>It's the big bang you idiot!Ok, so make something from nothing. Things don't just happen.>It's evolution you foolOk, so show me one of the (error undefined) number of viruses and organic compounds today, as compared with the hanful that existed back then, which can spontaneously become a living thing>It's gravity moronEvery time they build a bigger telescope yall invent a new kind of invisible undectable shit to fix how wrong you are in your own computer models.
are these atheists here in the room with us right now?
>>17408252no she converted.
>>17408224You're brown .
>>17408224None of those points have anything to do with atheism, and everything to do with stupid questions that Christians bring up to distract from the fact of their refusal to recognize their burden of proof hasn't been met yet.Every scientific answer could be 100% wrong, and it does nothing to support Christianity.In fact, Christians haven't even proven that the only two options are "science" or "God did it", to try and win through process of elimination.Atheism is the disbelief in any god/religion. It's not a positive claim, so there's no burden of proof required. If some retarded atheist turns it into a positive claim, then he's retarded, and doesn't know what he's saying. The atheist turns it into a positive claim is a faggot, and doesn't speak on behalf of anyone else, and only speaks for himself.That's one thing that Christians don't ever seem to understand about atheists. It's not an organized group. Even when atheists form groups, there's nothing that requires any other atheist to join or adopt whatever the group does. They don't need to run apologetics for the ones in the group either. Nothing an organized group of atheists say/do, will apply to the individuals outside of the group.Note: Substitute whatever non-Christian religion you want into where I said Christian/Christianity, if you're going to reply with "but I'm not Christian".
>>17408224Sounds a lot less pathetic than Christbeaner can kicking>you've never read the book!>ok you read it but that's out of context!>okay so context was included but you're interpreting it wrong!>okay so this is the widely agreed upon meaning....but it's...metaphor!>a metaphor for what?>.....>b-burn in hell! REEEEE
>>17408224Stop pretending to be stupid>>17408255Awww
>>17408224We know there are processes in the universe that are undefined until observed, look up the double slit experiment for one.But it wouldn't be a simulation.It's all real.Fyi computer games work the same
>>17408289OP thoroughly defeated by a phoneposter
>>17408310>Stop pretending to be stupidmaybe he isn't pretending.
>>17408289>Atheism is the disbelief in any god/religion. It's not a positive claim, so there's no burden of proof requiredCreationism is the disbelief in naturalism. It's not a positive claim, so there's no burden of proof required.
>>17408224>Ok, so make something from nothing.OK.There, I just made something from nothing. I attached a photo of it to this post. Oh, you can't see it? You just have to believe it's there, and the photo will show itself. I guess you just don't believe hard enough. Oh well; you'll see it after you die. Oh, and you'll also be tortured forever because you didn't believe in the photo that you couldn't see.
>>17408605>CreationismIs absolutely a positive claim. It's absolutely claiming that everything(including humanity) was created by a god, usually the Christian God.Please learn your own beliefs, before you try and talk.
>>17408224>Things don't just happen.The decay of protons literally just happen. But this doesn't really have to do with tbr big bang. The big bang is that the universe was born from the black hole of another universe>Ok, so show me one of the (error undefined) number of viruses and organic compounds today, This has been done already
>>17408605No, the opposite of Naturalism isn't creationism. Platonism is a non naturalist ontology and yet evolution would still be true if there were a supernatural platonic realm, for example.
>>17408605Oh also, Creationism was created, to mostly challenge evolution and everything connected to evolution's answers, such as geologic records.And as I said, science could be 100% wrong, and it still does nothing to prove your religion, because creationism isn't even addressing atheism, but science. As I stated, there's nothing else to atheism, but the disbelief in god/religion. There's no requirement for an atheist to accept one shred of scientific data for anything, and could completely accept that we live in The Matrix or believe in Last-Tuesdayism.This is all a distraction, from you meeting your burden of proof.
>>17408289>positive claimStupid buzzword, and midwit take. Atheism can be characterized as a positive belief in the absence of all gods/religions. Negative claims aren't exempt from the burden of proof, whether they're phrased positively or negatively, and the fact that you think you're pulling one over by not using "positive" terms betrays your own retardation.
>>17409514>Stupid buzzwordNo it isn't. It's a simple logical claim based on the existential quantifier.>Atheism can be characterized as a positive belief in the absence of all gods/religionsNo, it can't. The statement "there does not exist x with property P(x)" is not a positive claim and is already fully logically reduced.>Negative claims aren't exempt from the burden of proofYes they are >the fact that you think you're pulling one over by not using "positive" terms betrays your own retardation.No, you're just a pseudo intellectual moron who doesn't know what he's actually talking about
If people stopped allowing the indoctrination of children, religion would die in 1 generation.
>>17409524True
