AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

818 readers

580 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

DougHolland

153

The behavior of the devout (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by DougHolland to c/aiop

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Diplomjodler3 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] affiliate 1 points 5 hours ago

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.