I can make specific channels for each topic

Isn't a creator the same thing as a prima cause

I need a logical defense for atheism

A creator is a prime cause, but a prime cause doesn’t have to be a creator being

Lets say the BOP is on me

False

That’s switching the burden

He claims its an atheist cliche to claim that

Burdens on the one with the claim

But he tricks people into making claims

Religion can’t prove it beyond personal experience, which where does that get you in court and science

True

He could say that atheists are claiming that God doesn't exist

Doesn’t matter, not the atheist burden to reach

We’re claiming there’s no evidence so why believe

Isn't that agnostic

No evidence

Why not believe in ra, oden, Zeus, etc

Atheist say they *know* God doesn't exist

Agnostic is unsure

Agnostics say that they don't give a shit

Atheist is against the idea of a deity due to a lack of evidence

Lack of evidence is not proof

Then they’re more atheist technically, agnostic is curious, but waits for evidense

Btw opinions? https://youtu.be/wtibnUWp_TE

So what about elves?

Does the logic apply

Why do these people look like potatoes

If not with science, law, etc, why with religion?

Maybe because they are mashed together

Because those are empirical sciences

Why should religion if the claims are to be taken serious not be the same

Philosophy is more than empiricism

Held to the same standards

Far more

Scientifically speaking, you could "prove" that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence

Let me ask it differently, what makes religion special?
Also, science disproves, it proves 😉

A scientific fact, is a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven yet.

Where there is no evidence, there is no reason to look

We aren't talking from a scientific perspective, we're talking philosophy

We had evidence of black holes, but couldn’t see them, why shouldn’t the same be expected