Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If you claim that gods don’t exist, you have the burden of proof again and that is impossible to prove.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things. it can mean you either believe there is no god, or that you are basically agnostic, or something in between. (at least that’s what i got from the wikipedia page.) but anyways, the whole “burden of proof” argument does not apply to all forms of atheism, as certain kinds of atheism involve an active belief that no god exists. however, the “burden of proof” argument does apply to all forms agnosticism. so it is still a better argument for agnosticism than it is for atheism.
Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If you claim that gods don’t exist, you have the burden of proof again and that is impossible to prove.
What is an atheist on a planet of atheists?
If nobody believes in God, then there’s no one to convince anyone, and there’s nothing to convince.
Are you implying people naturally believe in a god and it has to be denied? I sure didn’t.
In what way was I implying that? You’re not making sense.
This is only true if the general consensus is “God exists”.
If no one has any concept of God to begin with, then what are you arguing?
If you have to invent hypothetical scenarios to make your argument sound plausible, it’s probably not a good argument.
Considering God is entirely hypothetical, I agree.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things. it can mean you either believe there is no god, or that you are basically agnostic, or something in between. (at least that’s what i got from the wikipedia page.) but anyways, the whole “burden of proof” argument does not apply to all forms of atheism, as certain kinds of atheism involve an active belief that no god exists. however, the “burden of proof” argument does apply to all forms agnosticism. so it is still a better argument for agnosticism than it is for atheism.