Why can't atheists define atheism?

Why can't atheists define atheism?

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

atheists are retards.

*Why can't Christians define atheism.

The belief that there is no god. Its pretty straight forward, OP.

>this same bread

Why do Jew proxy religionists always project?

wrong board, go to

Why do Christians pretend Christianity is a European religion?

Why can't religos define God?

agnostic reporting in
all religicucks too the gallows

why can't atheists define christians


as anything but retarded

No god.
That's it.

This thread never gets old. Fedoras have to take the bait every time.

Sick 2015 meme

Also sage.

And this

Why do christians love nigger feet?

/thread

>he actually thinks cuckolics are proper Christians

poor retarded child.

>vatican
>christian

pick one

the vatican is one of the most satanic shitholes on Earth

Atheists are retards who covered their eyes so they wouldn’t have to face uncomfortable truths. Btw Gnosticism is the true religion.

the shittiest effort
remove the dotcom reference
then remove yourself from existence faggot

hmmmm.

In my experience, all atheists under 30 are retards. It's the same act of rebellion as wearing all black.

Atheism cannot be defined because it's the absence of religious thought. How can you define a 'hole' except by reference to the material surrounding the void?

T. Baptist

Log

Those absolute quims need to be pinned down and raped to make an example.

Other christian sects have the same nigger fetish tho

>Atheism = Common sense

You're welcome

...

Why do retards think atheists can't define atheism?

Atheist religion is the State...
It's a cult btw.
The most dangerous one. Anyone who sides with State religion cant even dare to pretend to be Christian or else...
You cannot serve 2 masters... And idealy if you wouldn't serve even one it would be best...

That is an indefensible position.
What positive evidence could you possibly provide for something NOT existing?
In the end the best you faggots have is:
>Aside from the very first moment in time, every proceeding event was causal.
Which is to say ATHEISM-OF-THE-GAPS

Why do you faggots so obsessed with religion? This also applies to the fedora-tippers.

why cant religious people grow the fuck up and stop believing in made up crap?

Why are christ cucks so insecure they have to shit-sling everyone who doesn't believe the fairy tales they do?

Speaking as an atheist : who the fuck cares as long as they don't weaponize their autism.

Y tho? This is mere assertion.

So, it's strictly a religion.

Because it's a never-ending story and atheists won't reveal the definition until the end?

Because they need different definitions for different situations.

>Atheism cannot be defined because it's the absence of religious thought.
The problem is though that humans are incapable of lacking religious thought.

A monotheists believes in a million less gods than a polytheist, does that make the monotheist a million times less religious?
Of course not, so why do atheists magically become not religious when they simply worship one less God than the monotheists?

The only reason we believe atheists are not religious is because we allowed atheists to claim their religious beliefs are "secular" (which means of the world) and therefore the way of the world. Which is a pretty damn religious statement when you think about it(see Taoism).

If you want to know what atheists worship and what their dogma is just look at the world they have created around you because there it is right in front of your face. Just turn on the TV and listen to their gospel.

why does op want to fuck little girls

atheist-one who does not believe in the existence of gods or deities

atheism-Lack of belief in gods and deities

Every argument I can give for atheism can simply be refuted by
>muh it's faith though
I've learned to stop arguing with retards and let them squabble amongst themselves over which sky fairy is the real one

I will admit that I'm 99.99% certain there is no "God" or entity that created the universe. However, I'm 100% certain that if there is one, it's absolutely nothing as depicted in any religious texts.

Religious texts are just human speculation about a possible entity that may or may not exist, and there are far too many inconsistencies for me to believe any of them.

Atheism- lacks belief of existence of god(s).
Anti-theism- against the existence of god(s).

I want to fuck this

Not being convinced that any religious doctrines are factually correct.

Atheism = Sadness

You will learn and either start to believe or kill yourself.

>needs a supreme ruler to not feel sad
SAD!

>Nonce confirmed
Fuck off predator

Idiot.

This is the THIRD athiest-bashing thread on this board. think before you post.

Also, Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Simple.

>1 post by this ID

Besides Secular Humanism and Positivist Materialism of course...
:^)

The burden of proof lies on someone who believes in something.

Euphoric memes aside, I genuinely felt better about life after abandoning Christianity.

Kek fuck off mate. You're the one who needs some incomprehensible being as a reason to carry on everyday. I have everything to live for and you just have the dodgy promise of some magic sand nigger.

This. Living everyday in the attempt to please an imaginary sky daddy who will force you to burn in hell for all eternity if you break his rules. Religion is the ultimate cuckold fantasy.

It will pass, the same thing happened to me.

a = without
theos = god
someone who doesn't believe in any gods.

An agnostic/weak atheist does not claim to know that there is "no" god, and simply accepts that they will probably never know the truth.
A strong atheist firmly believes that at least one god is not real. So, you can be a strong atheist who believes the greek pantheon is not true. Mostly nowadays refers to the abrahamic god because that's the main one people believe in. If you believe that the beliefs behind god are internally inconsistent and there is no evidence for a god, therefore you actively think that the abrahamic god doesn't exist, you are a strong atheist. Although that doesn't preclude the idea that there could be a creator, just not the biblical one.

Very few atheists would not be willing to concede that there is a god if it was shown to them.

Nope.
The atheist is literally the default state.
It's how you were born.
And you didn't know shit about secular humanism or positivist materialism back then.

This is the most pathetic argument for being religious, but also the actual reason why most christians are christians.

It's worth noting that most atheists do have a belief system - most of them have a few core beliefs, namely:
>the scientific method is a reliable source of information
>the scientific method is generally applied without systematic errors because of peer review
>the scientific method is generally applied without bias
>validity of information is proportional to how much the previous two statements are true (e.g. theories with 100s of peer reviewd papers consistently backing up the same results are more solid than ones with 1/2 papers).
>anything that was previously thought to be true can be disproven at any time.

The reason it is a belief system is that that the scientific method works relies on the principle of induction - that if something is observed many many times and never observed to the contrary, then it can be assumed true until proven otherwise.
e.g. every time I have jumped up, I have always fallen down, so I can surmise that the theory of gravity is intact, but that doesn't necessary imply that the gravitational constant won't suddenly quadruple one day, and I don't claim to know that it won't.

But if we don't live by the principle of induction, we may as well just roll around in our own fecal matter, because without it you can't communicate, turn on a light switch or anything. All of human knowledge depends on it.

The reason atheists believe the scientific method works is that it demonstrably yields results, whether that be GPS, aeroplane travel, medicine or nuclear bombs.

It's the only system of faith that yields demonstrable, reproduceable results.

Is the lack of sickness a medical condition?
The absence of religious belief isn't a religion. It's a lack of religion.

Now one important thing about this, is that I think the scientific method especially is quite questionable sometimes, especially in social science. Because the assumption is:

>The principle of induction is a necessary belief system
This is reasonable.
>The scientific method is a reliable source of information when correctly applied
Okay that's fine.
>The scientific method is applied without systematic errors
I question the intelligence of people who go into social science and their ability not to generate errors if they can't even do the error propagation analysis
>The scientific method is applied without bias
This is definitely not true, no one in social science doesn't already have an agenda going in, and they almost certainly wouldn't publish results that disagree with them.
>if the author has bias, biases are put aside in favour of good science
I don't for a minute believe this, especially when their funding is predicated on getting the results they want
>science journalists understand the results of papers
I question how good at interpreting data someone is if they're a journalist not a scientist, especially when their headlines are clearly driven by clickbait capitalism.
>political editors understand what science papers wrote and don't spin it
Clearly not true
>facebook headlines accurately pull reliable political articles
Clearly not true
>people actually read the full article, or find the source, and don't just read the headline, or repost things that sound like it agrees with their worldview
Clearly not true.

Whereas e.g. on immigration, the right believe:
>The principle of induction is true
Same up to here
>They can personally interpret crime data and draw the simple conclusion
Occam's razor
>Personal anecdotes of many personal experiences are valid data to draw a conclusion
Not scientifically rigorous but it isn't coming from a source that demonstrably lies to you.