@Everyone else, Yeah,well i agree i don't fully or even partially understand these terms.
What i'm saying is this:
There wouldn't be atheism is there wasn't theism.
Theism is itself build on the claim that there is a god and they don't even know what god is - they believe in something which is nothing.
If theism itself is a faulty ism then wouldn't it make atheism also faulty(ah,idk my analogy better explains what i'm trying to convey).
(Analogy)
Theists: cat is a dog.
Atheists: I don't completely agree OR i disagree.(please note:It is a OR not a AND)
Me: lol cat is not a dog,cat is cat.
Now that there are no more theists
So where does atheists stand now?
Now doesn't atheists have the burden of proof?
What i'm saying is this:
There wouldn't be atheism is there wasn't theism.
Theism is itself build on the claim that there is a god and they don't even know what god is - they believe in something which is nothing.
If theism itself is a faulty ism then wouldn't it make atheism also faulty(ah,idk my analogy better explains what i'm trying to convey).
(Analogy)
Theists: cat is a dog.
Atheists: I don't completely agree OR i disagree.(please note:It is a OR not a AND)
Me: lol cat is not a dog,cat is cat.
Now that there are no more theists
So where does atheists stand now?
Now doesn't atheists have the burden of proof?