Originally Posted by Berto
It seems like the base fundamental to atheism always comes down to burden of proof for theist as opposed to general acceptance that we don't know one way or the other.
I don't rely on either. Instead, I rely on a strong inductive argument that meets or exceeds any practical definition proof that can reasonably be expected. None of the properties attributed to god are actually physically possible in this universe. Theists always claim transcendence, but there is nothing to indicate that this is a real phenomenon. Even if it were, god is also described as immanent which would still subject him to the basic laws of physics. Ignoring all that, you can't possess all the attributes described to god without logical paradoxes arising (fate/freewill, perfect creator/imperfect creation, etc.)
Nope, the whole idea of god is absurd on its face. Don't feel bad though, it took me 38 years to figure that out and I'm much smarter than most.
I don't care what others believe, I'd think it would be the same with atheist, but there seems to be an evangelical quality to atheism here.
The irony is that you are suggesting a property belongs more to atheism than theism when the name of the property itself implies a religious origin. I think most atheists here would gladly walk away from the debate if theists would stop trying to legislate their beliefs on others.
Peace is our profession (war is just a hobby)
: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose."
: "Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."