If atheist fundies believe Oden does not exist what do they base their conclusion on?
There is no proof Oden exists
and no proof Oden does not exist
That leaves no evidence upon which to draw a logical conclusion either way?
So no side can be more correct than the other and both equally wrong.
Hell of a way to run an argument. Two sides arguing about which side is more wrong?
Or I suppose you can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
There is no proof pink unicorns exists
and no proof pink unicorns does not exist
Like it makes any real distinction in a logical manner. They both remain equally wrong.