Time to get up and spread some blasphemy on the tl!

@besticandois271 @AgainstAtheismX Dude has a personality disorder 😂

@OneManArmy_Real @darwintojesus And you're an atheist according to your logic. Bravo—case closed! Welcome to the other side, hermano! 🤝

@Lilith_Atheist Lol

I knew I could always count on zealots to sidestep research in favor of comforting biases. Einstein actually rejected both religious dogma and militant atheism, so invoking him is like citing Newton's belief in alchemy to argue for its scientific validity. If you want your point in contentions against atheism to be taken seriously, it should be justified and substantiated logically—not dismissed based on Einstein's personal speculations. Nobody gets brownie points for appealing to authority, Neiman.

@TomasARossi @TylerreneeM @LeftRealPatriot @darwintojesus @grthkldfh

The proposition that all suffering originates from the theological concept of original sin is inconsistent with empirical evidence from evolutionary biology. Pathologies such as cancer have been documented in prehistoric organisms, including dinosaurs, as evidenced by paleopathological analysis of fossilized remains. The existence of such diseases long before the emergence of Homo sapiens indicates that suffering is an inherent feature of biological life rather than a consequence of human moral transgression. A Lancet Oncology study confirmed osteosarcoma in a Centrosaurus apertus fibula (76–77 Mya) via advanced imaging and histopathology. A 240 mill y/o stem-turtle leg bone showed a malignant tumor, indicating cancer predates humans.

@nolanbostock @darwintojesus He's already admitted to rejecting objective truth, so I never approach these with the illusion of changing his mind. His reputation is fragile at best, and aligning with my perspective would threaten the delicate façade of credibility he desperately upholds.

You keep trying to turn atheism into a claim that requires evidence when it's simply the refusal to accept unsubstantiated claims. You're refusing to engage with the logical distinction between "I don't believe in X" and "I believe not-X." If you can't show me evidence for Zeus, Odin, or Vishnu, then by your logic, you should withhold belief in them as well, right? Unless you're willing to apply a double standard, your position collapses on itself.

Atheism isn't a counter-argument to God's existence; it's simply the absence of belief in it. The idea that atheism would "die" if people stopped talking about God is nonsensical. Atheism exists independently of any deity—it's the recognition that there's no convincing evidence for gods, not a belief in their opposite. You're confusing the rejection of a claim with the need for it to exist in order to have value. By your logic, every skeptic would need to "need" the thing they don't believe in to justify their position. Your reasoning is as faulty as claiming that rejecting a claim about unicorns means you believe in unicorns.

A lack of belief in deities doesn't imply disbelief in everything else. I know this doesn't fall within your range of scope but atheists can actually hold various beliefs—such as in science, ethics, human rights, or other philosophical and existential concepts. The real inconsistency here is assuming that disbelief in one thing (gods) means disbelief in everything else.

@OneManArmy_Real @darwintojesus You actively engage in discussions about atheism to defend your religion, which begs the question—do you subconsciously accept atheism as true but merely deny it? Surely, you can see the faulty logic here, can't you?

You're conflating disbelief with a belief in the opposite. Saying "I don’t believe X" does not mean "I believe not-X." if rejecting a claim requires evidence, then prove Zeus, Odin, and Vishnu don't exist. You can't, which means—by your own reasoning—you hold those rejections with zero evidence. Would you apply that same standard to yourself, or is this just textbook special pleading?

Questioning God and his motives is a problem, but isn't blind acceptance a far greater danger? Rejecting critical thinking benefits no one, least of all us as a species—don't you agree? You also say that suffering necessitates prayer and healing, but does that not imply a world intentionally designed with suffering as a prerequisite? Why create beings capable of agony only to require supplication for relief? More curiously, if most men and animals will die horrific deaths, then what exactly is the moral justification for such a design? And why should we accept that suffering is necessary rather than question why an omnipotent, benevolent deity would permit it in the first place?

@pgh_mark @darwintojesus

You're still conflating a lack of belief with holding an unsubstantiated belief, which is a fundamental logical error. I'm not asserting the claim "God does not exist"—that would require evidence. Rather, I'm simply stating, "I do not believe in God," because there's insufficient evidence to justify belief. The burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim—i.e., the theist—not with those who withhold belief. So no, I'm not holding a "position" without evidence, I'm merely withholding belief due to the lack of it. That's not a contradiction.

I'm typically not one to engage with personal experiences, as there are natural explanations that our confirmation biases compel us to ignore, making it futile. But for the sake of argument, I'll entertain it… Assuming I were to concede both the existence of your god and the idea that he healed your foot pain, why would this same deity allow the deer in the woods, for example, to suffer with a tree rammed through its limbs? Is the suffering of that creature any less significant? If you were god for a day and had the power to end unnecessary suffering, would you press that button? And if you did, would that not make you morally superior to the god you profess to worship?

@riaanpretorius @darwintojesus

The absence of belief in something doesn't imply belief in its opposite. Just because someone doesn't believe in Santa Claus doesn't mean they believe in Santa's non-existence. It's simply a lack of belief in the claim due to a lack of evidence, not a contradiction. By your logic, rejecting the claim of Santa Claus would make everyone a denier of Santa, which is an illogical conflation of skepticism with belief.

Your argument presumes atheism must be an active claim about reality, but it's not, and there's no evidence to support that presumption. It's an epistemic stance taken because there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief. This default position doesn't require one to assert "God does not exist"; it merely reflects a withholding of belief until a positive claim is made. However, if someone were to choose to assert "God does not exist," that would be a separate, positive claim which would require evidence. But conflating that additional claim with atheism as a whole misrepresents the concept. It's entirely within your prerogative to disagree, but you're distorting the textbook definition by twisting it to fit your narrative.