Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[LastPoet]

The null hyphothesis works wonders here

The same scrutiny should be applied by the believers. Alas, faith...

[Longhorn]

Cut down on the crazy juice poolie, have some lemonade instead

[Whateverist]

I have no -clue- what that question is supposed to mean.  The right to a thought?  Is that remotely enforcable one way or another, do rights protect thoughts or prohibit them?  Who would say that we don't, and who would know, and what could or would be done about it?

I think OP kinda meant "having the right to be atheist" in the sense of "can atheism ever be a rationally justified position to take". at least that's how I read it...

But doesn't he mean just strong atheism, the belief that gods do not exist?  


[Pretty pathetic when others have to debate what it is you mean.  Then again I am multi-linguistically challenged, so what do I know?]

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yeah,if theism is wrong then there is no reason for atheism to exist.
If you still exist THEN the burden of proof if on you.

Seeing how theism is believing in a god when even theists don't even know what god is,theism is a belief that tumbles down because of itself.

Conclusion: theism is nonsense.
No reason for atheism(and any sub set of atheism)to exist anymore.
If you choose to exist then the burden of proof is on you.

That is what i'm saying.

Edit: Added: "(any any sub set of atheism)"

Gobbledygook.

[robvalue]

I think I read the claim that both atheism and theism are stupid in this thread.

That shows a clear misundstanding of the terms, because that covers everybody. I know there's some people who like to claim they are neither, but they are simply using non-standard definitions of words in order to do so.

[Jackalope]

Yeah,if theism is wrong then there is no reason for atheism to exist.
If you still exist THEN the burden of proof if on you.

[Longhorn]

OOOOOOOH I get it!
poolie boy here is one of 'those people'

you know like, 'everybody is dumb and I'm special' people. at least that's how it reads

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You keep referring us to your incoherent quote. We have read your quote. You are not understanding the words? It makes no sense what so ever. You can keep telling yourself it does, but it does not. Please explain to me like I am five years old, what am I missing from your quotes? It clearly states the burden of proof should be on the Atheist side? Which makes no sense.

ting ting ting ting ting ting!
Analogy time
Theists: Cat is dog. 
Atheists: I don't completely agree or i disagree.
Me: lol cat is cat,cat aian't dog lmao.
Theists: Oh. *runs to the room crying*
Me: ._.
Atheists: Haha look at theist noobs,lets get outta here. [this is the appropriate response ]
Atheists: Haha look at theist noobs,they are so wrong,lets not get outta here and stay here. [this is the inappropriate response in which case atheists have the burden of proof -because theists are no longer making a claim,so you're just sittin there rejecting a claim that isn't even made *derp* so you're the one making a claim in that case] 

[i specifically used "noobs" because you are a 5 year old and i'm told 5 year olds play COD]

Better Analogy time
Theism is the mother.
She gave birth to her sons  atheism,deism,agnosticism,gnosticism,polytheism,ditheism,pantheism,etc.(gawd lady xD)
Atheists: mommy can't reproduce ; _ ; i'm adopted.
Theists: no lol we aer her cheldrn.
Atheists: no you fucking idiot!i checked.. - she's a man!


So Atheists are saying that Theism is a man and theism couldn't have taken Atheists out of her vagina(because obviously she doesn't have one).
If Theism is indeed a man then Atheists cease to exist(just like how the "Mother" cease to exist)because a man can't give birth xD [ps: adoption is a big NO NO in the analogy]

I have no -clue- what that question is supposed to mean.  The right to a thought?  Is that remotely enforcable one way or another, do rights protect thoughts or prohibit them?  Who would say that we don't, and who would know, and what could or would be done about it?

I think OP kinda meant "having the right to be atheist" in the sense of "can atheism ever be a rationally justified position to take". at least that's how I read it...

Yes!Thank you!

OOOOOOOH I get it!
poolie boy here is one of 'those people'

you know like, 'everybody is dumb and I'm special' people. at least that's how it reads

Precisely,i'm called a egoist,asshole,narcissist and a lot more by one of my girl[space]friend.
Strange enough she still sticks around.What an idiot hahahahahahahhahah

[ignoramus]

Pool!  I've just worked out why your reasoning is a little skewed and difficult to understand.

Cause you're completely fucking barking mad!

[Cyberman]

@pool: What the hell is wrong with you?