He makes several claims.
1. You cannot hold neutral ground on whether god exists or not.
2. It is either god exists or doesn't exist.
3. If you support facts without reverence to god you deny he exists.
4. Evolution is non-existent but has gotten into why he believes it to be so. (Thank me for that bit)

It’s done @NO

You can hold neutral ground tho

You need to both meet Darth dawkin

He is in the large politics server

Especially when a person is making an unfalsifiable claim

Aka dunkin atheism

Which server?

He a disingenuous debater, him and mr Batman

https://discord.gg/2z8zJd

He muted me before I could respond over and over

@Jonathan The Shaman teach me the ways to combat his beleifs

I have my own server set up to format some shit

But to respond to you

Are you atheist or agnostic

Atheist

That's impossible to prove

1. Why does this logic not apply to every deity, fairy’s, etc?
2. Why do you not believe in every other deity?
3. Why could god not have been behind evolution? ( for a wrench in their thoughts)

It's impossible to prove both ways

Why should something without evidence be worth disproving?
A claim without evidence, requires none to dismiss.

I think there's a branch of philosophy related to proofs and shit

The same logic that leads towards anarchy leads toward atheism

☝💯

Since you’re an ancap

I'm agnostic

https://discord.gg/Fc2MdZc

If you want to keep your arguments close to your chest or develop them elsewhere

I’m agnostic to a prime cause or not, and if so, what it is.
I’m atheist towards a creator and involver.
I’m anti theist towards religion

If nothing changes with some assumption(say, deism) then it *could* still be true, and therefore the assumption cannot be disproven

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