truth hence we have religions where those who fear the truth can hide in relative false safety.

Before you post or comment, do you ask yourself if your intent is to make a helpful contribution? That is the guideline that I try to use and I think it might be of assistance to you, also.

@LovinLarge I explained the helpful intent of my first comment. Len and I have not been able to see eye to eye for a while now, which is why I don't take a soft tone with him like I do with others most of the time. I can support my claims. He seems to just say stuff to be an ass. Sure, I said his claims didn't make any sense (which they didn't), but instead of trying to support them, all he did was claim I punctuated my comment improperly (incorrectly and again, without support). But if you feel I don't contribute in a meaningful way, you can block me too. I strongly believe you'll get more out of reading what I have to say than him, though, and if you disagree with me, I'll actually debate the points and offer my support. I haven't seen that from him once.

@JeffMurray I'll take that as a "no".

@LovinLarge Except that I already basically said yes. I believed my first comment was helpful. When questioned, I explained why I thought it was helpful. I then gave an analogy to illustrate how it could be helpful. And have continued to clarify every time I'm asked even when people tell me my punctuation is incorrect or put words in my mouth. You seem to have formed your opinion of me based off my interaction with that asshole Len instead of how I interacted with you, and if that's the way you'd judge a person and their ability to contribute meaningful information, you probably wouldn't get much from me anyway.

@JeffMurray I meant helpful to others, not to yourself.

@LovinLarge Again, yes, I explained in detail how my first comment could be helpful to you (how would it be helpful to me when I've already researched the definitions of those words to my satisfaction). You seem like you're being intentionally difficult to get a rise out of me because you already don't like me.

@JeffMurray Some people say a lot with few words and other people use too many words to say too little. Guess which one you are.