I was an atheist, but my worldview was destroyed by this

"Science" also denies being a religion.

Attached: Reaction - Thinking meme.jpg (600x494, 30K)

What religion prays by making that cool pose on the right. I want to be that.

Embarassing.

Atheists do this retarded thing where they claim that believing that God doesn't exist is a "negative" and then claim that you "cannot prove a negative" even though there is no such rule in logic.To the contrary, in mathematics there are countless theorems involving negative statements that have been proven (e.g the Abel impossibility theorem).

They literally base their beliefs on made up rules of logic then pat each other on the back and assure themselves that they're, like, really really smart and stuff.

They also do this thing where they claim that science has "disproved God" even though there isn't a single scientific experiment that demonstrates this. They're just not smart people.

>the christian and the pagan are the only ones standing on their own two feet

The jew and the golem fear somebody telling their LARPs are made up.

Nice strawman, you low IQ kike.

please explain to me how atheism is a religion.
A lack of belief is hardly unifying.

Not really what atheism is going for.
Atheism says that there is no god, and when religious people reply with 'prove there is no god', that's the logical problem.

Attached: pepse.jpg (569x458, 29K)

If religion is a hair color, atheism is bald.

"Everyone else thinks there's a God, therefore you should too"
I don't have anything really against Christians, but this is the most NPC thing you can think
>You can prove a negative
>Burden of proof doesn't exist
Read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Can you prove there's not a teacup orbiting the earth? No? Then that proves it is there.

It's true. They all know it, but will never admit it. They gravitate toward personality cults, just like the commies did. If their heralded leader is shown to have an inferior command of logic, even to themselves, they brush it off or double down on the same faulty logic. They aren't scientific, they're political. Their natural religion is Communism.

Wiccan, apparently. It’s called the triple crescent.

The burden of proof lies with the man making the claim. Atheists claim that God doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on them.

This us exactly what I'm talking about btw. Atheists have ZERO evidence to back up their statements. ZERO.

All they can do is pass the buck by claiming that the burden of proof is on someone else or do that retarded leftie thing where they act smug, look down their noses at everyone else and then tell each other how very intelligent they all are... while simultaneously not offering any actual evidence of their beliefs.

"God doesn't exist because I don't like religious people".

Is that an accurate summary of what you believe? I believe that it is.

>A lack of belief is hardly unifying.
imo framing atheism as simply a "lack of belief" is too simple. I get that it applies, but I would personally refer to people who passively lack belief as nontheists, while atheists are people who specifically believe there is no god/higher force.

>Atheists claim that God doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on them.
Your logic is terrible. So if a Christian were to claim that God does exist, that would put the burden of proof on them, according to your logic, no?

4200 religions = 4200 dividing lines.
Keep the sheep seperated.

Our reality is totally different than what we have been told. We were born into a cult.

I spelled separated wrong.

Still a cult.

Also, your argument in paragraph is based on anecdotal evidence. Just because you've met a snobbish atheist doesn't mean atheists are inherently arrogant.
>that retarded leftie
Nigger I literally want to gas the jews and bring back the Reich, you think I'm left-wing?

Yes, EITHER side making a claim has a burden of proof on them. The default state is "we don't know." It's easy to prove a negative, if the negative is true: The US has never had an Asian president. The moon is not made of cheese. There are no married bachelors. Negatives are easy to prove for anyone who cares enough about their argument to try.

Admitting you don't know, well that's extremely hard for some people.

Whites and non-whites SHOULD be separated.

>Passes the buck again
>Still no actual evidence that God doesn't exist

I expected nothing less from all the smart atheists ITT.

Could it be that you don't have any actual evidence for your beliefs? What then could your beliefs be based on?

It's almost as if you believe in something for which there isn't any evidence. What a silly thing to do.

>>Atheism
>>Religion
The lack of a religion is not a religion...

Attached: cpm111sga -- 3615 -- jgh111xkt'.jpg (840x960, 43K)

>It's easy to prove a negative, if the negative is true
That's not always true. Surely there are some arguments where it's impossible to produce evidence for either side. For example, I have magic powers. You can't disprove this statement with evidence, and I can't prove it. Since I'm a random guy on the internet, and haven't done anything to prove that you can safely say I don't. Of course I'm not 100% sure about God not existing, but I'm fairly certain
Why don't you answer my question? Are you afraid?

Attached: dgdggddg.jpg (947x667, 38K)

Imagine having your convictions shattered by a fucking meme

>Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
How do you respond to this? Does this not rationally prove the Burden of Proof is real and rests on you?

That's right buddy. I'm shaking in my boots at the thought of all the evidence that you didn't post.

I bet all the religious people lirking ITT are shocked now that you've blown them out of the water with all those facts! and logic! and science!

FYI if you have noevidence to back up your claim, then your belief that God doesn't exist is based on Faith, and nothing else.

>FYI if you have noevidence to back up your claim, then your belief that God doesn't exist is based on Faith, and nothing else.
I do have evidence, is just rationally backed rather than empirically backed.
See Also, still haven't answered my question. You do realize I'm being courteous to you by asking that question? I want to respond to YOUR beliefs rather than creating a strawman argument. Your not helping me though

Obvious bait is obvious.

Attached: 1556254327212.gif (395x408, 119K)

>Passes the buck again
>Still no evidence

Boy, do I feel silly.

You know people would respect the atheists more if they just admitted that they have no actual evidence for their beliefs and stopped this absurd pretense that their beliefs are "scientific".

>YOUR beliefs
I haven't even said what my religious beliefs are you spastic.

My belief isn't scientific, it's rational. Why won't you respond on my arguments based on burden of proof? This debate can't progress until you do.

Also, my question wasn't about your religous beliefs, it was about your beliefs on burden of proof. You still haven't answered it, why not? If you forgot what I'm talking about, the post is right here:

>But the earlier thread made by the kike using that fat fuck Gervais to attack Christians, that wasn't bait at all.
KYS

>Only my opponents have burden of proof.
Wrong.

>But you can't prove a negative
Wrong again.

>And my opponents definitely have the positive claim.
You are claiming it's possible for a universe to form from nothingness.

>Still no evidence

The burden of proof lies on the man making the claim. The thread is about whether or not atheism is a religion.

You claim that atheism us not a religion. I ask you for evidence of your claim and you have nothing.

I think that about wraps up the thread.

>Wrong
Correct.
You're changing the topic of discussion. There is evidence of that, however

When did I say atheism is not a religion? Not that I think that's true, but that's not what this is about. This is about whether or not Burden of proof is real and if it applies to the argument of the existence of God

>I think that about wraps up the thread.
Okay retard