Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis.

Atheism is a religion.

Go ahead and explain please, you have the floor, you are on the air .

It's called weak atheism and the term weak atheism is not an insult. What a weird way to bring tjisnup

OMG, are you really pastor Jim Bakker? You are obviously no Nietzsche.

Isnt Christianity a religion too?

Like, what part of your brain needs to die to think that "it is a religion" is actually a valid argument against atheism but not against Christianity?

So, which of the 3000 Gods did you choose to believe in?

“No evidence” is actually the main way we dismiss everything in this world, and it works pretty great. Let’s give some examples:

Your phone glitches out randomly, becoming unresponsive for a couple seconds. You are worried it might do this again, so you check the WiFi connection to make sure that didn’t mess up. There’s nothing wrong with your WiFi, the router seems normal, so you go to your friend who works as a technician at the local phone repair place, and he does a free evaluation. He says it’s a touchscreen issue, and offers to repair it for a beer.

Tell me, would you still insist that it could just be the router?

You’re the judge for a murder case, and you have a bad feeling about the defendant. However, once you need to deliver a verdict, there’s only 2 pieces of evidence, and both seem to point towards his innocence. Not to mention that many character witnesses attested to his gentle and loving personality.

Would you still say he’s guilty?

Finally, you’re enjoying a hot cup of joe when your 8 year old runs into the room and says that he saw a unicorn outside. When you go to its supposed location, there is no trace of anything. 

Would you even entertain the thought that there’s a unicorn in your backyard?

All of these situations illustrate different situations in which you lack evidence for a conclusion. In the first, you have an expert telling you the true cause of something and have seen nothing that might prove them wrong, much less you right. Very similar to the evolution “debate”. In the second, you have a pre-existing belief with no real evidence backing it. Then, you receive some imperfect evidence to the contrary. Still, no rational person would stick with their prior feeling, especially with human suffering on the line. Reminds me of the homophobic rhetoric the Christian’s regularly support. Finally, in the final example, we have a truly supernatural occurrence witnessed by a less-developed human, and there appears to be no evidence behind both belief or disbelief. So why, then, do most people choose disbelief in this situation? The answer is quite simple: in some cases, the lack of evidence for an event is actually evidence for the contrary. It may seem like neither side has solid footing here, but the lack of hoofprints, droppings, or hairs from the unicorn actually count as evidence against it, due to the fact that we have never observed instances in which an event in our realm left no evidence of itself behind. Not to mention the innate fallibility of your source here, which leads me to the disbelief of all holy books that describe effectual supernatural events.

To conclude, the Antitheist position that I hold, which asserts that there definitively is no god and if there is they are not worthy of worship, is admittedly a very strong stance to take on something widely debated. But the experts have explained the events, the many tiny flaws in most religions show its unlikeliness to be true, and the fact that the only evidence we have for miracles is anecdotal and reliant on comparatively uneducated witnesses just makes it easier and easier for me to definitively state that god does not exist.

Yes I would. I am going outside to investigate. He likely saw something and used the language available to him to express that. Language is a tool and is not meant to be taken so literal. 

This is what fundamentalist and militant atheists get wrong. Language is a tool that expresses the meaning and not the meaning itself. 

The universe quite obviously has a creator BTW. 

And that’s a helluva claim to throw in there, are you about to contingent me to death? Because… not necessarily lol.

This comes down to linguistics. You are picturing language as a solid thing. If you hear the word sun, you probably have a very solid picture of "the sun" in your head. However language is not the truth and it is incapable of precisely describing truth. It is a tool. When the kid says unicorn, he probably saw a guy outside his window with his dick out and thinks the penis is a unicorns horn. This is why you take the kid seriously. No there is not a unicorn if you view language as an exact science, which it isn't,  but if you see it as a tool for the 8 year old to tell me something is off outside of his window, than I grab my gun and head to the back yard to make sure everything is okay. 

Language is neither a hard thing or a completely chaotic thing. It is a soft indicator of reality and carries a meaning that is imprecise. The fundamentalist and militants see it as an exact thing and are wrong, while your Marxist and leftist types see language as chaotic, which it is not. 

I don't have time to explain actually but if you just trust it is true and observe the universe with that presupposition, things begin to make more sense, but then again it depends on how you interpret the word "creator"

Whoever created this world is either insane either psychopath, and since Christian God fits both of those descriptions, one can conclude he probably exists. Problem solved.