I'm not sure I understand what you are doing here, Ashers.
You asked this question:
How do you prove a negative?
Now...and be honest here...does it not sound as though you are saying that one cannot prove a negative?
So I gave an example of proving a negative.
Obviously...some negatives are harder...much, much harder to prove than others...and a "for instance" would be "there are no gods."
I am not sure what you were referencing when you wrote: "How do you prove a negative." It had come just after the words, “No to both questions"...and I had not asked anything about any proofs in either of those questions.
If you were saying ...How do you prove there are no gods? (not something I had asked)...I would have acknowledged that I think it impossible to prove there are no gods.
But you didn't...and I answered the question you did ask.
(So we have no question about this later, I do not think it impossible to prove there is a GOD...I just suspect it will never be done!)
If this is going to become an argument about what is or isn't atheism/agnosticism, then it won't be for me though.
Well...now we have a problem. It seems you are content to call yourself an atheist....and you are not willing to discuss whether the designation is appropriate or not.
Okay...that IS your prerogative. No argument from me on that at all.
You can in fact, if you choose, call yourself a Christian. (In another thread some folks have asserted that anyone who calls him/herself a Christian IS a Christian simply by doing so.)
In any case, the question of whether or not the designation is being used appropriately is an important element in my discussion here...and if you would prefer to terminate the discussion because of that...no understand completely. We can certainly discuss other things in other places in the future...and I thank you for being an interesting and enjoyable discussion partner.